LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
July 16, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Doris Kriegl, Maureen Campbell, Greg Hirney and others requesting the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the
Student Social Allowances Program.
* * *
Ms. Becky Barrett (
* * *
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Stella Linklater, Pauline Primrose, Joe H. Moose and others requesting the
government of
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Maple Leaf
Fund
Investigation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, we have asked a number of questions on the Immigrant Investor Fund,
and we were to learn of a letter to Mr. Gary Lyons, managing director of the
Winnipeg Canadian Maple Leaf Financial Corporation, indicating that the
Canadian Maple Leaf Fund was not one of the funds that would be investigated by
the RCMP.
I
would like to ask the government why the Maple Leaf Fund is not being
investigated and who in the Department of Justice conducted the review.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not
have the letter in front of me, but my recollection of the letter was that it
went out from the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, Mr. Paul
Goyan. He would have been acting on
advice that he obtained from the Department of Justice.
As
I have said over and over again, despite the fact that the member opposite
wants to make this a political issue for his own cheap purposes, this is being
done by the Department of Justice and the RCMP in accordance with all of their
requirements.
Political
Contribution
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier
then‑‑in 1990 the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund donated $3,000 during
the election year to the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, the
Premier's party.
We
have listened carefully to the government's answers dealing with the criteria
of the Immigrant Investor Fund, and the criteria allegedly is for jobs and job
creation in
We
have also raised questions before, and the Auditor has confirmed the public
allegations that the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund was in what is considered to be
by the Auditor tremendous conflict, with putting money from their own
solicitation in the Immigrant Investor Fund into their own specific projects
that they had ownership or pecuniary title to.
I
would like to ask the Premier: What is
the status of the $3,000 that was donated by the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund, one
Bob Kozminski, to the Progressive Conservative Party in
The
government took it as notice before. We
still have not heard back from the government.
Does it fit the criteria of creating jobs to have a political donation
to a political party?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I did investigate the matter, and
it was not the investment fund that made the donation. It was the management corporation which
derives a fee from managing the fund that made the contribution, just as the
unions donate to the NDP party. It is
not the union dues, but it is from the union funds that they make their
donations to the NDP party. It is not an
individual's contribution. It is the
union management itself that makes that determination and makes its investment
in the NDP party.
* (1005)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the management fees are obtained
by the Immigrant Investor Fund from immigrant investors. Immigrant investors are given a prospectus to
put money into a particular fund for a particular return on their
investments. The donation list clearly
stated the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund donated money to the Manitoba Progressive
Conservative Party of the province.
I
would like to ask the Premier: Did the
independent auditor investigate this donation, or was it only the Premier who
investigated the donation from Bob Kozminski to the Progressive Conservative
Party?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, that has
been looked at under the chief financial officer just to ensure that that was
from the management corporation and not from the fund's fund.
Health
Care System Reform
Pediatrics
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, months ago when we asked the
government to put the changes to the pediatric hospitals and pediatric surgery
on hold while people were consulting professionals and patients were talked to,
the minister and the government refused to listen.
Now
that the MMA has indicated that many of the concerns we had raised such as long
waiting lists, concerns about the emergency ward transfers, concerns about the
14‑ to 18‑year‑old surgery being transferred to other wards,
now that those concerns have been raised by the MMA, I am asking the Premier
(Mr. Filmon): Can the Premier have his
minister provide him with an assessment of what has happened in pediatrics, and
another look at pediatrics, given the major concerns raised by the MMA which we
had raised months earlier in this House?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend, of course, is not reflecting on the factual information that
I provided yesterday in Question Period in answer to the Liberal Leader, who
expressed concerns emanating from the doctors' union letter to myself in terms
of the fact that the amount of surgery at our
What
we are in the process of undertaking is to determine, again, the accuracy and
the position taken by the president of the doctors' union regarding the
Children's Hospital. I would expect,
Sir, that we will be able to provide to my honourable friends a report from Dr.
Bishop, head of Children's Hospital pediatric services, which will indicate what
has happened since the consolidation of pediatric services at the Children's
Hospital.
I
would beg my honourable friend to possibly wait for that accurate information
to come forward before my honourable friend concludes doom and gloom again.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, as usual the minister does not
know the answer.
Premier's
Intervention
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My supplementary to the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Given the inefficient way that
this Health minister's reform has been handled, will the Premier step in and
ensure‑‑because the minister is going to make major announcements
this summer about ophthalmology, about heart surgery, about the allocation of
all of the resources around the hospital‑‑and satisfy himself on
behalf of the patients and the citizens of
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I really
respect my honourable friend's approach to issues. For instance, my honourable friend in his
preamble said, as usual, I do not have the answer.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, Wednesday of this week, I received the nine‑page letter from
the president of the doctors' union. Yesterday, I provided factual, accurate
information, which causes a different light to be shed on the statement made by
the president of the doctors' union, that as waiting lists grow longer and
services deteriorate on surgery‑‑that has not happened. Now, as soon as I have the accurate
information from the Children's Hospital, I will provide similar information.
Let
me also remind my honourable friend, even though the Canadian Hospital
Association seriously questions the methodologies used in the Fraser Institute
survey, that Manitoba has the best record of all provinces surveyed, in that
Fraser Institute survey, in decreasing the length of time on waiting lists for
access to specialty surgical procedures and has decreased our waiting list more
significantly than any other province in
* (1010)
Mr. Chomiak: Of course the minister failed to talk about
pediatric surgery and pediatrics, which is avoiding the question.
Home Care
Program Regulations
Tabling
Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My final supplementary to the minister: Can the minister now table for the House,
since his deputy minister has told the disabled committee that 3,000 people
will be cut off as a result of their Home Care cutbacks, which I heard at a
meeting I attended yesterday of the concerned disabled people, four months
after the decision has been made, can he finally table the number of people who
will be cut off as a result of his Home Care cutbacks and the regulations affecting
those cutbacks, because these thousands of people are concerned?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is consistent
with my honourable friend is the thousands that he has in terms of his
complaints they received.
I
remind honourable friends, and I remind the people of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my reference to
"thousands" was the deputy minister's comment, not my comment.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
with his response.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, all Manitobans who watch
Question Period would recall that the member for
Mr.
Speaker, I have received one name last week from the member for
Gambling
Facilities
Membership
Drive
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested to hear this morning an advertisement on the radio sponsored by the
Manitoba Lotteries Foundation advertising the McPhillips Station gambling
palace.
Mr.
Speaker, that advertisement at the tail end this morning indicated that, stay
tuned, watch the local papers this weekend because there is going to be a
membership card advertised in the local papers.
Now
my question for the Minister responsible for Lotteries: Will the minister now
confirm that indeed there will be a membership drive in
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba
Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker,
we have seen over the last number of years the Shooting Star Casino advertising
extensively in
You
know, the Liberals do complain, and they can bury their heads in the sand and
say that Manitobans do not spend any money on gambling, but the fact of the
matter is that there is $300 million in Manitobans' hard‑earned dollars
that is leaving our province and going across the border. We have advertisements from
I
think Manitobans should be aware that we have facilities here in
* (1015)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the membership drive confirms
two things. Firstly, the province is
primarily interested in selling gambling to Manitobans through the membership
drive here to people who will be repeat visitors. Secondly, they do not really care about
addiction, the whole purpose of a membership drive being that you will have as
many repeat visits as possible by the same people.
My
question for the minister is: Why is the
province now abandoning the statements about concern about addiction, the
statements that this was primarily about attracting tourists? Why are they
abandoning that and trying to sell memberships in these gambling palaces to
Manitobans?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that we
see a Liberal Party in opposition here in the
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Madam Minister
is attempting to answer this question.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, Liberal New Brunswick has done a
gambling study that does indicate that the incidence of compulsive gamblers in
the
Mr.
Speaker, we have acted responsibly. When
we received the report we put money and resources in place, and we will
continue to deal with those who have any type of compulsive behaviour into the
future.
Mr. Edwards: I want to ask the minister whether or not the
Lotteries Foundation will be spending the same money to advertise memberships
outside of the province as inside of the province and, secondly, I want to ask
the minister, Mr. Speaker, why they are selling memberships when the report
they just published says that the possibility of pathological addiction to
gambling dramatically increases with the frequency of attendance. That is what they are seeking to promote.
Why
are they doing exactly the opposite of what they said?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, we have
acted responsibly. When the study was
completed we put programs in place, and we will continue to ensure that those
Manitobans who do have difficulty with gambling will be treated.
The
Liberal Leader did indicate that possibly we should be selling memberships
outside the
* (1020)
Home Care
Program
First-time
Clients
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Today,
I want to ask about those first‑time home care clients, those being
discharged from hospital. Yesterday, I
met with a woman who had a major foot operation, discharged from hospital under
direction from the doctor that she get home care, had a visit from the VON, was
told there were no homemaking or laundry services for her, and she received no
list of alternative services.
I
want to ask the minister today: What is
the policy of this government when it comes to first‑time home care
clients? Is anyone who is being
discharged from hospital needing homemaking services getting such service, or
has this government already eliminated that part of the Home Care Program for
first‑time home care clients?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly the assessment process that has been ongoing since 1985, based on a
policy of the Pawley government, my honourable friend at the cabinet table
endorsing it in 1984.
