LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
July 20, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to
present the petition of Katherine Szadkowski, George Conway, Carl Ridd and
others requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to
consider restoring funding of the Student Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the
cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to report to the
House that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments has just pulled ahead of
the Economic Development committee, and I beg to present the Tenth Report of
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Tenth Report.
Your committee met on Monday, July 19, 1993,
at 9 a.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 43‑‑The Manitoba Lotteries
Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
la Fondation manitobaine des loteries et apportant des modifications
correlatives a une autre loi
Peter Olfert ‑
Your committee has considered:
Bill 43‑‑The Manitoba Lotteries
Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
la Fondation manitobaine des loteries et apportant des modifications
correlatives a une autre loi
Bill 46‑‑The Criminal Injuries
Compensation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des
victimes d'actes criminels
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I have a statement for the House, and I have copies to distribute.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a
statement to the House, and the document which I tabled I will not read in its
entirety because of its length. In co‑operation
with trying to see the session have an end in sight, I will take some excerpts
from the document which I think are important.
From July 27 to July 29, the Hudson Bay
Route Association will be celebrating its first half‑century of achievement. Quite appropriately, its 50th annual
convention will be held in
The theme of the convention is 50 Years of
Accomplishment: Directions for the 21st Century. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) and I will be attending the convention, and I am pleased that Leaders
of the two opposition parties intend to be there as well.
* (1335)
The Hudson Bay Route Association continues a
strong and proud prairie tradition of advocacy for a railroad link from the
Canadian prairies to the Hudson Bay and support for the
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that,
historically, the western Premiers have been strong supporters of
Churchill. Their consistent and active
support has meant a great deal to the port and to the province.
A few weeks ago during the Executive Council
Estimates, Premier Filmon reaffirmed the fact that one of our government's most
critical priorities in federal‑provincial relations is the securing of
the future of Churchill, both by assuring that it has enough tonnage to show a
profit, and that is of course grain, and by pursuing aggressively all the
opportunities Churchill has to offer.
This year, grain shipments will again move
through Churchill, though the extent is not clear as yet. We also have received indications that a
minimum of two cruise ships will visit the port as well.
The
By working with the Hudson Bay Route
Association and other nonpartisan groups, we can make certain that our ongoing
support for the future of the
I invite members of the opposition to join
in congratulating the Hudson Bay Route Association on its achievements as it
celebrates its 50th anniversary. I am
confident that every member of this House is committed to ensuring that the
association can look forward to another 50 years and more of active and
valuable services to our province and to western
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I would like to thank the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) for his statement in the House today.
I want to also pay tribute to those
thousands of volunteers across western
I too look forward to attending that meeting
next week, along with caucus colleagues.
This is a very important association meeting to attend, particularly in
paying tribute to the 50th anniversary.
I should say though, having been in the community of Churchill some five
or six weeks ago, that the members of that community would have some difficulty
with the words expressed by the Deputy Premier in terms of the concerns of the
There are many members of the community who
feel the powerful interests in this country do not see that same northern
vision that the people of Churchill and people along the Hudson Bay Route
Association see for a northern seaport in the Churchill community. They fear greatly when they see that grain
shipments are shipped through the
Well, the members opposite and the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) may think it is funny, but some members of Churchill, including
the mayor, feel that the whole community of Churchill is at a precipice if they
cannot get the 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes of grain commitment from the 3 percent
catchment area to ship through the
You know, the Premier participates in
partisan politics, and he should know‑‑(interjection) I seem to
recall that the Premier of
* (1340)
Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about a Crown
corporation, CN railway, which has systematically proclaimed that they cannot
ship the new hopper cars through the
We are very concerned that the Western
Diversification Program was not forthcoming for the new rocket range proposal.
We applaud the private developers, applaud George Richardson on the
announcement of the feasibility study, but we note that some governments were
very slow in looking at the new proposals and very slow to support the people
of Churchill and the community of Churchill and the vision again of a northern
seaport that contains a rocket range. We
are in competition with other potential northern sites in
So we look forward to joining the Hudson Bay
Route Association and look forward to paying tribute to the 50 years of
historical success by the pioneers who developed the
But looking forward to that date also means
we have to work collectively with all our vigour. There are powerful interests, Mr. Speaker,
that do not support our vision of Churchill, and it is important that all 57 members
are working together to support the
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The importance of advocacy groups of this
nature to take issues that have an impact on the everyday roles or functions of
not only the
After all, if we talk about the
It is very easy for us inside this Chamber
to give lip service. I recall a
resolution that was brought forward talking about the Churchill rocket range,
and the government took the liberty to pat themselves on the back on that
particular resolution. The minister took
the liberty today to stand up and say how wonderful the Hudson Bay Route
Association is. Mr. Speaker, it is a
wonderful organization, and we need to pay tribute to them.
Mr. Speaker, this government has a knack of
giving lip service to different issues of the day. Let us hope that, in fact, the sincere
attempt that is being made by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) will translate in
terms of support for Churchill, because we do need Churchill.
It plays a very pivotal role in the
Thank you.
* (1345)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Labour
Market Adjustment Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the
Mr. Speaker, one of the other conditions
that
Given the fact the government made this
statement in December 1990, I would like to ask the Premier: What progress has the government made to
achieve a labour market adjustment strategy with the federal Conservative
government?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the
Opposition that his portrayal of our position with respect to NAFTA and its six
conditions is accurate.
It remains the position of the Government of
Canada, and it is consistent, which is quite dissimilar to the inconsistency
that was pointed out in a recent Maclean's magazine of his federal Leader,
Audrey McLaughlin, who is suggesting she is opposed to NAFTA, despite the fact
that NAFTA fully protects supply management.
Yet she is very supportive of GATT, which will likely dismantle to a
great extent supply management in this country.
It is that kind of inconsistency that
characterizes for pure politics the positions of the New Democrats on all sorts
of issues, this one included.
We will continue to ensure that we do
everything possible to convince the federal government that labour market
adjustment is an important component of any trade agreements we negotiate in
the future with any groups in the economy.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier a very specific
question which he did not answer. I
asked the Premier whether there was any progress toward the alleged priority of
the government in terms of labour market adjustment.
The government stated in one of its
conditions in December of 1992 that they were "disappointed" with the
Canada‑U.S. trade agreement. They
pointed out the decline in support from the federal government. They pointed out the changes that were
offloaded onto employers and employees in the UIC changes.
Has the Premier achieved any progress to
date that he can report to this House, some seven, eight months later, or are
we still in a situation where nothing has changed and he is still
"disappointed" in the federal government in terms of labour market
adjustment, and it does not meet any of the criteria the government established
for itself, given that we are negotiating environment and labour standards
today in the three‑country negotiations?
* (1350)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
should not try and put words in my mouth when he talks about priorities.
We have put six conditions which we say are
necessary for us to support a NAFTA agreement.
Among those six conditions are a greater participation and greater
contribution by the federal government to labour market adjustment programs
because of some potential disruptions that will take place, that take place any
time there are agreements for trade amongst countries.
We have also said we are very committed to
ensuring there is a stronger protection for our environment, that there is an
assurance of the labour force conditions being more equalized amongst
The fact of the matter is, we will continue,
as I said in response to the question initially, to work to convince the
federal government that they ought to have a labour force adjustment component
that is necessary in order to fund the kinds of retraining and adjustment that
will occur inevitably with any kinds of trading agreements country to country.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this condition the government
placed before the people of
Workers in
Is the only progress to date that they are
working toward convincing the federal government to implement a program, or is
there anything more tangible that the people of
Mr. Filmon: That is the very point, Mr. Speaker. We had six conditions. Of those six conditions, two of them are
being actively worked upon, one being the additional protection we are seeking for
environment, the second being the additional protection we are seeking for
labour force harmonization to ensure that as
A third aspect, a third point we were
concerned about was the continued and even greater involvement of the provinces
in the negotiating process, as we tried to ensure that there were the concerns
of the provinces and the involvement of the provinces on the table as we worked
toward it.
I can say that our province has probably had
more participation and involvement, particularly in those two sidebar
agreements, than almost any other province in the country.
So, again, there is a third point of the
six, and three of the six obviously are not bad. We continue to work to convince the federal
government on the other three points, which include the one he is raising today
about labour force adjustment packages.
Labour
Force Development Agreement
Consultations
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, in March of this year,
The Minister of Education at that time
assured us that the next six months would be devoted to consultations with
Manitobans on the composition of the boards and the development of programs.
Mr. Speaker, five months have passed and
there has been no consultation with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, surely
one of the basic institutions that should be involved in the formation of these
labour force development boards.
Could the minister explain to us why?