The
homemaking services, the domestic services of housecleaning and laundry do not
automatically become the service provided by the taxpayers for newcomers into
the home care system since 1985 in areas where alternative services are
available. That policy is consistent, and that is what we are undertaking today
as we speak.
The
second question of those currently receiving those services paid by the
taxpayers, which are now, Sir, the minority of home care clients, because with
very few exceptions all of rural
Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend is correct in that, as we approach September,
those individuals remaining on the program, roughly one‑third of
Manitobans, are being reassessed the same as the rest of Manitobans have been,
and where they can be referred to alternate services as two‑thirds of
seniors and Manitobans are paying for, they will be.
Equipment/Supplies
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
I
want to ask the minister about the same situation, because this woman also
needed a walker and was told she would have to rent or buy the walker and was
given no list of safety‑approved products, despite the fact that the home
care staff have said that some products available in department stores do not
meet safety standards.
I
want to ask the Minister of Health: What
is the government's policy with respect to home care equipment? Is there still a government program or is it
already a privatized, free‑for‑all, buyer‑beware system?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on April 6 when
the budget was tabled‑‑it was carried in at least one of the major
newspapers on April 7. I have replied to
questions in the House that the Home Care equipment program for items costing
less than $50 will become the responsibility of the individual Manitoban to
purchase those home care supplies.
Arrangements
are being made with the hospitals to do two things. Where appropriate and where desirable, the
auxiliaries will facilitate that purchase of supplies for clients discharged
from hospitals. As well, we are taking
our remaining supplies, where appropriate, and we can make arrangements with
hospitals having them available there, Sir.
Mr.
Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend that the major supplies like
wheelchairs, which have been alleged by the NDP to be no longer made available,
are. That is not accurate. Major cost equipment supplies over $50 are
still made available to Manitobans so that they will not endure financial
hardship of equipment supplies over $50.
* (1025)
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Mr. Speaker, I raised a question about someone
who was not given any options or told where to go, just simply said, rent or
buy, whatever you have to do.
I
want to ask the minister: What is the
program? How do people know where to go
for supplies they need? How do they pay
for it? Will he acknowledge that it is a
cumulative program so, in other words, you pay the first $50 on every single
piece of equipment or supply that you need as a home care client?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, naturally if you have three or
four products that may be priced from $5 to $15, they are each less than $50,
the policy applies, yes. My honourable
friend would have to concede, even though she is trying to create this client
who needs a hundred items all priced at $40 each, and that, hence, they would
have to spend $4,000, who does not exist.
Most of the individuals discharged need modest assistance of equipment
less than $50, and it may be one or two or three items, depending on the
circumstance, but usually it is one item, Sir.
So let not my honourable friend create this, again, phantom individual who
is going to be severely compromised financially with this change in policy.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I want to also remind my honourable friend so that my honourable
friend understands that in the luxury of opposition you cannot always have it
both ways. This policy is consistent
with most other home care policies in
Social
Assistance
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting
Minister of Urban Affairs or perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or
perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
The
City of
I
quote from a letter signed by Sandy Hopkins written to the press dated June
'93. He states that the Community
Investment '93 is a good employment initiative because it will create jobs for
people who want to work and the work they will be doing is long overdue. Most of the people on social assistance are
willing to work, so why not pay them for doing work that needs to be done? He goes on to say, the infrastructure renewal
program will save money in the long run.
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the government is:
When will the
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Acting Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I will take that as notice for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst).
Social
Assistance
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon
East): My supplementary question then, Mr. Speaker,
is: Will the government make an effort
to expedite this matter and give it the priority it deserves, because I note
that we have an astronomical increase in welfare recipients in the province and
especially in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we will
take the question as notice, but I find it very interesting that the member
would get up and call upon this government to spend more on the capital
side. As we have said on several
occasions, no government in
Every
time that we have brought forward a budget that maintained the capital
expenditure the member opposite stood up and voted against it. So I say to him, I see a lack of consistency
with respect to his approach on employment in capital works.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The minister knows I voted against the last
budget because they reduced property tax credits for people of
Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister: Would the government
seriously consider developing a similar program for other municipalities in the
province that might be interested, including the City of
As
is noted by a lot of economists, productivity growth depends on investment in
infrastructure, and this is an excellent way to do it.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, all governments across the land are
trying to find better ways to take the money that is directed now for social
assistance and to put it towards a more meaningful contribution to society.
As
a matter of fact, I notice how the member's views have changed considerably
over the last two years. He now is
saying, maybe there should be a place for work for welfare. I can tell him that all governments across
the land are trying to find a better approach, a more stimulative approach, a
less passive approach to the manner in which we provide support to those in
need.
* (1025)
PMU
Industry
NDP News
Release
Mr. Brian Pallister
(Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, in the past week it has come to
the attention of this House that the New Democratic Party, through the work of
their Environment critic, has been at work in opposition to an emerging and
vitally important industry in rural Manitoba.
I
have in my hand a news release from the New Democratic Party, and I will quote
from it. It says: Our caucus has always supported the PMU
industry in this province. The industry
was fostered in the late '60s under the Schreyer government.
Mr.
Speaker, for the Premier, I would like some clarification on this. That was not my understanding of the
background of the PMU industry in this province.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I thank the member for‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: I can appreciate the sensitivity of New
Democrats, Mr. Speaker, but I thank the member for
This
continues the attempt of the New Democrats to misrepresent totally this issue
and every other issue in this House, Mr. Speaker. That is the greatest disservice to the people
of western
In
1965, Reg Forbes and Harold Clement led a group of five people who brought the
PMU industry to Manitoba‑‑1965 under the Duff Roblin
administration. To have the member for
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) try and take credit for the Schreyer government is
totally, totally dishonest, Mr. Speaker.
She ought to be ashamed of herself.
Mr. Pallister: Mr. Speaker, the news release goes on to
further flights of fancy. I will quote
from it. It says: It is utterly dishonest of Premier Filmon and
his government to suggest that the NDP is anything but supportive of PMU
farmers.
Given
the reality of a signed letter from the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), the
Environment critic for the NDP, which compares PMU product Premarin to
thalidomide, might I ask the Premier if he feels that is an appropriate
supportive comment to encourage the PMU industry‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's question is out of
order. The honourable member's question
seeks an opinion. Would the honourable
member like to rephrase your question, please?
Mr. Pallister: I would like the Premier to assure us, the
members of this House and the PMU producers of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, not only do we totally support
an industry that will, at the end of this expansion, have more than 400 family
farms dependent on this particular industry for a cash crop in excess of $100
million annually and more than a thousand jobs throughout rural Manitoba, but
we are very concerned with the paper that the member for Radisson circulated,
under a signed letter, her letterhead from the Legislature, in which she is not
only critical of the project on environmental grounds, on animal cruelty
grounds, on women's health grounds, but she is alleging that government funds
were not well spent on the project.
Those
government funds that were put into that project in the '60s, that her
colleague for Swan River is taking credit for, she is suggesting were not well
spent, and she is suggesting that it does not bring benefits to Manitoba
farmers to the extent that it was intended, Mr. Speaker.
She
criticized the product as being unsafe for women, comparing it to thalidomide,
Mr. Speaker‑‑a product that has been in use for more than 25 years,
that has been thoroughly tested. We will fight against that kind of
misrepresentation and misinformation and that attempt to destroy an industry in
* (1030)
Mr. Pallister: That news release, Mr. Speaker, further goes
on to accuse the Premier, in an obvious attempt to cover tracks here I think,
of looking especially hypocritical since, quote, he only recently asked
Manitobans to accept his word that he had never authorized Michael Gobuty to
use his name as a reference for an immigrant investment project in Gimli.
I
ask the Premier: Did he do that?
Mr. Filmon: That is yet again another falsehood, Mr.
Speaker. I did not ask Manitobans to
take my word. I tabled a letter from the
lawyer for Mr. Gobuty in which he apologized for having used my name without my
permission and said that he would withdraw it immediately from the prospectus.
The
New Democrats, again, are spreading falsehoods on the record. They are totally, totally culpable in this
issue and they know it, Mr. Speaker.
Home Care
Program
Client
Assessment Criteria
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, several times over the last
number of weeks opposition members have asked the Minister of Health to table
information about the criteria that is currently being used to assess
individuals who might require home support services. It is important for all parties and all
members in this House to understand that criteria so that we can impart that
information to Manitobans.
Will
the Minister of Health share that information with us today?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I will
again have a copy of the assessment criteria for the home care provided to my
honourable friend. It was provided to my
honourable friend in Estimates as well as to the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak).
The
three key components of assessment are first and foremost‑‑the Home
Care Program states that it is not a guaranteed program for all Manitobans, it
will be assessed by professional assessment of need and it prioritizes those
able to provide need.
First
and foremost, the government taxpayer‑supported program will not be
accessed if family resources are available.
That, Sir, is a criteria that has been in place since 1975.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister then tell us what do the
criteria say, since he seems to be well versed on it, about those individuals
who are assessed as needing a home support service but in fact cannot afford to
purchase any type of service? What do
the criteria say?
Mr. Orchard: Well, this is a very interesting area. I will remind honourable friends in the
House, because a lot of people forget the history of this. Four years ago this same issue came up about
housecleaning. As a matter of fact, the
member for
Now,
the last time, four years ago, that this issue came up, the then‑member
for The Maples, and I forget what constituency Mark Minenko represented, but
the Liberal Party, who were the official opposition in those days, recommended
that home care be means‑tested and that all Manitobans be means‑tested
before they accessed the Home Care Program.
We
rejected that and we still do, because we rely on the professional judgment of
our staff to make those kinds of judgment calls.
Would
my honourable friend care to clarify whether that position of the Liberal Party‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Gray: With a final supplementary for the Minister
of Health: Can he then tell us, do the
case co‑ordinators do a financial assessment as well as a physical and
social and emotional assessment on those individuals? Do they do a financial assessment, and if so,
could he table the information that shows what they take into consideration in
that financial assessment?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, again I hear my honourable friend
advocating a means test for home care as the member for Maples and Mark Minenko
did some three and a half, four years ago.
Now,
it is, as my honourable friend well knows, because my honourable friend was
involved in her interlude both before and after her election and unelection to
the House with the Home Care Program, that the assessment is made by the
judgment of professionals, Sir.
Let
me give my honourable friend and those consumers of home care this assurance,
that since the NDP brought the policy in of seniors paying for housecleaning
and laundry, there has not been one example of a Manitoban who has been
required to be institutionalized because of lack of service provision around
laundry and housekeeping.
That
is since 1985 under the NDP. That is
since 1988 under our government and will continue, Sir.
Wine
Boutiques
Licensing
Criteria
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
responsible for the Manitoba Liquor Commission.
Some
days ago, I asked the minister about the criteria that were published in the
paper governing who could apply and under what conditions they would be granted
by cabinet a licence to sell wine.
My
specific question to the minister responsible is: Who developed the criteria? Who established the $250,000‑minimum
liquid asset limit? Who was involved in
those discussions?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's
interest and look forward to him referring this bill to committee so that we
can have full discussion, as we would like to have and the public would like to
have.
I
should indicate to the member that final criteria are still being developed for
this particular project. The $250,000 is
based upon experience in other jurisdictions across
* (1040)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, there are many Manitobans,
including a coalition, who are now expressing concern over the privatization‑‑(interjection)
The member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) and the member for Morris (Mr. Manness)
may find it quite interesting when they find out actually who is involved in
this from southern Manitoba.
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the minister is: There are many people who believe that this is
a limit that has been established to assist some influential friends of the
government of the day and who have suggested that this limit is unreasonable.
My
question to the minister is: Will she
establish a committee to review the criteria, independent of the Liquor
Commission and independent of her office?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I have a two‑part response
to the two‑part question he asked.
He made a preamble and he made a question. I will respond to them both.
In
his preamble, he made reference to the fact that many concerned Manitobans,
including a new coalition‑‑I have not met with that coalition. It is indeed a brand new coalition that was
simply formed about a week ago. I know
very little about the coalition, but I can tell you they have never requested
to meet with me.
I
can also tell you that at least one Manitoban phoning the number was referred
to the Union Centre to speak to the official spokesman for the party, one Mr. Bruce
Buckley, who was a former special assistant to the Premier of Manitoba under
the NDP administration.
I
can also tell you that one Manitoban, Mr. Speaker, going down to the Union
Centre where she was instructed to go to pick up her kit of propaganda full of
misinformation, was handed that information by a gentleman named Peter Olfert,
who happens to be president of the MGEU.
So I understand that this is a spontaneous getting together of
Manitobans to fight the NDP cause on this issue.
The
second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the answer to
and that is in terms of the criteria that have been established. I should indicate that we have had‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
On
July 14, 1993, I took under advisement a matter of privilege raised by the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). He
moved a motion that the subject matter of yesterday's exchange in Question
Period, including the comment to the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In
his remarks, the Minister of Justice stated that in the House the honourable
member for Radisson had stated she had not sent out petitions on a particular
issue. The Minister of Justice tabled a
document from the Manitoba Animal Rights Coalition, which, in his opinion,
indicated that the honourable member was involved with the circulation of a
petition on the issue.
The
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) alleged that, and I quote: "Her remarks led honourable members in
this House to believe that she had no involvement with a petition or work being
done against the operations of Ayerst Organics in the city of
Brandon." He also used the phrase,
and I quote: " . . . whether we
have been lied to in this House . . . ."
So I gather his matter of privilege was a charge that the honourable
member for Radisson had misled the House or had deliberately done so.
Have
the conditions of privilege been met?
1. I believe the matter was raised at the
earliest opportunity as the minister awaited a printed copy of the Question
Period exchange in question.
2. The minister, in raising the matter, did
conclude his remarks with a motion proposing a reparation or remedy.
3. Was sufficient evidence presented to suggest
that a breach of privilege occurred?
In
my opinion, no. The Minister of Justice
(Mr. McCrae) did not furnish evidence that the honourable member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli) had intentionally or deliberately tried or set out to mislead
this House.
What
the honourable member for Radisson said in Question Period on July 13 was that
she did not send out petitions; the material tabled by the Minister of Justice
does not prove that she did.
As
I have explained in several past rulings on privilege, proof of intent must be
provided. Further, as the authority
Joseph Maingot states, and I will quote:
An allegation of misleading the House is not out of order or
unparliamentary; nor does it amount to a question of privilege. Also, Beauchesne Citation 494 indicates that
" . . . statements by Members respecting themselves and particularly
within their own knowledge must be accepted."
The
motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) is therefore out of
order.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mr. Brian Pallister (
In
1980, a small group of people from Portage la Prairie, believing that the
community had a lot to offer and wanting to promote that fact, decided to start
their own festival, and that became the Strawberry Festival, the idea being to
market the community with everything that it had to offer.
This
festival became a family event which was increasingly attended over the
years. Five years ago, it was determined
that the festival must be expanded to include the entire community. Originally,
the festival was run by the Chamber of Commerce in
The
festival was a tremendous success in 1992.
Over 30,000 people attended, and this year's festival promises to be
even better with a little help from the weatherman. This year's festival will feature nightly
street dances. It will have world‑class
musicians, children's events, many performers.
There will be a Kinsmen parade on Saturday, and, of course, as you are
sampling today, the best strawberries in the world.
I
would like to congratulate the many volunteers and board members. My community is indeed very fortunate to have
so many citizens who choose to involve themselves in these types of projects. Without their efforts such events as the
Strawberry Festival could not succeed as they do.
On
behalf of the organizers and the entire community of
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Osborne have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to thank the
member for
* (1050)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Flin Flon have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to join with the
member for
I
speak for all members of the caucus when I say that the Strawberry Festival has
turned into a marketing phenomena. The
people who initiated the Portage Strawberry Festival many years ago are to be
congratulated, as are the people who have been involved in the Strawberry Festival
over the past many years, including, Mr. Speaker, the former member for Portage
la Prairie, who is still a board member, I understand, of the Strawberry
Festival.
Mr.
Speaker, other than the Flin Flon Trout Festival, this is probably the second
most important festival in the province.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 24 followed by 37. If
those bills pass, I will give instruction as to committee following.
* (1050)
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 24‑The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 24, The Taxicab
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis
et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the
name of the honourable member for St. Johns.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr.
Speaker, at the outset let me reiterate the concerns being expressed by many
around the process involving this piece of legislation. We have, from the beginning of this issue and
at the first knowledge that this legislation was going to be introduced,
expressed concern about consultation with those in the industry.
Yesterday,
the NDP critic responsible for this issue raised that concern as well. In so doing he said the Minister of Highways
and Transportation had either indicated from his seat or at some place that he
was consulting with the industry. We
would like to know, when he has consulted with the industry, what steps he has
put in place, and I hope he will elaborate on that process, and what is the end
product, the result of those discussions.
Up until very recently, it was our clear understanding that, in fact,
very few in the industry among the independent individual operators and drivers
in the taxicab industry had been consulted.
Perhaps
those in the more recently established, elite Tuxedo Taxi company had been consulted. Perhaps those who are driving this agenda for
the government of
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
We
have met over the past number of months with some of those individuals and
heard their concerns, and the concerns are very real. Their concerns are generally about the
fairness of this government when it comes to the taxicab industry. That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the basis for
our analysis of this legislation.
Does
it meet any kind of standard of fairness?
Does it ensure equal treatment of those in the field in the industry?
Does it apply the same set of rules and standards across the board? Does it ensure that everyone in the industry
can work, can contribute, without being placed under conditions of duress? Can
they lead meaningful, productive working lives without feeling they are forever
trying to meet an endless array of regulations and new changes and new
requirements and new standards for some undefined purpose?
It
is our view, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this legislation does not meet our
standard of fairness, the standard of fairness as portrayed to us by the
industry or, in fact, any standard of fairness.
This is an industry that has been hit hard by this government, by the
Conservative government, over the last number of years. It has been left feeling abandoned by the
government of the day as it tries to bring in changes, regulations and
legislation to control, in a very upper‑handed, high‑handed,
undemocratic way, this industry.