* (1355)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): As I did
explain in the 70 hours of Estimates in the Department of Education and
Training, the first step was a joint management committee with the federal
government, between the
With that joint management committee, they
would be then looking at the process the consultation would take, and I
explained to the member during the Estimates exactly the progress and where
that agreement lies, and we do hope to begin that consultation, announce the
consultation process as soon as that discussion is completed, and I expect it
to be shortly.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, five months have passed. That agreement runs out six months after
that. What has the minister been doing
for five months?
Will she confirm that she has any intention
of consulting with labour or education in the formation of these groups?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member continually shows she does not have
any idea how the process works. She does
not have any idea how a joint management committee would work.
But I can tell her, as I told her in the 70
hours of Estimates in the Department of Education and Training, that there has
been a joint management committee which has been working. Then the six‑month
period will begin where there will be consultation.
I can tell the member now in this House, to
put to rest any fears that she is trying to arouse on behalf of Manitobans,
that the consultation process will most certainly take place.
Implementation
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley):
The consultation process she promised
would begin five months ago.
Will she tell us precisely now how she plans
to create these provincial or regional boards in the one month that is left to
her, or are we going to have another press conference with lots of flags, lots
of lights, that says, in six months there will be a consultation and Manitobans
will be involved? Is that where this is
going?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Again, the member has not understood the process,
does not understand the time frame. Yes,
there will be the six‑month period in which the consultation process will
occur. That is exactly what I announced.
The preparation for the consultation process‑‑there
was a joint management committee, the province and the federal government. That joint management committee has worked
out how that consultation process will be taking place. The consultation process most certainly will
take place, and I would like to assure Manitobans of that right now.
School
Division Boundary Review
Co-ordination‑Francophone
Governance
s. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased the day
"soon" has finally arrived and that the Minister of Education has
established a committee to review school division boundaries, something the
Liberals have been calling for for many, many years.
We know this review will take 16 months, as
the minister indicated today, and a report will be handed to her at that
time. That will be some time late in
'94. Francophone governance, however, is
to be in place by September of 1994.
My question to the Minister of Education
is: How does she plan to co‑ordinate
the implementation of Francophone governance and the overall school division
boundary review when the two time lines are quite inconsistent?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): I can
tell the member the implementation committee for Francophone governance is
currently in place and is working. We
will know during the course of this year the number of students and their
families who have chosen to register within the Francophone division.
That will then give the existing school
divisions an opportunity to see what their student population is, what their
demands are, to present their concerns and their issues to the committee that
is looking at boundary review.
So the two initiatives are complementary,
but I would also remind the member there are, in fact, six interlocking reforms
which are going together at this time in education.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Education
tell us who specifically is co‑ordinating the implementation committee
for Francophone governance, who is co‑ordinating that along with the
school divisions boundary review?
What exactly is that co‑ordination,
and how will it work to ensure that, in fact, there is not a waste in dollars
and that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, it is
former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin who is chairing the implementation committee
for Francophone governance, and it is former Mayor Bill Norrie who is the chair
of the Manitoba School Boundaries Review.
As the information comes forward, we
certainly expect there will be a flow of information to the Department of
Education and Training and that the information regarding the numbers of
students who will be moving into the new Francophone board will certainly be
available to the department, will be available to their home school divisions.
* (1400)
Committee
Members' Per Diems
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to the
Minister of Education: Can she tell us,
with the budget that has been allocated for the school division boundary
review, how much of that budget, how many dollars are being allocated to per
diem payments or salaries for committee members?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, just in relation to the last question, I am not sure if the member is
suggesting that the school boundary review should have come first, been
completed, and then Francophone governance.
That simply does not make sense in terms of the budget.
I can tell the member that there has been
approximately $350,000 set aside for this fiscal year. The per diem paid will then depend upon how
many days the commissioners sit. The
commission will be meeting for the first time to establish its hearing schedule
and meeting schedule, and that information then will be available in detail when
they have established it.
APM
Management Consultants
Home Care
Program Contract
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the Connie Curran gravy train
keeps rolling along. (interjection) But not to Churchill.
Ms. Curran is now up in monthly payments to
over $400,000 a month plus expenses.
There is only one contract that remains to be signed, and surprise,
surprise, it is a home care contract, for Ms. Curran and her gravy train to
somehow deal with home care.
Can the minister, in light of the tremendous
cuts to the Home Care Program, advise whether or not he has signed a home care
contract with Connie Curran, and if he has not, will he once and for all say,
no more gravy train to Ms. Curran; we can handle home care ourselves?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, just let me, again, correct my
honourable friend who is factually inexact.
The Home Care budget has increased again this year, as it has every
single year since we have had responsibility for the Home Care budget, not the
cutbacks my honourable friend talks about, but an increase in the Home Care
budget, an increase of the home care attendant services by 11 percent, an
increase in the registered nursing services by 9.5 percent, an increase in VON
services by 3.6 percent.
Mr. Speaker, when my honourable friend talks
about trains, I recall his speech in the House where he indicated that his
train of thought was very short indeed and, again, he has demonstrated that.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, this train is going downhill
very, very fast.
My supplementary to the minister‑‑and
the minister did not answer the question.
Is the minister negotiating the contract with Connie Curran on home care
redevelopment or not, or is that contract now dead, which it should be in light
of the cutbacks in Home Care this year?
Mr. Orchard: No, Mr. Speaker, to the last question.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the first question.
Home Care
Program
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My final supplementary: Was the minister at his meeting this morning
with the MSOS executive able to give them any information about the cutbacks of
$3 million in homemaking services, the cutback in the Home Care budget in
Winnipeg from $31 million to $28 million and the user fees that are being
imposed on ostomy supplies and home care supplies?
Was he able to provide any of that specific
information, as well as the regulations concerning those changes?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): I had a very good
meeting with the MSOS this morning, and we discussed a number of issues, some
of which my honourable friend has referred to.
I consider the meeting to be productive on
both sides because one of the issues that was brought up very clearly by MSOS
was that they are drawing to our attention that we need to improve the
management of the program of Home Care.
That is the kind of observation from the
consumer end that really we value because that is exactly, Sir, what we hope to
achieve in terms of better management of the $68‑million resource we
currently spend in the Home Care Program.
A couple of other issues came up, and on
further questions from my honourable friends in the opposition, I am willing to
share the information with them, but, Mr. Speaker, we did come to grips with a
great deal of inaccuracy that came out in the most recent Manitoba Medicare
Alert Coalition, Tim Sale. One might
remember him as the defeated NDP candidate in the by‑election of
Crescentwood, wherein he has put out some rather inaccurate, alarmingly
inaccurate information on the personal care home charges. I regret that a man who classifies himself as
a health consultant would be so ill‑informed and so misleading in his
public pronouncements.
Highway
Maintenance/Repairs
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, for over a year now, we have
been writing to the Minister of Highways and Transportation concerning the
condition of northern roads including Provincial Roads 280, 391 and others.
My colleagues from northern and rural
Can the Minister of Highways and
Transportation indicate why he is willing to commit millions of dollars to
maintain highways in southern Manitoba when it is obvious that the $10‑million
cut to his department's budget this year is hurting northern Manitoba?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, we spent 20 hours going
through my Estimates. We did not spend
an awful lot of time going through my Capital program, but I will take the
question as notice, and I will bring back a list of all the projects of highway
construction that are taking place on 391, on 373, all the work that is taking
place on Highway 39, and I will bring back a list of the projects that are
taking place this year in the northern part of the province.
Mr. Reid: The RCMP have now said that poor highway
conditions on Provincial Highway 384 have caused the injury of three
Manitobans, due to the poor highway conditions.
What steps is this minister prepared to take
to address the very poor condition of northern roads in this province, Mr.
Speaker? I will table a copy of the
RCMP's statement.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I wish you could table the phone
calls, all the phone calls I am getting on conditions of roads based on the
weather conditions we have had. We have
had consistent rain, more than we have had for a long, long time in the last
month. It is virtually impossible to
keep all our roads, the gravel roads, in the kind of condition I think we would
like to see them. We are making all
efforts.
Mr. Speaker, the member says there is a
letter there where people got injured on one of my roads due to the road
condition. In the flash flooding that took place in the
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we still have the
bridges out and they have to be repaired, that work is going to be an ongoing
thing and is taking place right now.
Mr. Reid: My final supplementary is to the same minister,
Mr. Speaker.
Considering that Highways staff have said
there is no money in the budget and the roads are in poor condition, and the
RCMP have indicated the same, that conditions of the roads have contributed to
accidents, when can we expect, since this minister would not commit during the
Estimates process to repairing these roads, that his department will undertake
the maintenance work for 384, 391, 234 and others in the province that are
literally falling apart?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I find this amazing. A little over five years ago when I took over
this department, the Capital spending on highway construction was $83
million. This year, our Capital program
is at an all‑time high of $110 million.
The member says the roads have deteriorated. I tell you, they deteriorated under that
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). The member for Dauphin is the one who allowed
his budget to be cut from $100 million in 1981, when that member was the
minister, down to $83 million, and now the member for Transcona is out here
criticizing.