This
bill is an attempt to further regulate the taxicab industry and give more
powers to a government‑appointed board, to give more authority to a group
of individuals who seem to have an agenda of hurting the individual taxicab
drivers and owners.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this bill not only attempts to further regulate the industry,
which seems to fly in the face of everything this government talks about. The whole emphasis on deregulation, on
privatization, on abdicating responsibility, has been a major thrust of this
government. So in one way this
legislation seems to fly in the face of that philosophical trend.
However,
perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, on reflection, there may not be so much
inconsistency as it appears on first blush, because, in fact, through this kind
of legislation and unprecedented powers going to a government‑appointed
board, this government is achieving perhaps the same objective of privatizing
along the lines it sees as the ideal world.
Privatizing, deregulating, giving power to a particular sector, a particular
group of people within a private industry.
So
perhaps it is achieving the same ends by going this route. Certainly it is not only a piece of
legislation that gives more power, more authority, more control to government
and over its appointed board members, but it also exacts a very painful
economic price from the industry itself.
This
general principle of Bill 24 which follows on the heels of previous actions by
this government over the last number of years to obtain full cost recovery from
the industry is causing a great deal of anxiety and worry and fear in the
community, in the taxicab industry itself.
That
is not new. That has been happening now
for a number of years as the industry became more aware of the intentions of
this government, beginning back in 1990 and in 1991 when it was drawn to our
attention and became knowledge generally in the public that this government was
intent on establishing a very elite taxicab company in the city of
The
whole issue of issuing licences for luxury cabs and giving special provisions
to the Tuxedo Taxi company has been a long‑standing issue and many have
expressed concerns about that.
As
was stated in a letter to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on December 23, 1991, by one
individual taxi owner/driver in the city of
In
other letters, I quote, Madam Deputy Speaker, from a letter of December 1991 by
the manager of Unicity Taxi who indicates, and I quote from that letter: The recession has placed our 1,500 city‑wide
drivers in a very low‑earning situation.
More erosion of our market could easily place those drivers on the
welfare rolls. The Transport minister
and Taxicab Board chairman are refusing to consider anything other than the 60
more cars. The industry agrees that this
approach will cause great hardship to us and the drivers will be hurt the most.
To
use a final quote from this letter, Madam Deputy Speaker. We really are at our
wits' ends with this government. We have
few options except to park 400 cars on the Legislature until the minister talks
to us.
So
that letter gives us both an indication of the economic difficulties created by
this‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): What is the date on that letter?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The member for St. Norbert wants to know the
date on that letter. That was December
11, 1991.
Mr. Laurendeau: Oh, 1991.
* (1100)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am giving the
members a little bit of history for present‑day concerns with this government
and with this legislation, and that letter clearly indicates concerns both with
the impact of government decisions on the economic livelihoods of these
individuals, but also clearly indicates the trouble this industry has had in
trying to get the ear of the minister and the government. There is a long‑standing history of
lack of co‑operation and consultation on the part of this government with
the industry.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the struggle continued since 1991. In 1992, the
In
terms of an economical front, they indicate that due to high unemployment, the
poor economy in
In
terms of operating costs, this letter goes on to state that the high cost of
Autopac has doubled with an increase of over $2,500 in the last four
years. The high cost of upgrading our
cars is a factor. Our high operating
costs including gas, water, hydro, et cetera, is a factor, and, finally, there
are increased costs in terms of vehicle repair.
Yes,
Madam Deputy Speaker, clearly, in terms of this legislation and past actions of
this government which is about a government intent on full recovery of costs,
you pay a price when you go down the road of full recovery of costs. It is certainly a direction, a theme that is
present in many aspects of this government's work, but it is unique in terms of
this particular situation. No other
industry or board is expected to achieve full recovery of cost. So it is a unique situation. It is unusual, and it clearly indicates that
this particular industry has been singled out by this government for some
reason, a reason which we are still not sure of, but we have our ideas.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, there have been many concerns expressed about the intentions of
this government through this legislation and through previous changes in the
fee structure and in the introduction of the Tuxedo taxi industry. Many have questioned whether or not this
government and those whom it listens to in the industry are intent upon
creating a uniform, monolithic face to the industry. There are real concerns about whether or not
there are some underlying tones with respect to the multicultural fabric of our
society.
I
am not suggesting, Madam Deputy Speaker, in any way, shape or form, racism on
the part of any member of this government, but there clearly appears to be
indication from comments made by those in the industry and questions raised
with us that someone with power in terms of controlling the taxicab industry is
determined to eliminate the multicultural face of our taxicab industry.
Maybe
there is a lack of understanding and appreciation of the make‑up of our
community. Perhaps there is unawareness
about those individuals who are involved in this business. Perhaps this government is not aware of those
who actually make decisions and make statements. Perhaps this government is not aware what
kinds of statements are being made, which clearly cast aspersions upon
individuals and groups, ethnocultural groups in our community today. So while we are not trying to suggest that
this government has made itself determined to give the industry one face, one
look, there are signs that somewhere in this whole operation that is the
intention.
I
want to refer the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), and
anyone who is listening, to a memorandum that went from Terry Smythe, chief
administrator of the Motor Transport Board to file about a trip that was taken
to
I
want to cite particularly one observation on the second page of that memorandum
under a section titled Departure Level Review, point No. 6. I am quoting, so I want to put this exactly
as it is in the memo on record: Most of
the drivers were dressed in either a two‑piece black suit or a uniform,
white shirt and tie, polished leather shoes, no headdress of any kind, were in
visibly fit physical condition, were well‑groomed, no beards, hair cut
short, were neat and clean.
Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, needless to say, that kind of observation and how that is
being used by this government causes us a great deal of concern and causes us
to question the very motives of this government for some of the changes that
are being made. That kind of observation
suggests that the ideal situation in the taxicab industry is one where we do
not allow for cultural diversity to be reflected in the business and economic
activity of this province. That kind of
observation suggests that the ideal is no individual of Sikh origins wearing a
turban while on duty driving a taxi and providing that service to Manitobans.
That
observation in that memorandum suggests that there should be no respect for
religious requirements, whether it be wearing a turban or having a beard. That observation suggests that our industry
should be one colour, one mode of dress and no account for the cultural, religious
differences in our province today, something that is a reality in our society,
something that is a reality in the taxicab industry and something that will not
go away.
Any
kind of observation like this causes great concern and causes us to question
whether or not there is racial tolerance among the powers that be in terms of
regulating the taxicab industry, what the long‑term agenda of the Taxicab
Board is with respect to the makeup of our industry and whether or not there is
in effect an attempt to rid the industry of individuals of different cultural
and ethnic and religious background who choose, who want, who have to practise
their cultural and religious heritage.
That
kind of observation has been noted by members of the Sikh community, certainly
in my constituency and other parts of the province. Those same individuals often get remarks that
smack of racism which all add up to make them very uneasy about the attitude of
the government of the day and the direction in which they are headed.
* (1110)
So
if the intention of this government or the intention of the Taxicab Board, who
will now have total power, is to require people to foresake their heritage,
then we are very concerned and the community of
If
the concern of this government and of the Taxicab Board is to improve the
appearance of the industry as it is presented to the public and to the
industry, then there are certainly ways through consultation and collaboration
and co‑operative efforts to achieve that goal.
We
have not heard from a single individual who is not prepared to sit down and
talk with this government about what their concerns are with respect to the
shape of the cars or the dress of the individual or the manner in which they
deal with customers, quite willing to sit down and talk, but unfortunately
there is no environment now for talking and discussing and achieving some kind
of common agenda and plan of action around any concerns that there might be.
Instead,
what is rampant in the whole field is hostility, conflict, tension and a
refusal to actually sit down and mutually talk about these issues and arrive at
a solution.
So
if the government is serious and that is their concern, there are ways to
achieve it without coming in with the most dictatorial, autocratic, authoritarian
piece of legislation imaginable, and that is precisely what this legislation
is.
It
takes away any kind of mechanisms for individual taxicab drivers and owners to
have input into the decision‑making process. It takes away virtually any hope of appealing
decisions of the Taxicab Board.
One
of the issues we have raised persistently with respect to this legislation has
to do with its attempt to by‑pass the decision by Judge Monnin in the
Court of Appeal which clearly indicated that the Taxicab Board had no authority
to implement a partial decision.
Well,
the government, upon receipt of that decision, did nothing, did not address the
concerns, did not try to rectify the situation, and now has in fact chosen to
find a way to by‑pass that judicial decision, to circumvent the process,
to go around the direction offered in that decision.
This
legislation in fact indicates that anyone who wants to challenge a decision of
the Taxicab Board can only go to court and challenge that decision on a
question of jurisdiction or law.
So,
in effect, through this legislation, this government has decided to totally
ignore and by‑pass Judge Monnin's decision and create its own set of
laws, its own dictatorship, its own way of achieving anything it wants to with
respect to the taxicab industry.
That,
Madam Deputy Speaker, to say the least, is undemocratic. It is totally undemocratic, and it is
consistent with so many of the other pieces of legislation that this government
has been bringing in this session.
There
has been a real attempt to try to concentrate power in the hands of its own
ministers or in its own appointed boards, many of whom are clearly politically
appointed boards, or many of whom are clearly political appointees.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, there is reason, in addition to the motives around
multiculturalism and concerns about what this means for the mosaic that is
Madam
Deputy Speaker, those are but a few of our concerns with respect to this
legislation. We appreciate that we will
have opportunity in committee to hear from members of the taxicab industry, to
hear from the minister what this new consultation is that he says he has had
with the industry, to hear how members in the industry will have opportunity to
have a say in decisions, to be able to appeal decisions they do not think are
fair. We will have an opportunity, each
and every one of us, to judge more thoroughly this legislation from the
principle of fairness and judge it according to standards of fairness and
justice and equality for all of our citizens, no matter what their ethnic,
cultural or religious background.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, we look forward to answers on many of these concerns and
questions. We look forward to the input
of Manitobans who are involved in this industry. We look forward to hearing from those
individual drivers and operators and owners who are struggling very hard to
meet the needs of their families, who work very hard in this industry, who work
16‑hour days, who work seven days a week.
The
number we are talking about‑‑I think what has been said is 400
individual drivers in Winnipeg‑‑really means more like 2,000 or
3,000 individuals when one considers the families involved.
So
we have to keep remembering that whatever we do in terms of affecting the
livelihoods of individual members of the taxicab industry has much broader
ramifications, much more serious consequences if that places in fact the
economic security of their families in jeopardy and only contributes to the
fear and worry and concern among Manitobans today because of the current economic
situation, the lack of hope for any kind of training and redeployment, the
feelings among Manitobans, certainly in my constituency and in the north end of
This
issue is very broad in terms of its impact and has to be looked at in terms of
the economy of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, what I am suggesting to the government of the day is that, as
we go through committee and they hear from individuals in the industry, they
keep an open mind and they take into account several broad principles and ask
themselves whether or not those principles are being maintained.
* (1120)
The
first principle, as I started at the outset indicating, is that of democracy,
of participatory democracy, and we have to ask the question, is this
legislation democratic? Does it allow
for individuals with concerns to have a mechanism to have those concerns
addressed in a real way?
Is
it participatory? Does it encourage
participation? Does it encourage advice
and input and feedback?‑‑because, Madam Deputy Speaker, so much is
at stake today when we consider the ideal and the principle of participatory
democracy.
So
many democratic aspects of our society are being eroded, and so many people are
losing faith in democratic institutions that it causes everyone great fear and
concern about where that leads us, where that takes us, what kind of situation
do we end up with if people lose faith and hope in democratic institutions and
refuse to participate because they see no role, because they see they are not
listened to, because they are not accepted.
So
that is the first principle that has to be addressed in terms of a piece of
legislation like this.
The
second is the question of fairness. Is
it fair? Does it treat all members of
that industry fairly? Is everyone
treated equally, with justice and dignity?
Is there a double standard or is it a level playing field?
Past
experience has caused this to be a real concern, especially with the formation
of the Tuxedo taxicab industry and furthermore the increase in fees and now the
provisions of this bill to move toward full cost recovery. Is that fair?
Does it mean that everyone will be able to survive in the industry, or
will people fall through the cracks?
So
that is a principle that has to be recognized.
The
third principle is, does this bill respect and enhance our multicultural
diversity, or is there, in fact, a hidden agenda somewhere to ignore the
diversity that is
Those
are three concerns, three principles, three issues that must be addressed in
this bill. We look forward to committee
and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to
put a few remarks, very brief remarks, on the record on this particular bill.
I
want to take this opportunity just to comment on something that I witnessed in
committee the other night, and I wish to congratulate the member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid) and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger), because I saw
something take place in committee that one does not often see in this Chamber.
I
saw a bill before the committee. I saw a
member of the opposition proposing some very reasonable amendments, making some
thoughtful suggestions for amendments to the bill, and I saw the minister,
rather than just rejecting those amendments outright, considering them
carefully and where he thought they had merit, referring them back to his staff
and offering to negotiate with the member to bring them in at report stage.
The
result was an informed discussion from both sides of the House about the nature
of the bill and what it was intending to do on behalf of all Manitobans, and I
think, as a result, it will produce a better bill. I think the Minister of Transportation and
the member for Transcona are to be congratulated for that.
I
hope, because of the nature of this bill‑‑and I expect we are going
to see the same process. I know the
former member for The Maples, the current M.P. for Winnipeg North, the member
for
I
did not want to leave this House without putting on the record that at least
once in five years, I saw the committee system work rather well.
Thank
you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois).
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? No? All those in favour, please say Yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say Nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, on division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division?
Agreed? (agreed)
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 37
(The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation (Mr. Cummings), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Osborne.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspect that if you
consult your records, you will see there is a letter on file granting me the
Leader's designation on this particular bill.
Can you confirm that?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have been duly informed by the Clerk that,
indeed, he has been made aware that it does exist. However, I currently cannot
find a copy of it on this desk. So the
assumption is that, indeed, the honourable member for Osborne, at this time,
unless I hear differently from the Speaker, indeed, has been given the
authority to be the designated speaker for the Liberal Party.
Mr. Alcock: It was a bit of a moot point, given that we have
just a little over an hour left in debate for today, and I have indicated that
I would be prepared to bring my remarks to a close so this bill could pass and
go forward to committee today.
But
I did not want to see the bill pass without standing and speaking a little bit
about what I have learned as the critic for MPIC about the intentions of the
government as we move toward this very radical change in the way in which we
provide protection to people in
It
is interesting to me to reflect back on 1988 when I first ran for
government. At that time, as most
members will recall, there was tremendous dissatisfaction with the management
of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation under the former government.
There
was a belief, and I think a substantiated belief, that the former government
had been manipulating the rate‑setting structure in order to provide a
pattern of low rates coming up to an election, and then they would make up the
monies that were lost in the years following an election, so they would receive
the benefit of what was apparent good management coming into the election
cycle.
They
were caught a little bit by the fall of the government. They were caught in mid‑cycle
at a time when the corporation was in some trouble and in which we had to go
through a relatively healthy rate increase, and that, itself, became an issue
during the election. Certainly, as I
went door to door, I heard an awful lot about that.
At
that time, Madam Deputy Speaker, we argued that the fix to this was to remove
the rate setting, to remove the overview on the management of MPIC from the
political side of the government and pass it to the PUB as we do with other
monopolies, but let the rate setting reflect the costs incurred by the corporation
and the services provided to the people of
The
government at the time said that it was impossible to do that, and approximately
six months later, in October of '88, agreed with us and did in fact refer MPIC
rate setting to the PUB.
Now
we are faced with a much, much more significant change, and we have to ask
ourselves why. Why are we going to
undertake a change in this corporation at this time? There are a number of possibilities, I
suspect. I am rather struck by the fact
that there is a maxim that gets repeated at this House every now and again and
it is attributed to farmers, but the statement often is by the members
opposite: If it ain't broke, why fix it.
So,
part of the discussion, I think, has to be to determine whether or not it is
broke. Is there such a fundamental
problem with the services offered by MPIC that we must do away with the way in
which it does business in order to replace it with something that comes closer
to meeting the goals for which it was originally established? I think we have to look carefully at that
question.
The
original intention‑‑and I have gone back and read the debates by Premier
Pawley and former Premier Schreyer in 1970 as they spoke on the introduction of
MPIC‑‑was to put in place an efficient public corporation that
would return to Manitobans some 85 percent of the monies it collected in the
form of benefits, either through automobile repair or protection for losses
suffered as a result of personal injury.
The
corporation has functioned fairly well over that period of time. It became a political issue, as I have
mentioned, in the '88 election, and I think if I have a concern about what the
government has done subsequent to that, is that it seems to have abrogated its
leadership. I mean, surely government
has a role to play in educating the public, and if the facts that are before
the public are in error, if there is a misunderstanding in the public, surely
the government has a responsibility to correct that misunderstanding.
I
would simply like to look at the first side of this question. Is the corporation broke? Are the fees that Manitobans are paying out
of line with what is being proffered in other parts of the country? I asked the Canadian Automobile Association
to provide me with some figures looking at the comparative insurance rates
across the country, with specific reference to
* (1130)
Let
me cite a couple of examples. A 1991
Ford Taurus, driven for pleasure only, female owner, over 25, not had an at‑fault
claim. In 1992, in territory 1, which
would be down here, that driver would pay $634 a year for her coverage. In
So
where is the evidence that our rate setting is out of line with what is being paid
in other provinces now?
Point of
Order
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker,
on a point of order, I would encourage the member not to confuse mixed systems
where there is both private auto insurance and public no‑fault with the
system that we have in
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course there is no dispute. Had the minister been listening to my
comments when I began my discussion, he would have understood the references I
was making. (interjection)
Well,
I can understand the minister's disquiet, because the grounds upon which he is
undertaking this change are shaky ones at very best. He is having a great deal of difficulty
justifying for any public service, or public good reasons, the reasons behind
this particular change.
Let
us just examine it a little bit. The
minister makes the case in his pre‑election campaign piece on public auto
insurance that bodily injury claims are running out control. In fact, they made a submission to the Public
Utilities Board that argued that, and that this was a reason why they had to
move to a no‑fault system in order to get them under control.