* (1410)
Taxicab
Board
Chairman‑Resignation
Request
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Over the last couple of days, we have had a
number of presenters who have come before the committee. There is a great deal of concern out there
within the industry, an industry that employs directly approximately 1,800
people and has an impact on just less than 6,000 members if you include their
families.
The consensus or the overwhelming opinion
that is coming out of this is the fact that there is no confidence in the chair
of the Manitoba Taxicab Board.
My question to the minister responsible for
the board is: Will the minister do the responsible thing and dismiss Mr.
Norquay from his responsibilities so that we can achieve some form of a
consensus?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the
question. We have been sitting in committee
two days now. We have heard four
presenters, and basically that issue has not come forward. What we have experienced in committee is the
NDP and the Liberals fighting for turf out there to see whether they can garner
some votes out of it. I find this
amazing.
Mr. Speaker, I want the member to go back,
once Hansard comes out, and read the presenters and basically tell me and show
me where they have asked for the resignation of the chairman.
It is this member here. In his mind, he is trying to garner up this
kind of a position, and it is a cheap attack on a very capable chairman.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the
minister. Had he been doing his work, what he was supposed to be doing‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member knows that. The honourable member for
Chairman‑Industry
Confidence
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The industry as a whole, not only through
this particular bill but over the last number of years, Mr. Speaker, has found
it cannot work with this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question now, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister is: How does this industry as a whole, or the
public, benefit when there is no possibility of achieving a consensus with the
current chairperson?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think it is an insult, the
comments the member is putting on the record here.
The taxicab industry has been a very complex
and difficult thing since the time I inherited it, a little over five years
ago. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the
industry, in the last few years, there has been a dramatic improvement in terms
of the service and the cars. It is a
difficult industry to be in. There are people who are working for very little
money. It is not a money‑making
industry for most of the people involved.
I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker. We are trying very hard to try and address
some of the concerns. It is very
complex. The chairman of the board at
the present time, as he has been since I put him in as the acting chairman, has
done a very capable job looking at all interests.
Mr. Speaker, it is a service industry. There are two elements to this. It is a quasi‑judicial board of a regulated
industry, and he is trying to meet the concerns of both sides, the users as
well as the suppliers.
Driver
Representation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister
responsible why it is he would not allow a representative from the industry, a
driver‑owner or a driver, to be represented on the board so decisions
that are being made are based on some knowledge from the industry direct, from
all of the stakeholders.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I gave the undertaking that
I had one more position to be filled on the five‑man board, which I will
do, but I have all the confidence in the people who are on the board right now
who are looking after the interests of the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something. The presenters have basically spent less than
an hour of all the time we have spent. The rest of the time has been spent with
the opposition members playing politics with this issue. They are not serving the industry well. If they try and work with the industry
instead of both trying to outdo each other as to who will be getting support
out there, we would be able to make a lot more progress.
Social
Assistance
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
The City of
Last week, the Acting Minister of Urban
Affairs took it as notice. I wonder now
whether the Minister of Urban Affairs can tell us whether an agreement has been
reached or is about to be reached with the City of Winnipeg.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the City of
Some of the details of the project have been
sent back to the city for their review, and I believe they have it under
consideration at this time. A lot of
work still has to be done before we will reach agreement either on a pilot
project or a larger project.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that information, Mr.
Speaker.
I wonder if the minister could advise
whether he would give this a priority classification and use his good offices
to expedite the program, because, as the minister knows, there are 17,000
welfare cases in
So I ask, would he give it the priority that
this particular matter deserves?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that
putting people back to work and looking at the caseload that is accessing
social allowances both at the provincial level in certain areas of the province
and at the municipal level is a priority of government.
I have met with ministers from across the
country. There is a lot of new thinking
coming forward on how we deal with the large increase in social allowance
recipients.
One of the things we would like to see is to
have the federal government make the Canada Assistance Plan more of an active
plan, rather than a passive one. So I
can assure the member we are working on that.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a precedent
for this because the federal government in the mid‑'80s, the Honourable
Jake Epp, agreed to a similar program of cost‑sharing with the provinces
in providing jobs for welfare recipients using welfare funds.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is
whether he would be prepared to look at other municipalities, the City of
Brandon, the City of Portage, Dauphin and elsewhere, to see whether he could
design a similar program.
I note, because we are all concerned about
saving money and so on, that the position of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce
is that the infrastructure renewal program will save money in the long run.
Mr. Gilleshammer: As the member knows, I was not in government
in the mid‑'80s when the member was here.
I do have constituents who ask me about some
of the make‑work projects that were brought forward in the mid‑'80s
and what the lasting effects of those projects are. It is difficult to find any lasting benefit
from some of those projects.
I can tell you that taxpayers who are
wanting on the one hand their taxes kept low are also interested in job
stimulation and certainly are saying very clearly that if government is going
to be involved in creating work and jobs, they want some lasting benefits and
not simply a signage program that leaves nothing lasting after that money has
been spent and, furthermore, not leaving that lasting debt that other
governments have to pay in future years.
Rural
Gasification
Study
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, we have been encouraged that
this government has said they are proceeding with gasification of rural
My question is to the Minister of Rural
Development. When will we see a copy of
the study that is being done on gasification of rural
* (1420)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I have great difficulty with the member's preamble, especially in
light of the fact that just recently we have seen a petition by a member of
that opposition party‑‑or supporting a petition to kill the Ayerst
industry in rural
Mr. Speaker, it appears that every time
there is an opportunity in rural
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the honourable
opposition House leader, I would like to remind the honourable minister to deal
with the matter raised and not provoke debate. I think that is why the
honourable opposition House leader is up.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, my
point of order is that Beauchesne is very clear that answers should not lead to
debate, should deal with the matter raised.
I think the minister should deal with the
question on gasification, a very legitimate question asked by our member, and I
would appreciate an answer.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I had already dealt with that matter.
Natural
Gas Service
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, there are many opportunities in rural
Mr. Speaker, we have been working very
diligently at making sure we can find ways in which we can extend those kinds
of services to rural Manitobans. Once we
are in the position where we can make those announcements with regard to those
projects being feasible, I will be only too happy to stand up and make those
announcements at the time.
Ms. Wowchuk: Obviously, there are no answers for the
people in
Mr. Speaker: And your question is?
Ethanol
Industry
Government
Study
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Can the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
or Rural Development tell us, since there is this tremendous interest in
ethanol development in the province, has this government in any department done
any studies on the value of ethanol production in the province or looked for
markets?
Has any work been done on ethanol
production?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, there has been a substantial amount of information that has been
gathered with regard to an ethanol industry in our province, with regard to a
feedlot industry. If you go back in
history, indeed, we have seen the successes of an ethanol plant in this
province. If we can extend those opportunities
to other communities, we certainly are in favour of that.
Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that we
have put programs in place in this province, such as Grow Bonds, such as REDI,
that help industries throughout our province to establish in the rural parts of
this province, and we will continue to work toward that end.
Foster
Parents
Training
Support
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Yesterday, in response to one of my
questions with regard to training, the minister indicated that there was some
$571,000 that should be spent by the Child and Family Services agencies for
training of foster parents. Of course,
what he did not tell the House was that this was not new money. This was money to have been taken from
dollars that had been previously spent on service for those children.
Can the minister today table any‑‑and
I want to emphasize the word "any"‑‑training program
modules presently in effect in Child and Family Services agencies in the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, yes, I did indicate yesterday that 50 cents a day per child, of days
in care, is dedicated within the funds that are flowed to agencies to provide
that training that was previously provided by the Foster Family
Association. We have indicated that all
of the functions that were in place before are now in place, and funding has
been dedicated to that.
The question of training for foster families
was a subject I think we touched very briefly on in the Estimates process, when
we did spend some 30 hours on the Department of Family Services.
I do not have items here I could table
today, but I would be pleased to provide for the member some of the training
manuals that are used by agency staff as they work with foster families.
Child and
Family Services Agencies
Foster
Parent Contact
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Can he explain that, in light of discussions
I have had with caseworkers, some of whom indicate that in the last six and a
half months, they have not even met 14 or 15 of the foster parents within their
caseload?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I would take a moment just to clarify my statement. What I did
indicate was that the protocol the agencies operate under is that agency staff
should be seeing foster parents at least once a month and that contact should
be made once a month.
There have been indications that some
agencies are not following that protocol.
I have indicated to the staff of the department that they should be
working with those agencies to be sure there is regular contact and that we
work toward that goal of making contact between the worker and the foster
family at least once a month.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit today
that the reason why these contacts are not being made is that the caseload is
so heavy that they simply do not have the time in their workday, let alone
their now limited workweek, to make the contact required?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I would reject that. The agencies develop protocols and plans
whereby front‑line workers work with those families‑‑certainly
have tremendous respect for the very difficult work they do with children who
come from dysfunctional families, who are placed with foster parents or in
institutions to bring them through their formative years.
The agency, I think, in the future has to
make a priority of the contact between workers and families. Some workers do that on a regular basis, and
part of the supervision that the agency must provide for all workers is to see
that this contact is made regularly.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, a meeting of Ukrainian
Canadians on July 18 and 19, 1918, at the Ukrainian community hall in
The Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of
Canada was formed as a result of the dynamic elements of the Ukrainian‑Canadian
community in response to changing needs in the newly settled communities in
Mr. Speaker, recently, we celebrated the
centennial of Ukrainian immigration to
Today we celebrate 75 years of contribution
by the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada to the cultural, economic,
social and spiritual life of our province and our country. Today, we also celebrate the international
contribution of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada.
At a time when Ukrainian orthodoxy was
severely repressed by the Soviet state, the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of
Canada was a major force in keeping Ukrainian orthodoxy alive and well and has
participated in the re‑establishment of that tradition in the
So today, Mr. Speaker, is a time for us to
congratulate the pioneers, the founders, as well as the current leaders and
members of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada for contributing so
much to our society and enriching the lives of so many individuals. I trust that all members of this Legislative
Assembly join me in commemorating and celebrating the 75th anniversary of the
Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Health have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make this
nonpolitical statement yesterday because of the event I attended. It was a very interesting kickoff by the
Canadian National Institute for the Blind who are celebrating their 75th year
of service to the sight impaired of
They are undertaking a nationwide tour of a
bus, which was in my constituency for, I believe, the first event in the
Where one's sight is totally lost so that
they have no sight whatsoever, the technology moves from a sophisticated
magnification system for the severely sight impaired to one where you can lay a
book on top of a scanner and a voice synthesizer intercoupled with a computer
will read the book to the sight impaired.
It is just an absolutely marvellous display of technology that is the
leading edge and has been sponsored by the Canadian National Institute for the
Blind.
Sir, the reason I make this nonpolitical
statement is twofold, firstly, to congratulate the CNIB for 75 years of
incredibly marvellous service to the sight impaired of
Secondly, the reason I make this
nonpolitical statement is that this bus is touring
I would take this opportunity to encourage
all members of the Legislature, if they have the opportunity, to take the
guided tour of this bus. It is truly a
marvellous display of the kind of technological advancement that is available
to help assist in independent living by sight‑impaired Manitobans and
Canadians.
* (1430)
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows:
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the
member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose)
for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson); the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).
I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Arthur‑Virden
(Mr. Downey); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Emerson
(Mr. Penner); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call the bills in this order, please:
Bills 51, 35, 45, 47, 50 and 52.
If there is time after that, maybe we can consider report stages after
that.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 51‑The
Municipal Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 51, The Municipal Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name
of the honourable member for the Interlake, who has 34 minutes remaining.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to just complete my
few comments on Bill 51 so that some other members may want to debate the bill
and pass it on to committee.
Yesterday I was in the process of making a
sentence: Now, the municipalities do not
have the option of not appointing their own or not requesting auditors to put
tenders in. If they do not get their own
auditors, the government would, of course, appoint auditors for them, the grace
of time permitting. I believe it is six
months.
The concern there again is the fact that for
those remote communities, municipalities, jurisdictions, of course being in a
location that is of great distance for auditors to travel and that, I think
that is one of the concerns that we do have.
It may become a problem in future for these communities.
I had the pleasure of going over Bill 51
with the honourable member of St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and the minister's
staff. I have had discussions with the
MAUM people and the UMM executive on this bill, on these changes, and there
really is not anything that we can see, that I can see, will be a problem for
the future for municipalities.
I know that most municipalities have put
resolutions in and worked with the government to make some of these
changes. The one part that I questioned
was section 712.1 where the municipalities requested immunity from action on a
nuisance at one of their conventions. In
Resolution 3, they had requested this provision for absolving municipalities
from liability in whole or in part from nuisance claims.
Mr. Speaker, I had a problem with that. I have received information. I do not see a problem now with it; I
understand it a lot better. It still
leaves open the fact that with municipalities we are not sure exactly how much
liability they would be responsible for in case of a sewage backup or a claim
of nuisance, and it created some problems between them and their insurers and,
of course, anybody who would claim any liability against a municipality.
Mr. Speaker, I know there will be some
representation in committee on Bill 51.
I have had the pleasure of dealing with the municipalities and the
minister's department on this. I do not
see a problem with it. I know my
colleague from
Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, it
can go to committee, and I thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 51. It gives me great pleasure. I would like to thank the minister and his
staff for giving us the briefing.
Since 1988, the government has introduced
legislation which has made a number of modifications to The Municipal Act. Most of these changes or improvements were
intended to meet the needs of those most directly affected by The Municipal
Act.
Mr. Speaker, changes to the old act are
largely generated by request from the association of municipalities. Many of the changes merely bring policy
elsewhere in the province in line with what exists in
Mr. Speaker, the act also allows a
municipality to appoint their own auditor, I think which is very
important. This was previously done by
the province, even though it was the municipality who paid for the auditors.
The only somewhat contentious issue or
change is an addition in 712.1‑‑I think the member for Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans) mentioned it‑‑designed to eliminate the nuisance
claims about sewer and water problems.
The clause states that an individual cannot bring an action against the
city for anything the city does under the act without negligence. This may be seen to mean an individual has to
prove the municipality is negligent before that individual can begin a suit for
damages. This seems like a lot of
protection for a municipality wanting to avoid negotiating a damages claim out
of court.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
* (1440)
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Minister of
Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) presented this bill to the House, he mentioned
that much consultation between the rural municipalities and urban
municipalities had taken place in order to effect these changes. I feel the
consultation is very important in order to bring forth the legislation that
will meet the needs of the community. However, public input is also very
important.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be the only one
speaking on this bill. We are prepared
to let it go to committee and see that it goes through the legislation in this
session. With this, I conclude my
remarks.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Madam Deputy Speaker, as my colleague from
the Interlake has indicated, many of these amendments that are brought into the
assessment act are amendments that have been asked for by the various
municipalities and have been lobbied for by the municipal bodies. We have very little difficulty with most of
them. There are a few areas of concern,
not major concern, but some concerns that I have with what is happening within
rural development and some of things that are happening under this government's
jurisdiction as it relates to rural
I guess that, when I first saw the two bills
that were brought in by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I was
quite disappointed that the minister did not take the opportunity to address a
concern that has been raised in the Swan River area and one that I have raised
with this government since I have been elected to this House, and that is the
issue of the taxation on the Swan River airport.
As you are aware, I tried to raise that
matter under a private member's bill, but I was not able to do that. I have raised it with the previous Minister
of Rural Development and this Minister of Rural Development, and I was quite
sure that, when amendments were being made to The Municipal Act, either one of
the amendments, the minister would address those concerns. I am disappointed that he has not taken that
opportunity to address a minor change that would have taken place that would
have benefited the people of the
I would hope that he would have taken this
suggestion very seriously from the people, but we are not seeing any
action. I can assure him that we will
continue to lobby very hard over the next little while to have the changes
made. Perhaps, when he is looking at the
review of the whole Municipal Act, he will give very serious consideration to the
concern of not only the people of the Swan River area, but I believe that there
are other areas that also have the same situation in them. It is not fair that one community‑‑namely,
the community of Neepawa‑‑should have the exemption, the ability to
have exemption on their airport, but the other parts of the province do not
have that ability. So I would encourage
the minister to address that concern very soon.
The one part of the bill that I am pleased
to see is brought in is the ability for municipalities to invest their money in
different ways. I recall a time when I
was on council, and we had an administrator who was quite shrewd and had the
ability to invest money and, in fact, did invest money in some areas where they
should not have been invested in. He, in
fact, got his hands slapped quite quickly by the auditor.
As a municipality, we made some fairly good
investments, but they were not legal.
This amendment will give all municipalities the ability to have the
flexibility to make investments in different areas and generate some revenue,
because certainly they do need revenue.
With the cutbacks that we have seen this government make to
municipalities, the offloading we have seen them make, the municipalities have
to be aggressive and look at ways that they can be resourceful and raise some
revenues, so this will give them the opportunity.
As I say, Madam Deputy Speaker,
municipalities have certainly felt the impacts of the actions of this
government, particularly in the offloading of roads which took place a few
years ago. I look at those offloading of
roads. In my constituency, that was a
great concern because, with some of the roads that were offloaded, the
municipalities just felt they could not maintain. They were beyond their
ability.