At
the same time, they had to make a submission to the Public Utilities Board
which provided some factual support for this claim. They produced in that a number of analyses at
the request of the Public Utilities Board, one of which is produced from the
June 16, '93 application, page 6, at which they examine the bodily injury
percent change in pure premium.
Now,
they make the case that what is happening is bodily injury pure premiums are
escalating out of control, and that this is the reason why there is a belief
that premiums could double by the turn of the century. But, in fact, their own information suggests
a declining rate of increase. It
suggests a flattening of the rate of increase, not the exponential increase
that they produce in the very next graph on the next page.
In
fact, they produce a piece of information here that I would say is fraudulent. You cannot reproduce this chart
mathematically. You cannot reproduce
this chart analytically. They have drawn this in an attempt to bolster their
argument, but it is factually in error.
Now,
why is it if rates are substantially below other provinces, if there does not
seem to be this absolute out‑of‑control rate escalation that the
minister would have us believe there is, why is it that we are choosing to
deprive people of the very substantial benefits that are open to them today
under the current MPIC system?
But
let us just look a little further. Let
us just have another little look here.
Let us look at the annual reports for MPIC and let us go back through
the term of this government. Claims incurred have increased during the term of
this government 26.2 percent, claims cost for claims incurred. Claims expenses have increased 41 percent, a
substantial increase. Administrative expenses in the corporation have increased
156 percent.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, if there is an out‑of‑control aspect of this
corporation, it seems to be very heavily on the administrative side. Perhaps this minister, rather than depriving
the people of
In
fact, the corporation, in its October 31, 1991, statement, was in such good
shape that it was able to return to the
An Honourable Member: I cannot believe that you are putting this on
the record.
Mr. Alcock: I note that the minister, from his seat,
expresses a little nervousness about the fact that there is some concern about
the government's decision to move in this direction. I also note, and I am surprised, frankly, at
the decisions taken by the New Democratic Party. I am surprised by their willingness to
support the government on this.
I
would like just to read a few things, a few quotes from a paper prepared by one
Vic Schroeder, who makes some comments here that Bill 37 is designed either
intentionally or unintentionally to destroy this system, meaning the Autopac
system. It immediately commences
privatization and, through very rapid erosion of public support when its impact
is felt, will allow for the total elimination of the public insurance system
within a decade of its implementation.
Bill 37 proposes that if a Manitoban is involved in an accident, we will
no longer be able to recover all of the losses suffered even though the
accident was caused by the negligence or bad driving of someone else. This may well
save some insurance premiums, but there are a number of identifiable groups who
will, as a whole, be net losers in this system which is geared to make the
victim pay.
He
goes on, and I am not going to read the entire document, although I do want to
return to a couple of discussions relative to it, but I would like to look at
one other piece of it. Let us just take
a very macro view of this. Let us not
try to get into the details of it at this point. Let us just look at what has been the
experience in
The
Canadian Automobile Association presents information that says the
* (1140)
Now,
You
have to ask yourself, where do those profits come from? The answer is very
simple. Those profits come out of the
benefits previously paid to people who are receiving compensation. So this is not a no‑fault system. This is a reduction in benefits system. In fact, I noticed with some interest that
the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), when he spoke on this yesterday, made
exactly that point. He said this is a
system that will significantly reduce the benefits available for Manitobans.
I
would just like to ask people in this Chamber.
I do not know whether people are even aware of this. Any member of this Chamber who receives any
outside additional income over and above the basic stipend and car allowance
that is paid here, but if you receive any funds for teaching elsewhere or on
the farm or through the operation of, shall we say, an insurance business, you
will have to purchase private insurance in order to have the same benefit that
you currently enjoy.
Anyone
making above $55,000 gross in this province will have to purchase private
insurance. The private insurance company
is being reintroduced, and that may explain why this has the support of the
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), who has the opportunity to be the agent for
such insurance.
We
have to come back to this question of why are we allowing that. What is it that we are gaining from doing
this? What is it that is going to make
Manitobans better off as a result of this?
Is it, as the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) argues, that this is a
make‑the‑rich‑pay program, that simply what was happening
prior to the current circumstance was that poor people who could not afford to
go to court and who could not therefore avail themselves of the benefits, under
this scheme they will be able to do that because they have a less litigious
environment?
Well,
let me quote from Mr. Schroeder's paper.
Let us not use my arguments. Let
us look at his: I believe another factor
driving up costs is the fact that more people on average on lower incomes are
now able to afford to hire a lawyer because of the prevalence of contingency
agreements. So his own former member
makes the argument that under the current system, more people are able to
access the court system, and, as a result, that is one of the factors that is
pushing costs.
I
think at this point, maybe what we should do is just come back for a moment to
what is happening in other quarters. One
of the very simplistic arguments this government is trying to make is that this
is simply a lawyer's bill, that somehow what we are doing here is we are
putting in their place a bunch of rambunctious lawyers who are, in effect,
pushing or somehow manipulating the court system into providing benefits or
settlements that are far above what would, quote, reasonably be expected, and therefore
that is driving costs.
Well,
I want to digress on that one for a moment because I have to tell you I think
that is a relatively cheap argument. There is a feeling, I think, that when
they survey as to the popularity of various professions, lawyers and
politicians seem to run somewhat neck and neck.
There is this sense that lawyers are not necessarily the most popular
people in the community, and, as a result, if you can make them the victims of
this, if you can make them the villains in this piece, the public will jump
onside and you will have great support for any attempt to reduce the impact or
the involvement of lawyers in any system.
I
think we have to consider what we would want, what our own circumstances
are. If we can just step aside‑‑I
am the son of a policeman, and my father hated lawyers. My father hated lawyers because when he went
and arrested somebody, he had to go to court and justify what he had done, and
lawyers for the defendant would stand up and would criticize him and would
attack his presentation. So I grew up
hearing about the evils of lawyers. But that, fundamentally, is our
system. That is the way in which we
provide rights to people. That is the
way we provide an opportunity for people to be considered, their individual
circumstances to be considered before the law.
I
am always bemused at how quick the press and the public are to pass judgment on
a very complex legal question when they see on the basis of very superficial
information that the decision that was rendered was somehow inconsistent with
what they believe justice would have provided.
We
do spend an awful lot of resources, time, energy, and we employ an awful lot of
very bright people to allow us exactly that opportunity to have our personal
circumstances considered when we are in conflict with a system. That is what we do here.
I
do not think, and when I look at it, I am not going to read through or repeat
the work that has been done by the legal rights network or Mr. Rodin or
others. They have produced very lengthy,
very detailed and, I think, very high quality briefs on alternatives. They have not just criticized the
system. They have said: Here are some ways in which you can address
some of the cost escalations that you are talking about without ultimately
depriving Manitobans, particularly those Manitobans who are severely disabled
as a result of an accident, of the rights they currently enjoy. That fundamental right is the right to have
your circumstances, your individual circumstances considered in detail when
there is a decision being made about your compensation.
Again,
I would just like to ask people here, what would you prefer? What would you prefer, Madam Deputy Speaker,
if you were in an accident? Would you
enjoy or would you prefer to go before some bureaucrat who is going to make the
decision on a narrowly drawn, politically imposed schedule of fees and
benefits, or would you prefer to go before a judge and lay out your personal
circumstances in some detail and have that considered in the establishment of
an award?
I
do not think there is a person who would not rather take their chances before a
judge, because one of the things that we have seen over time with the actions
of governments, and here I am not going to criticize the current government, I
am going to criticize all governments.
When the political interests of the moment are the ones that are up for
consideration, governments tend to move.
If that means the reduction or the denial of a benefit to people, that
is, unfortunately, what seems to occur.
We
have seen that, and I look for a minute at the changes that were introduced in
the funding of health care federally. A
significant change, a change that was introduced to move from shared funding to
block funding in the late '70s, that was maintained with an escalator at the
rate of inflation until we got into problems with the deficit in '85. Then that principle of federal government
participation in the support for medicare in this country was very carefully,
very insidiously reduced.
We
saw a reduction of the escalator from one point to one point below inflation,
to two points below inflation, to the point where in another few years the
federal government will be completely out of the provision of cash to the
health care system in this province.
So
I wonder about that. I wonder about that
now when I look at this provision. Here
we say, well, we are going to provide a benefit that, if you have a gross
income of $55,000, you will receive 90 percent of your net income as a result
of compensation for wages lost, et cetera.
Right
now the minister makes the case that would cover 90 percent of all
Manitobans. I am not even going to
dispute that. He may well be right. I
have not checked the figure, but I do not see any particular reason to dispute
that, except what comes into play, then, is the ability of the government to
squeeze this figure down. They could
keep it at $55,000 and let inflation simply overtake it.
They
say they are going to escalate it at the rate of inflation, but other
governments have said that. In other
circumstances, that provision has been made and, in fact, not followed.
So
one does not have to march very far down the road before that $55,000 is the
average income in
* (1150)
I
wonder if that is not part of the real motivation for this government in making
this move. I wonder if they are not
simply trying to revisit an argument that they lost in 1970‑‑doing
it cleverly, doing it carefully. But I
note another provision, and I asked the minister a question in the House about
this: as
That
raises two questions, but the first is that the minister when I asked him that
question in the House said, well no, that will never happen. I guarantee that will never happen because
there is a provision in the legislation that prevents the transfer of funds.