That, in fact, is happening right now in the
R.M. of Ethelbert. One of the roads that
were offloaded into the R.M. of Ethelbert was devastated by the flooding. It is just an indication that with some of
these roads, if there was not the disaster assistance funding, the
municipalities would just not be able to pick up these extra costs. Certainly, the municipalities are feeling
impacts in other areas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The area of the municipalities having the
ability to appoint their own auditors seems to be fair in giving the
municipalities more power, but I wonder if there will be difficulty for some of
the municipalities that are in more remote areas for them to find auditors in
their communities, and if that is the case, whether the department will still
be able to be of assistance or appoint them.
I also am concerned that this could be of higher cost to some
municipalities than they were when there were government‑appointed
auditors, and that will be something that will be interesting to follow.
Certainly, I think that it is very good that
all of the reports‑‑and I do not know if this is a change or
whether you always had to have all reports available to the public. If it is a new change, then I commend the
government for making that change because many people are interested in what
all the other boards and committees of the local government are doing.
The area of immunity from nuisance, if this
is bringing it in consistency with the other parts of the province, then I
think that is a good amendment.
When I have talked to the municipalities in
my area, they are in support of most of the changes. I have not heard very many negative comments
about what is being brought forward in this legislation. We look forward to it going to committee, and
certainly once the changes are made and there is a problem for municipalities,
we will certainly bring those problems to the minister's attention and work
towards getting them rectified.
So, with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
close my comments. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 51, The Municipal Amendment Act (2). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? (agreed)
Bill 35‑The
Fisheries Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 35
(The Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la peche), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will only be speaking
very briefly on this bill. The reason I
do want to speak is because I represent a number of communities that are very
dependent in terms of fishing, and I want to indicate, first of all, that it is
pretty tough times for a lot of fishermen in my constituency. This is reflected in low prices. It has been something that has been hurt
significantly, an industry hurt by cuts in terms of the freight subsidy that
took place two years ago. I have many
people who are currently faced with quota restrictions for conservation
measures; it is a very tough situation for many people in the fishing industry.
My view in this bill is that when we are
dealing with quotas, there has to be consideration of possible impact in
northern
I do want to indicate that we feel that if
there is going to be any sale quota system, there should be some opportunity
for local communities to have right of first refusal, first option. That is
important. I think it is important to
keep control of the quota within the resource areas of the local
constituencies, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this is something we will be
continuing to raise in committee.
* (1450)
With those comments, I want to stress again
the very difficult situation facing commercial fishermen at the current point
in time. I think all too often when we
look at the fishing industry we look at the coastal fishing industries; we do
not look at the freshwater situation.
I want to take this opportunity on this
particular bill to really ask the government to look very seriously at some of
the concerns being expressed by people in the fishing industry. I have pursued some of these with government
representatives. We will be doing so in
the future, but something has to be done if we are going to save a very
important source of employment for many communities, particularly in northern
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Many of my communities are affected by the
fishing industry. There is the community of Winnipegosis, Camperville,
There are many problems within the fishing
community that the provincial government should be addressing and also that
should be raised with the federal government, but unfortunately these matters
have been raised many times. The
difficult economic situation in those communities has been raised, but to no
avail. The whole problem of stocking the lakes and the freight assistance
removal in some of the communities is making it more difficult.
The unemployment insurance requirements, the
people from Winnipegosis, Camperville,
Before this kind of legislation is brought
in we have to allow the people to have input.
I think that should happen before this legislation is passed. The government representatives should go to
those communities and see what the impacts are.
As we understand it, the request for the sale of quota has not come from
the fishermen. In fact, it has come from
the banks. The CEDF and other financial
groups are the ones that are lobbying for the sale of quota. That causes great concern.
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that before
this legislation can pass, there has to be more consultation with the
communities. We have to be assured that
the communities have the right of first refusal, that is, that northern
communities can have control. There is a
real concern that when the opportunities to sell quota arises, some of these
people are desperate right now and may sell off their quota and then when the
price of fish improves or the prices go up, they will not have the ability to
make a living off these lakes. There is
a concern that the control of all the quota could fall into the hands of a few.
As I say, there is a desperate
situation. People need money. They may decide to sell their quota and then
not have the ability to make a living.
So, if someone else has a control of that quota, when the prices are
high, they may come in there to fish.
When the prices are low, there will be no economic activity in those
communities and that will only intensify the problems that we have in those
communities.
Another concern is the whole issue of First
Nations and their right to quota. What
will be the impact on the First Nations, if the quota is sold and it leaves the
community, if this is a violation of the rights of the First Nations people who
do have the right to sell fish? If that
quota is sold off, are their rights being violated? Is the government going to end up buying back
this quota to meet the requirements of the First Nations people? So I think we have to look. The government has overlooked that part of
it. They have not addressed the part of
treaty rights, and this could be an oversight on their part.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are some serious
concerns with this bill, and I do not think the government has done its work on
it. When we get to committee, we will be
bringing in some amendments to the bill.
I hope that the government will give those amendments serious
consideration so that if this bill passes, it will at least meet some of the
needs of the people in the community, and assure that the economic activity
stays in those communities, particularly when we look at the high unemployment
rates in many, many of those communities.
We want to see economic activity there.
We do not want to see everything drained off as we have seen in other
instances.
With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
close debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 35, The Fisheries Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, to accommodate some work of the House leaders, I would ask if
you could please call, instead of Bill 45, Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act (2).
Bill 47‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 47,
The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la
location a usage d'habitation), standing in the name of the honourable member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Yes, I
believe we will grant leave to allow the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) to
speak after the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) during the course of the
debate today, but not to leave it standing.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I knew that I was going to be speaking on
this bill today, and so I was thinking about it this morning, but I was
thinking about how irrelevant it seemed to have to come here and speak today in
debate, since this morning I was working at Habitat for Humanity, as I was
yesterday along with my colleague the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes). I believe that the Minister of
Housing (Mr. Ernst) was there yesterday, and our Leader, the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer), was there yesterday, along with former President Jimmy
Carter and about 700 volunteers.
It seems much more satisfying to actually
work on building a house than to debate legislation that affects tenants, even
though this legislation will affect thousands of people. There is a great sense of satisfaction in
actually building a house and seeing the results of your labour, as compared to
speaking when you very seldom see the results of your labour other than in
print form in a bill, although I would certainly say that housing legislation
has a great, great impact on a very large number of people.
Nonetheless, it is thrilling to be on a work
site and see 18 houses being built all at once, especially the first day when
all you could hear at eight o'clock in the morning was the sound of nails being
pounded and nothing else, just the sound of‑‑well, I do not know
whether there were 700 people, but I think there were about 10 to 20 people on
each work crew working on 18 houses simultaneously.
By the time I left yesterday at noon we had
the roof trusses up on our house. This
morning when I got back they had shingled the roofs, and we were working on
drywalling when I left at noon today.
When I go back tomorrow, they will probably have the drywall all taped.
It is really quite amazing to see people
move into a house on Friday afternoon or Saturday morning that was only a
foundation and a floor on Monday morning.
So I commend all the volunteers and the other members in this
Legislature for being a part of that.
* (1500)
The housing legislation, The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act (2), Bill 47, has a very interesting history. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) referred to some of that history, and I would like to
do the same because it has had a very long and interesting history. In fact, the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs made some unfair comments about my party and what we did or
did not do during our term of office.
Her memory was rather selective, because she failed to point out that in
1982 the government of the day, the Pawley NDP government, brought back rent control,
which was a very significant piece of legislation. They brought it back because the Sterling
Lyon Conservative government had removed rent control, I believe, in 1980. So that was the first major piece of legislation
affecting tenants that the NDP brought in in 1982.
In 1985, they appointed a landlord and
tenant advisory committee, a review committee, and I was an alternate delegate
on that committee representing low‑income tenants. It was very interesting to be a part of that
process and to sit down and talk with representatives of landlord organizations
and property manager organizations and civil servants. The review committee tried to act on the
basis of consensus, and so, in our final report, the recommendations were
either based on consensus or near consensus.
Most of those recommendations were accepted by the government of the day
who drafted legislation but were not in government when it was brought forward.
One of the major parts of this bill has to
do with security deposits. Certainly,
security deposits were one of the more controversial items that were discussed
by that committee, along with things like condition reports. It is very interesting to be on a committee
where people have somewhat different interests and different viewpoints. The small landlords were represented by the
On some things, we had agreement. There were things landlords asked for that
they got sometimes because tenants made concessions. There were things they asked for that they
did not get. Similarly, with tenants,
there were things tenants asked for that they got, and there were things
tenants asked for that they did not get.
So there was some horse trading.
There was a great attempt to balance the interests of landlords and
tenants, and I would say that the original Residential Tenancies and
Consequential Amendments Act which was proclaimed September 1, 1992, was really
a compromise, and I think a rather careful balancing of the interests of
landlords and tenants, which I think is why it got all‑party support when
it went through this Chamber on December 14, 1990.
But some things naturally were
controversial, for example, condition reports.
The property managers said, we do not want condition of suites reports
to be mandatory because we already do them.
It is widespread in our industry.
And the small landlord said, no, we do not want to do this. The tenants said, we think it should be
compulsory for all landlords and tenants that they must fill out a condition
report on the condition of a suite before moving in, and the result in the act
is really a compromise of those two positions.
Similarly with security deposits,
particularly low‑income tenants who feel that many, many landlords take
advantage of them over their security deposits.
Low‑income tenants and their representatives on the review
committee wanted the security deposit provisions to be tightened up
considerably and wanted ideally for the department to hold all security
deposits in trust. There was some
support for that position by civil servants, because they knew firsthand some
of the problems.
One of the problems that we had proof of
from our experience in the community was trying to track down security
deposits, particularly when a company was owned out of province or when
buildings changed hands and the security deposit did not seem to be readily
available.
In fact, I had experience in that regard
because I represented a tenant who moved to
This tenant had lived in the same building
for many, many years and so had put down a very small security deposit maybe 10
or 15 years previously. It took two
years to get it back plus the interest because the department had to trace the
ownership of the building and try and get the security deposit back from
whoever was responsible for it.
I remember very clearly the staff on the
review committee saying that a third of all their staff time was spent tracking
down security deposits, so they were very sympathetic about tightening the
provisions around security deposits.
So we saw a major change in that area where
all landlords were required to put security deposits in a trust account or to
have a bond or some other kind of security or surety for that amount of money
so that when tenants moved out the money would be there.
Now I understand that one of the reasons for
this bill is that landlords were given a one‑year grace period to set up
those security deposits in trust, and since the bill was proclaimed September 1
last year, the deadline was September 1 this year.
I think that the real reason for the major
change in here around security deposits was that some landlords did not have
the money to put in the security deposit because they have been using it for
operating funds.
In fact, that is something that tenants
groups and their spokespeople and myself and others alleged in the past that
the landlords frequently did not have the money when tenants moved out because
the money was not there because the landlords were using it for operating
expenses.
In fact, I did a little bit of research on
this. I phoned my landlord and I said,
what do you think of this change? Are
you in favour of it? Do you think it is
a good change? He said, oh, yes, I like
that change in this bill because now I can use that money for my operating
expenses. He proved what we had been
saying all through the 1980s, that landlords used the money for operating
expenses, did not have the money in the bank, so it was not there when the
tenant moved out. This may not be a
problem for large companies who have a large cash flow, but it was certainly a
problem with small landlords, the slum landlords who were taking advantage of
their tenants.
This becomes a severe problem with people on
social assistance, because if they move out and they do not get their security
deposit back, if they are entitled to it because there has not been any damage,
then where do they take their money for the next security deposit? The social assistance rules have been
considerably tightened up on this. They
used to give you a second security deposit.
They do not anymore. You have
one, and if you lose it, the money is deducted from your cheque.
What are people to do? The only discretionary funds they have are
either food allowance, special needs‑‑no, pardon me, food allowance
or household needs or personal needs.
Those are the only three discretionary items in a welfare budget. The largest one is food, so they take the money
out of their food allowance for a security deposit for the next place to live.
Then what do they do to eat? Well, they
make the rounds of‑‑or they go to a food bank to help get them
through the month.
It may seem like a small issue to the
majority of people who maybe have the money on hand or can get the money or have
a stable income or a large enough income that they can replace the security
deposit. When people are very poor, when
people are on social assistance, it becomes a major hardship. I know this from personal experience, from
working in the community with these people and hearing their stories.
Security deposits have always been an
important issue, and they continue to be an important issue. So why is this government doing it? I think they are doing it because of pressure
from their landlord friends who did not have the money, who did not want to set
up the trust accounts and had a deadline of September 1. I believe this government is letting them off
the hook.
I have talked to staff. I have been briefed. I have been told that the reason for this
change is that they only want to deal with the bad actors, that they only want
to have tough provisions in this bill in order to call in the security deposits
of the landlords who are trying to take advantage of tenants. Perhaps, when we
get into clause by clause, we can look at this bill and see whether that is
actually going to happen, whether this bill does give the Residential Tenancies
Branch more authority to actually do that.
We have been told that they do, but I wonder about that.
When this bill was introduced, I asked the
minister in Question Period, who was consulted, what tenant groups, what
landlord groups? The minister refused to
answer those questions. I was
disappointed in that, but that was her choice, although she did tell me later
that she would be quite happy to table a list.
When she was given the opportunity, she did not.
I suspect that she has met with lots of
landlord groups. I do not know of any
tenant organizations. There is the
housing coalition, but I think there are very few tenants on it. It is a group mostly of people who work in
the inner city, work in the community, work for various organizations. They have made recommendations to the
minister. I have copies of some of their
correspondence, and I think they made some good recommendations, but I think
that the overwhelming number of representations made to this minister was by
landlords.
* (1510)
Another major concern, particularly of low‑income
tenants, that I think is not addressed by this bill‑‑in fact, I
would say that this bill makes the situation worse‑‑is that
landlords will be compensated out of the security deposit funds for unpaid rent
and cleaning. I think this is a
significant departure, because I think when you set up a security deposit it
should be for one reason only. The only
purpose, and I think in the past this has been the only purpose, is to use that
money to compensate a landlord where the tenant has caused damage. No one quarrels with that principle, but I
believe this is a significant departure when the landlord can use that money
for unpaid rent. I would have to compare the act and this bill and see if that
is true, but cleaning, I do not recall that landlords ever in the past have
been allowed to use security deposit money for cleaning.
Cleaning an apartment may seem like an
insignificant thing, but it is not, because unscrupulous landlords use cleaning
an apartment either to fleece tenants or to get money that they would not
ordinarily be entitled to. Allowing them
to use the security deposit to do that makes it much, much easier, much, much
simpler for landlords.
In the past when somebody moved out they
would send them a bill for cleaning, and tenants had almost no recourse to
challenge the validity of the bill. I
have had many, many people complain to me saying, look, we moved out and the
place was clean and the landlord gave us a bill for $100 or $200 for cleaning.
Why is he doing this?
I doubt very much if a branch wanted to
investigate complaints like this, or if they did, if they had any power to do
anything about it. But who is going to
monitor this and say it was a reasonable cleaning bill or an unreasonable
cleaning bill or whether it actually happened?
The tenant is not going to get back in to see the suite. Is the branch going to send somebody out to
look at the suite and see whether it was cleaned at all, and if so, whether the
amount could be justified? I do not think
so. I do not think the branch has that
kind of resources. They do not have
enough staff to do that.
I think this is a huge loophole for some
landlords who are going to take some tenants to the cleaners with their
cleaning bill, unfair cleaning bills. We
will be watching to see if this new gift, this new loophole for landlords, is
going to be detrimental to tenants, particularly low income tenants who do not
have the wherewithal to fight for their rights.
Really, what this kind of legislation is all
about is about power, and whether or not the government of the day is willing
to balance the power relationship between landlords and tenants or whether they
are going to tip it in favour. As I said
with the original Residential Tenancies Act, there seems to be a reasonably
fair balance of power. I think this
government is tipping that balance in favour of landlords.
Landlords have always had more power than
tenants, regardless of whether there was legislation, because most landlords
can afford to hire a lawyer. People who
can hire a lawyer have a significant advantage because you do not even have to
be an expert. You hire the lawyer who is
an expert on your behalf, and lawyers can get a copy of legislation. They can read it; they can use it to the
advantage of the person they represent.
In almost every case, that is not a tenant. That is a lawyer. Very few tenants will go to the trouble or
can afford to hire a lawyer.
There are some changes that have been made
that mean people do not need to use lawyers anymore. The Residential Tenancies Act set up a housing
court or Residential Tenancies Commission. People can go and present their case
in person to the commission, and they do not need a lawyer.
In fact, I went to the commission because I
was helping some tenants with a rent increase appeal. It was very interesting because the landlord
was there and there were about 20 tenants there. They had two or three people who were
speaking on their behalf, and I spoke briefly at the end as well. The tenants really did a marvellous job,
Madam Deputy Speaker. They were very
well prepared. They had a computer
printout of their rent increases for the last number of years for every
suite. They had really done their
homework. They had done a lot of
research as to how much the rent was for each apartment before and after rent
increases. Regrettably, they lost their
rent increase appeal.
The most fascinating thing was that there
was an individual, who got up as a spokesperson for himself and for other
tenants, who questioned the landlord. I
watched the commissioner, and he had a most bemused look on his face and for a
very good reason. I found it bemusing as well, because this gentleman, who
actually works in this building and whom I see almost on a daily basis here,
did an excellent job.
I am sure he has never been trained in the
law, but he was interviewing and questioning the landlord as if he was a
lawyer. His questions were dead on. They
were just excellent questions. He was really putting the landlord on the spot,
and the commissioner just let him go for about 20 minutes or half an hour,
asking just a stream of excellent questions.