That
same provision sits in the
The
public insurance becomes not the accumulation of sufficient funds to provide
adequate protection to Manitobans who require it, but becomes another source, a
nondirect taxation source of revenue to the government. I think that is clearly improper.
So
I am not satisfied and I am not reassured at all by the assurances of the
minister that this provision that exists within the act will prevent them from
availing themselves of the funds that will come out of the benefits previously
allowed Manitobans.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, there are a number of alternatives. There are a number of ways
in which we could have dealt with this.
We are going to go into committee this afternoon, and we are going to
hear, I think, some very detailed submissions on why or how the system could be
fixed, could be amended.
I
note within the minister's own brief to cabinet, within the minister's own
option paper, he examined a number of them.
He provided ways in which the area he is most concerned about, and that
is the escalation of these costs in the $5,000 to $10,000 range, the impact of
that could be reduced. This would
produce some savings for the corporation, and this would also leave in place
the thing I think most concerns me. It
is not the access to tort for a $1,500 claim or a $2,000 claim. It is the access to tort for those people who
are most severely impaired, severely disabled and most in need of support who I
am concerned about.
I
do not know if members here have had much in the way of accidents or know
people who have had much in the way of accidents. As the MPIC critic, I am constantly being
called by people who are in conflict with the corporation around the repair of
the tin, leaving aside the personal injury for a minute. There we have a form
of no‑fault and we have a schedule.
Inevitably
what happens is the person who has had the accident goes to the
corporation. They receive some kind of
offer, particularly if it is an older vehicle or there is a consideration about
writing it off. Almost inevitably, if
they are dissatisfied with that, the corporation will provide them with a
response, their first offer, if you like.
Their
supposed chart of accounts will provide one offer which, if one gets in and
pushes on it a little bit, gets into conversations with the corporation, one
applies some pressure, one questions what they are doing, there will always be
a second offer. That is because one is
able to go in and put a little pressure on the corporation. One is able to go in and challenge what they
do. Now we are talking about nonpersonal
injury, relatively small items.
The
scary thing is, we will experience that same kind of capricious administrative
rate setting or benefit setting in the case of bodily injury. Those people who are unsophisticated in
dealing with the system, those people whom the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos)
pretends to be concerned about will go to the corporation and through perhaps a
difficulty with language or an unfamiliarity with dealing with a large
corporation, will receive a particular offer which may be well below any kind
of real consideration of what they are entitled to or what they need in order
to adequately compensate themselves for the losses they have incurred.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
We
are depriving them of any kind of advocacy system, and we are depriving them of
any kind of support for their personal circumstances. We are depriving them of the ability that
somebody go in and speak on their behalf, and to say there are a number of very
unique personal circumstances at play here that need to be considered before we
simply apply the proposed meat chart.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back just for a second to this question of
lawyers. Because every time‑‑I
note that I am probably the only member in the House who currently has spoken
in opposition to this bill‑‑but every time I have mentioned that I
might be in opposition to the bill, I get all sorts of comments from the other
members in the House that I am speaking on behalf of the lawyers, which I find
rather surprising.
So
I would like to quote‑‑(interjection) well, there the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) takes another relatively cheap comment‑‑the
Canadian Automobile Association, which is a group which represents drivers, not
lawyers, in this country, has put forward a report on this, has examined in
detail‑‑this is their business, is to look out on behalf of the
best interests of drivers‑‑they have examined in detail the impact
of this change on the rights and benefits available to drivers in
They
say they are deeply concerned about rate increases in Autopac premiums‑‑and
that is having examined them across the country, having examined the balance
sheets of MPIC‑‑but they do not advocate switching to a pure no‑fault
plan as recommended. They do not.
Now,
when we go on, they have done a couple of things that I think are very
interesting. They have looked at, in
detail, the PUB recommendations, and ways in which the corporation could be
made more efficient, ways in which costs could be saved, ways in which bodily
injuries could be reduced in order to leave us with a lean and efficient
corporation providing benefits to those who need it, but also addressing some
of the rate changes. That is exactly the
impact or the effect that we had hoped would come out of the decision to bring the
corporation before the Public Utilities Board.
But
let me just read a couple of their findings.
One of the first ones is this‑‑they are sort of speaking
about their desire to move to no‑fault‑‑they believe that
changing to pure no‑fault would not prove to be a simple solution to a
complex set of problems. Indeed, it
would amount to a little more than trading one set of problems for another's,
and motorists‑‑not lawyers‑‑could lose more than they
gained.
They
have reviewed the no‑fault programs in
But
they make the case‑‑these are the motorists‑‑that there
are other issues that must be considered such as the price paid for
relinquishing the right to sue for injuries suffered in an auto accident. They note that in
Accident
victims‑‑and I am quoting from their report‑‑who were
compensated with preset amounts, did not of course benefit from the insurer's
increased profits.
* (1200)
So,
Mr. Speaker, I shall not go on and quote the problems at great length. I am sure that the CAA will be before
committee and they can make a case for it also.
They did make some recommendations.
They do not just say leave the existing system intact. Do not act.
They say: but the corporation
should press for tougher year round enforcement of laws pertaining to speeding,
wearing motorcycle helmets and proper use of seat belts and child restraints‑‑a
rather novel recommendation.
Let
us try to reduce the level of personal injuries. Let us try to solve this whole problem by
having fewer personal injuries rather than more. There are a number of recommendations that
both the PUB and the CAA have made. Call
for increased penalties for traffic code violations concerning the above. Let us be more stringent. Let us get the bad drivers off the road. Let us do the things that we can to ensure
that we have done everything that we can to prevent injuries. Let us take the preventative approach to
this.
Increase
educational efforts for all classes of road users. Advocate graduated and
conditional licensing systems. Revise
the merit point system. Actively promote
initiatives for the prevention of vehicle‑related crime. They even go on to some details in terms of
better snow clearing. They point out in
their report that the government has before it, the corporation has before it,
a large number of options that will produce better safety, fewer accidents,
without depriving Manitobans of the benefits that they currently enjoy under
MPIC.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to help members of the Chamber understand just a little bit
what this is going to mean for some people.
I am going to use a couple of examples again from Mr. Schroeder's
presentation, as well as a few of my own.
Mr.
Schroeder asked the question, who is going to lose? Who is going to specifically be deprived as a
result of this legislation?
The
first class he mentions is pedestrians.
Pedestrians very seldom, if ever, cause bodily injury to an occupant of
a motor vehicle. All too often some
motorist running a light or a crosswalk or a sidewalk manages to injure a
pedestrian. That victim will now pay for
the reduction in insurance premiums enjoyed by the driver who hit her, because
she cannot be fully compensated for the loss suffered. This scheme is again premised on the victim
paying.
A
second group of losers will be children under 16 and those who do not have a
driver's licence. Nondrivers include a
fairly substantial proportion of our population including many of our elderly,
people with physical handicaps, many immigrants and others, those who take
taxicabs, buses or are passengers in motor vehicles. Each of these persons will be required to
sacrifice when injured, each of them will have to give up their right in order
to allow this political benefit to arrive for the government.
It
is interesting, and he makes a point in here that there are nearly 20,000
personal injuries a year in
Students
and people just entering the job market or awaiting a promotion will be hard
hit. An apprentice earns far less than
what he would shortly be earning.
Farmers coming off a crop failure have difficulties.
It
is interesting that when you set a chart as they are proposing to do, you do
not allow any way for the unique circumstances of individuals to be
considered. That is really what the
question is here. What about an
apprentice who is deprived of the opportunity to become a journeyman, who loses
that income stream that he or she was working towards? Is it fair that we deprive that person of the
right to have that considered in the establishment of the benefit due that
individual?
What
about seniors? Here is an interesting
one. I was interested in the comments of
the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) on this one who talked about
seniors 75 years of age and older. He makes
the comment: "Let us say you are a
physician working at the age of 75, and you had an accident and are entitled to
income replacement within the guidelines."
In a previous sentence he makes the statement, this is from July 13,
1993: "I believe there is some
misunderstanding on this because I believe you do get compensated if you are
working beyond 65." The fact is that you do not. The fact is that in the first year after 65
you get only 75 percent of the benefit that you would be entitled to. You get 50 percent the following year, 25
percent the following year, and after that you get zero.
So
for only one reason, by virtue of the fact that you are a certain age, not only
are you deprived of the ability to have your personal circumstances, but you
are deprived of a very real benefit that is attainable under this plan. For what reason? I believe and I have certainly been advised
by a number of people that there may be some opportunity for a court challenge
to this. In fact, I have even seen the
minister and others nod their heads when that gets raised.
Why
are we legislating something that so clearly hurts residents of this
province? Why are we legislating
something that treats someone‑‑I mean, we note from the various
attacks on compulsory retirement legislation and we note from any demographic
study in the country that people are working longer and longer.
In
fact, there is a lot of information coming out on retirement that it is to
one's personal benefit to be working to an older age, not just financially but
in terms of one's vitality and energy.