So that is one thing that I think, at least
from my one observation of being at the Residential Tenancies Commission, my
experience in my brief and short observations there, that suggests it works
reasonably well.
Certainly, it is much easier for tenants to
go to a housing court and speak on their own behalf than to have to hire a
lawyer and go to the Court of Queen's Bench.
Probably they would not be allowed to represent themselves at the Court
of Queen's Bench. I think the judge
would require that they have legal representation. Well, I should ask my colleague the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), if someone goes to the Court of Queen's Bench are they
supposed to have a lawyer? Would the
judge require them to have a lawyer normally? (interjection) They are not
required to have a lawyer, but, certainly, people would be at a disadvantage if
they went and the landlord had a lawyer and the tenant did not. It would be an unfair contest. The system would prefer that they have a
lawyer. So that is one good thing about
the Residential Tenancies Commission.
Now these tenants were very disappointed and
did not understand why they lost their rent appeal because they thought that
they had an airtight case, but most tenants do not realize that what we really
have in Manitoba is not rent control but a rent pass‑through system, so
that if a landlord can justify their costs almost any legitimate capital expense
can be passed through to tenants. Most
tenants do not understand that until they appeal a rent increase, and then they
are forced to confront the law and what it really says in the rent control
provisions of The Residential Tenancies Act.
I would like to spend a little bit of time
talking about the minister's debate on second reading. I noticed that several times she referred to
my absence which is unparliamentary. The
rules of this House say that we are not to refer to the presence or absence of
members. The Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) did that two or three times in the course of
her debate, and I am sorry that nobody corrected her or the chair did not
correct her.
The minister mentioned that she had reviewed
the legislation which had been in place for 10 months, and as I have already
said, I believe that the minister is acting with undue haste. I think, with such a major act, probably
waiting a year or two before amendments would have been reasonable.
I think this minister had a reason for doing
this now. The reason is that the one‑year
grace period is expiring on September 1, and this minister was under pressure
from landlords to get this changed before the act took effect.
* (1520)
If some smart legal beagle wanted to go to
court they would probably win on this, because it is in the act and the grace
period is not in the act. I do not think
the grace period is in the regulations.
I think it is just an understanding between the minister and her staff
and landlords that they are given this grace period. If somebody went to court and challenged it
they would probably win.
The minister talked a lot about how
landlords and tenants and staff had suggested improvements. Well, I am sure that her staff had suggested
improvements. I would be particularly
interested in knowing which landlords suggested improvements and how many of
them and which tenants suggested improvements and how many of them, but I do
not think we are going to get that kind of information from the minister. In fact, it would have been much preferable
if the minister had set up some kind of review committee with landlords and
tenants and civil servants on it to review the legislation, and then we would
have felt that there was a much fairer process for introducing these
amendments.
The minister talked about the cost of
auditing landlord security deposit trust accounts. I realize that anything which is a cost to
government, particularly if it is a significant increase, is not
desirable. I am wondering if the
minister looked at alternatives or if she had alternatives.
For example, if the department holds all the
security deposits in trust, then there is interest earned on those trust
amounts. Some of that money, of course,
would have to be used to give the tenants their interest on the security
deposit, but some of it possibly could have been used to pay for the staff cost
of keeping the money in the branch. I
think that is one alternative that the minister could have considered.
Another one is that perhaps the minister
could have asked the landlords to submit an audited financial statement of
either their business operation or their security deposit trust accounts and
let the landlords bear the cost of auditing rather than the department. Instead, the minister has chosen to go her
own way.
The minister said that the cost of staff for
her department was of no concern to the member for Burrows. This is certainly not true, as I have already
said.
The minister said that landlords fail to
return their deposits very rarely, that they have had very rare cases of this
happening. I think there are two
different situations. There is the
situation of what gets reported to the department by individuals who say, the
landlord did not return the security deposit.
The other situation is what is happening out there in the community that
never gets reported, because there are large numbers of people who do not know
their rights. Probably very few people
take the trouble of going to Queen's Printer and paying $12 for an act like
this and reading it and understanding it, because it is rather complicated
legislation.
People, first of all, do not know their
rights. They do not know where to
complain, and they do not know what to do, so when they get ripped off they do
not do anything. I hear about it when I
go door to door in apartment buildings.
Other MLAs hear about their problems when they meet their constituents
on the doorstep. Some organizations that
work in the community hear about these problems. I think, in many, many cases, the Residential
Tenancies Branch does not hear from these people.
In fact, frequently I get phone calls in my
constituency office from people asking very elementary questions. I have no problem with that. I am there to serve the public. My office is there to serve the public, and
we certainly do not mind giving people a phone number. Frequently people do not know which level of
government or what department it is or how to look it up in the back of the
phone book and even get something which to us seems a very simple thing, and
that is the phone number and the right department to phone when you have a
complaint or a problem.
Certainly these kinds of people do not know
where to phone to complain if they do not get a security deposit back. They do not know their rights, and they do
not know where to go. They do not know
what the remedy is, and they do not know how to go about getting it.
There are many, many reasons why this
happens. I mean, we are talking about
people, many of whom are illiterate.
Those kinds of people are not going to pick
up The Residential Tenancies Act and read it and understand it. The original act had 207 clauses, 119 pages,
and this is fairly complicated legislation, as anyone who would compare Bill
47, the amendment that we are debating with the original act, would readily
conclude that we are talking about complicated legislation.
So many of those people are functionally
illiterate. Many of those people have so
many personal problems to deal with, which can best be described as survival,
that they do not have time, and they are not going to take the trouble to do
something which to us would seem obvious and important, like getting a security
deposit back. That is tragic because
they take the money, as I have said before, out of their food allowance, and
then they are forced to do things like go to food banks. Very, very tragic.
I think there are many more people than this
minister is willing to acknowledge out there in the community who do lose their
security deposits, who do get taken advantage of by landlords, who are being
ripped off. They do not seek a remedy,
and they should. There are very
understandable and obvious reasons why they do not.
I believe that the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) has a responsibility to educate consumers of
rental accommodation, to inform them of their rights, and to inform them of
where to go if they need help.
I have been trying to do that as well. In fact, I would like to thank the minister
because her staff, when I sent out mail to all the tenants in Burrows
constituency, I checked with the director of the Residential Tenancies Branch
to make sure that it was accurate, and I appreciate the director of that branch
taking the time to check what I had said about tenants' rights for accuracy.
I sent out a mailing to every apartment
building and every house that was rented that we could identify in Burrows
constituency, and I know other members have done that as well.
Similarly, with these amendments, I would
hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would do some
education, not just to landlords who are going to find out about these
amendments, but also to tenants so that they know how they will be affected.
An Honourable Member: Can you figure out what to do on that?
Mr. Martindale: We know what to do.
An Honourable Member: How much time left?
Mr. Martindale: The member will be interested to know that I am
almost finished.
We know why the government is bringing in
this bill. We know who has been talking
to them and how they have been influenced to bring in this legislation. We believe that they are tipping the balance
in favour of landlords and against the interests of tenants. It is unfortunate that they have taken this
view and decided to do this for a number of reasons, but that was their
choice. They have done it, and we
believe that when tenants find out the true impact of this bill, they are going
to be extremely disappointed in the actions of this government.
The minister mentioned that she is giving
landlords and tenants more time to resolve security deposit disputes. In fact, I think in several places these
amendments say that the amount of time has been changed from 14 days to 28
days. I think that might just give
landlords a longer time to earn interest on the tenants' money.
I am going to conclude in talking about the
tenants' money. I think what we have to remember, and I do not think the
government has remembered this, is that when we are talking about security
deposits, we are talking about tenants' money.
In
In fact, you could also argue that it is the
taxpayers' money because a lot of this money paid out in security deposits is
paid on behalf of people on social assistance and so the government needs to
ask, are they getting good value for the taxpayers of
It has been estimated that there is
something like $60 million paid in rent to people on social assistance in the
inner city in
* (1530)
In many cases, this leads to expenses in
other government departments. I went
door to door in an apartment building last winter where I ran into people who
were moving out because it was cold and they could not get the landlord to fix
things up. In fact, in January when it
was very cold in this apartment building the landlord was in
In one case there was a mother who was a
student at
Unfortunately, it was another example of
where tenants did not know their rights and did not know what to do. I went door to door with work order requests
and told the tenants how to fill them out and where to send them so that the
Residential Tenancies Branch could try and enforce work orders so that there
were repairs so that people did not have to live in very, very cold apartments
in January.
With those remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
will conclude my time on Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and
speak to this legislation, Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act,
and the impact that it has upon, in particular, people of my community and
others, of course, as the member for Burrows has indicated through his own
personal experiences, and the way this legislation will impact upon others that
he is familiar with and people he has dealt with over the course of his time as
critic for Housing. Of course, he has an
extensive knowledge and background in dealing with housing issues, and we rely
greatly on that experience for some guidance in dealing with issues that might
affect members of our own community.