People do not want to retire when they are 65. We have seen lots of evidence of that, so why
are we saying that someone who is 66 is entitled to less of a benefit than
someone who is 64? Why are we, on the
basis of their age, depriving them of a benefit that someone else might be
entitled to? I think it is a question
that the government is going to have to deal with, and I would expect that if
they do not, there is going to be a relatively lengthy discussion before the
courts on that particular one.
I
think, rather than take up a lot of time on the details, when I reflect on why
we are doing this I have to ask myself what is it that the government is going
to gain from this particular action.
What is it that is behind their desire to see this change? I think there are three things. I think the first and most important, and I
think that is why we are seeing such haste, there was no movement. It has been five years since the Kopstein case
came out, five years that the government kind of sat and worried about it,
talked about it and took no action and, in fact, benefited from the operations
of the corporation and, all of a sudden, just post‑Christmas a desire to
begin to move quickly to see the introduction of no‑fault insurance.
* (1210)
I
mean, in fact, in discussions with the minister and others, they talk about the
speed with which they had to move in order to get the bill before the House for
this session. All of a sudden it became
a matter of great urgency, something of a panic. Why is that?
Why are they attempting to make this change at this time?
I
think there is one very clear reason for it.
I think they want to go into the election cycle next spring and be able
to offer to Manitobans a reduced or at least a flat insurance premium coming
into that cycle. I think they have every
intention to‑‑they know they are coming into their fourth year.
They are getting ready for it. It was a
big issue in '88. It is in their political
interest and certainly would be politically popular, there is no question about
that, if they could offer a 5 or 10 percent reduction in MPIC rates. Those people who have to go to the existing
agents for that private insurance are relatively small in number at the current
time, and unfortunately with insurance, it is one of those things that unless
you are required to, people all too often forget to do it.
One
of the reasons why we moved into MPIC in the first place was because we began
to require drivers to have public liability insurance. One of the reasons why people buy insurance
on their house is because your mortgage companies require it. People all too often are prepared to
sacrifice a benefit that is forward looking in favour of a few dollars saved
today. That is particularly true of
those people on lower and more marginal incomes.
So
we are putting people back into that position of either those people at the
high end will pay in fact more, because while they may receive a bit of a benefit
from the reduction in MPIC costs, they are going to have to offset that
reduction by the purchase of private insurance.
There is no doubt it will be popular.
The government will be able to run its election having said that it has
produced for the public lower rates.
I
think it is exactly that kind of very cynical political action that leads to
the very low regard that people have for people in this Chamber, the very low
regard people have for politicians, because what you are saying is that in
order to put the government on a more competitive position in the next
election, you are going to deprive every Manitoban of a right that they
currently enjoy, not to save the corporation, not to produce better insurance,
to produce lower insurance, less benefits.
The only beneficiary is the government's election timing.
The
second reason I think they are doing it is the reintroduction of private
insurance. I think through the
manipulation of the rate schedule that they can in fact increase the share of
private insurance that the private companies will enjoy, and frankly, I think
they can accelerate that change according to their own planning until such time
as it becomes a reasonable decision to bring the private insurance companies
back into full competition with MPIC. I
think that will do exactly as Mr. Schroeder suggests, eliminate MPIC.
The
final reason why I think they are doing this is that they look over at MPIC,
they look at the experience in
I
have no doubt that the bill will pass. I
do want to thank the minister. I think
the minister has been forthcoming, not perhaps open to changing much but
certainly has been willing to share information and to attempt to defend his
position.
I
note in closing, in the
I
am going to ask the government to consider some amendments and some changes on
the small claims side. There are a
number of models, whether it be deductibility or a verbal limit. I am going to ask them to consider that and
to leave open the access to tort at the high end, to leave open the opportunity
for individual circumstances to be considered in the designing of benefits for
those people who are most severely injured in this province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable deputy
government House leader, I will recognize the honourable member for Burrows
with his committee changes.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for
Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for the member for Steinbach
(Mr. Driedger); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for
Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer); the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey)
for the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard); the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) for the member for
I
move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of
the Standing Committee on Economic Development for Monday, 9 a.m. session, be
amended as follows: the member for
Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer);
and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs.
Render).
I
move, seconded by the member for St. Vital, that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments, this is for the Monday, 9 a.m. session,
be amended as follows: the member for
River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay); and
the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Lac du Bonnet
(Mr. Praznik).
Motions agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, on House business. First of
all, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Economic
Development will sit at 1 p.m. this afternoon to consider Bill 37, the
amendments to The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. I am also calling that committee for 9 a.m. on
Monday to continue their consideration of the same bill.
I
would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will
also be called for 9 a.m. Monday to consider Bills 24, 43 and 46.
With
respect to rooms, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet in
Room 255 both today and on Monday. The
Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet, I believe, in Room 254.
I
would also now ask, Mr. Speaker, if you could please call Bill 26, The
Expropriation Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy
government House leader for that information.
Bill 26‑The
Expropriation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Burrows.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very
interesting and very important bill, because it has to do with property rights
and it has to do with individual rights and the rights of appeal by individuals
to the courts, which this Conservative government does not believe in, in the
case of this bill.
I
am very surprised at that, because there were a great many Conservatives in
this country who supported property rights in the Constitution. They were disappointed that property rights
were not included in constitutional amendments in some of the packages of the
federal government. So I think they are
alienating some of their natural supporters who believe that property rights
and individual rights are the be‑all and end‑all of all rights, and
they are ignoring these people. So we
have some great difficulty with this bill, particularly regarding the right to
appeal to the courts.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Now,
there are some very interesting examples in the history of
* (1220)
It
is my understanding, I could be wrong, I could be corrected, but I understand
that farmland was expropriated to build the floodway. I believe that the government of the day, the
government of Duff Roblin, had public support for this because there was, first
of all, a great understanding amongst Manitobans of the devastating effects of
the flooding of 1950 and the tremendous cost to the City of
In
fact, a book has been written about the flood.
I look forward to reading it because I did not live in
Really,
it is an ethical statement people support, because even though one or two
individuals or even a handful of individuals or even if it is 100 individuals,
that the rights and the interests and the greater good of hundreds of thousands
of people prevails or takes precedence over a small number of individuals who
may have had their livelihood interrupted or their farms interrupted or their
property taken away from them, presumably with compensation. So it went ahead, became I think
affectionately known as Duff's Ditch after the Premier, and enjoyed wide public
support.
Another
example that I had some personal involvement with was the expropriation by the
Core Area Initiative of land on the north side of
An Honourable Member: Bob Banman.
Mr. Martindale: Never heard of him, and also by the mayor of
the city of
They
had public hearings to decide what should be part of the Core Area Initiative,
but ultimately decisions had to be made in cabinet by the
As
is often the case, some decisions have to be made in private. Other decisions can be made in public, but
they are not always done that way. But
certainly a decision about expropriation, for I think obvious reasons, must be
made by cabinet in secret and by city councillors, probably Executive Policy
Committee meeting in camera.
The
reason is that if you have a press conference and the three levels of
governments announce that they are going to expropriate a certain property,
then the value of that property is going to go up immediately, or people will
buy the property hoping that they can sell it at a higher price to
government. So there is, I believe, a
rationale and a certain logic to making expropriation decisions in private, in
camera, or in cabinet. Then the expropriation is announced, the land is frozen,
the governments buy it, and they negotiate with the individuals involved.
When
this happened with the
So
then the fight began, and the residents of this very run‑down
neighbourhood began to organize and began to fight the government of the day,
which was a Conservative government. But
a very interesting thing happened, which was fortuitous for them, and that is
that there was an election in November of 1981, and we all know what happened,
the government changed.
So
we had a much more enlightened NDP government take office, and I think it is
was the Minister of Urban Affairs, Mr. Kostyra at the time, he appointed a
commission of inquiry. The
commissioner's name was Evelyn Shapiro and she held public hearings. In fact, they were in that neighbourhood, and
I attended those public hearings and presented a brief.
That
started a very long process which eventually resulted in Mr. Axworthy changing
his mind and the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the most difficult group to change was City Council because we
had to lobby 29 city councillors. There
were a lot of delegations to City Council, a lot of phone calls to city
councillors and those city councillors who are now in provincial cabinet will
remember some of the lobbying that took place.
Eventually
all three levels of government decided on what was basically a compromise. They said we will expropriate the land west
of the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
In
fact, I think it was the current Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) who
called it
Committee
Changes
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if there is
leave to make a committee change.
Mr. Speaker: Would there be leave of the House right now
to allow a couple of the members to make some committee changes and then go
back to the honourable member for Burrows? (agreed)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion
agreed to.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I
also move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as
follows: Osborne (Mr. Alcock) for St.
James (Mr. Edwards).
Motions agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Sorry for that interruption.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I remember the individuals whose
homes were expropriated and the negotiations that they had with the three
levels of government because they were in a neighbourhood of very low property
values. Some of those houses were
probably only worth $20,000 or $30,000, and no matter where they moved in the
city of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Burrows will have 30 minutes remaining.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 12:30, this House now adjourns
and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.
Erratum
On Monday, July 12, Volume No. 99A, pages
5376 and 5377, the comments attributed to Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood) should have
been attributed to Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General).