I look back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the
history of The Residential Tenancies Act and when it was brought into being to
deal with issues to resolve, as a mechanism to deal with in a fair and
impartial manner issues that might come from time to time into dispute between
landlords and tenants. There has been a
sheet that has been prepared that reminds us of the history of The Residential
Tenancies Act.
In 1985, there was a revisiting of the 1970
Landlord and Tenant Act where the landlords, tenants and government were to
investigate and make recommendations on The Landlord and Tenant Act as a means
of giving both sides the opportunity to air their concerns and to provide
advice to government, so that government might come forward with legislation
that would be beneficial to both sides, both the landlords and the tenants.
In 1987, I believe the government released a
report that had 139 recommendations. It
is my understanding there was a full consensus from all parties that were
involved in that report. In that sense,
you would think that there might be, from time to time, some areas that would
be in dispute where both parties might not agree and there might be a minority
report that would be filed, but that was not the case in this, where there were
139 recommendations. In fact, there was
a full consensus on all of those 139 recommendations.
In 1988, the government of the day then had
announced a bill in the throne speech that was going to come forward to act on
the recommendations. Of course, the
events of the history are known to most members of the House and to most
Manitobans. The government changed, and
that bill did not get introduced into the Chamber at that time.
It was over a year later that the new
government decided they wanted to bring forward the legislation. They had promised they would bring in the
legislation in the spring of 1989. That
did not occur. It is my understanding
that the then‑Minister of Housing waited until September, until the fall
of 1989 to introduce Bill 42, The Residential Tenancies Act.
Now, when that bill came in, it acted on
some of the recommendations. At that
time, it had created some problems for the government of the day, for this
particular government, in that it created some problems for the landlords, and
the landlords I believe brought some pressure to bear upon the government
because they had concerns about specific portions of the bill.
The Minister of Housing promised that the
bill would pass during that session.
That session carried over of course into the spring of 1990. The minister had said, and there is a quote
here: There is not a chance of lifting
this bill, we are not going to do it.
So the minister said that he was going to
follow through with the bill and that he agreed and supported the
legislation. In fact, he went as far as
saying that he and his department did not spend 18 months working on it to have
it die somewhere. That reference I
believe was to do with the bill dying on the Order Paper.
Unfortunately, it was not long after that, I
think it was some three days later that the minister, under pressure I believe
from the landlords and in fact from his own Premier, withdrew the bill. It may have been that the Premier intervened
on behalf of the landlords to actually kill the bill before it passed.
In fact, I think it was the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer), who, three days after that point, after having some
suspicions that the landlords had a hand in what was taking place and, in fact,
had lobbied the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to withdraw the legislation, had tabled
letters from developers and landlords showing and, in actual fact, proving that
the Filmon government had sided with the landlords, overruled the minister and,
in fact, killed the bill.
It is unfortunate that special interest
groups like that‑‑even after they had been in full agreement with
the earlier report, which had 139 recommendations, it was obvious that the
landlords had agreed to those recommendations as well, because it was a full
consensus for that report‑‑had put pressure upon the Premier to
withdraw that legislation, something that the government had agreed to and that
the landlords and tenants had all agreed to.
Yet the landlords felt because, I suppose, they had a friendly ear in
the government benches, that they could put pressure and lobby their friends to
withdraw certain portions that they felt were not in their own specific
interests.
It was after that time, of course, following
the election in the fall of 1990, that the government brought in what we
consider to be a revised or watered‑down version of The Residential Tenancies
Act. Unfortunately, the bill was passed,
but it was not proclaimed. We believe
that it was a compromise bill. It struck
out a compromise position for both landlords and tenants, and, in that sense,
we were supportive. Even though we had
some reservations about certain portions of it, we thought it was a reasonable
compromise.
The minister said that it should have been
proclaimed by February of '91, but of course that did not happen. Then there was a cabinet shuffle in 1991, and
there was a change in the Minister of Housing, and, of course, the current
Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) says that work was continuing in completing for
the proclamation of the bill.
Now, I am not sure what work was continuing
after the bill had passed through the Legislature; maybe it was the regulations
that were being worked on. I am not
sure, or I am unclear on that part, but we know that, during that period of
time when the new Minister of Housing had taken over, it was about the time
that the housing authority was abolished, and the minister, in fact, fired some
600 volunteers in this province. So not
only was the bill not proclaimed after effective lobbying obviously on the part
of the landlords, but they got rid of 600 volunteers for the housing authorities. Instead, the minister still refused to act on
that residential tenancies act.
Now, I guess it is something that only the
government members, cabinet members, would know, or maybe even the caucus
members of the Conservative Party would know, why the government would only
listen to one special interest group, and would not want to represent the
balanced interest of even members of their constituency who might live in
rental accommodations. They chose
instead to represent only one specific interest, and that being the landlords.
In other words, in 1992‑‑(interjection)
I am surprised that even the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) did not decide
that he wanted to represent any renters who might be in his community. I would think that since there was a full
consensus in 1987 on the part of landlords and tenants, the Minister of Health
would have thought that it was a reasonable compromise to protect renters in
his own community, but even the Minister of Health senses that it is more
politically advantageous for him to represent the landlords' interests than it
is his own tenants.
* (1540)
Now, I hope that the members of community
who might be in rental accommodations would sense that the Minister of Health,
in that sense, was not representing their interests. But I am sure that the Minister of Health
will be prepared to explain that to them should that opportunity arise.
In 1992, Madam Deputy Speaker, the debate
continued. My colleague the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) continued to ask questions about the Minister of
Housing why the act was not being proclaimed.
The minister kept saying that the target date for proclamation of the
legislation had been late spring or early summer '92, but she said that that
remained her target. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass. Then the minister said that they were
continuing to consult with all groups and planned to have it finished in the
spring or summer. Well‑‑(interjection) Yes, it would be nice if
there was some sharing, because members on this side of the House are usually
used to sharing any goods or any produce that we have.
I know the member for
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, represents a
history of the residential tenancies in the province. Now we run into the ongoing problem, and it
is a contentious part of the legislation, at least for some members of the
industry, and that is the security deposit.
Before I get into any discussions about the security deposit aspect, I
want to spend a few minutes talking about my own constituency and the rental
accommodations in Transcona.
From information that I saw just as recently
as yesterday, Transcona is a family‑oriented community in the sense that
a large portion of it is single‑family dwellings. Approximately 70 percent are owned and
families occupy those dwellings, but about 30 percent of the people in the
community reside in rental accommodations whether it be housing or apartment
units.
In fact, during the 1990 campaign and in the
times that I have gone door to door within my own community and gone to the
apartment complexes in the community, one of the things that I have noticed and
in particular in the eastern portion of my community, is that a large number of
the rental accommodations in the sense of apartments are occupied by either
seniors or single‑parent families.
Now I mention that because when I look at
the changes to this legislation in the sense where the security deposit will
not be protected the way it had been intended under the original act, The
Residential Tenancies Act, I think that it is going to create some difficulties
for the seniors and for the single‑parent families who might not have the
financial ability or the wherewithal to bring about any resolution of any
conflict that might arise and who might not have either the will or the
financial resources to go after the refund of any security deposits that might
be withheld by any landlords for various reasons that might occur.
Now had those security deposits been placed
into a trust account, it would have given the opportunity for the landlord, if
there were problems with the rental accommodations when the people move out, to
make some representation to recover any costs.
Now it is my understanding in listening to the comments from the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and through some of the questions that have
occurred in Question Period and some of the debate that has taken place that
this security deposit fund represents some $20 million to $25 million in
tenants' security deposit money. If that
money had been held in a trust account, it would have been safe and secure so
that when the tenants moved out, if there were no problems with the
accommodations that were being vacated, those monies would be immediately
repayable to the tenants with interest.
Now, with this change that the minister is
proposing, it is going to give the opportunity for the landlords to once again
use that security deposit money as their own cash flow. I am convinced that is not in the best
interests of the people who are renting the accommodations from the landlord.
I would think that with the mechanisms that
are in place, from what I know of them and their ability to react to any
concerns that either the tenants or the landlords have had, the security
deposits that would have been held in trust would have been able to be accessed
by any landlords that had any claims to make against those deposits for any
damages that might have occurred in the rental accommodations.
This money will be allowed to be used by the
landlords as far as a cash flow is concerned, and in that sense one never
really knows the financial position from week to week or from month to month or
year to year for any of the landlords who now have that money in their
trust. They can use that money for the
operations of their accommodations, or they can use that money for some other
purposes‑‑
Mr. Martindale: Go to
Mr. Reid: Quite possibly, as the member for Burrows
indicates, maybe even taking a trip to
I do not think that, to the tenants who pay
this money up front‑‑in many cases I believe it is one month's
rental fee, as much as that as a security deposit‑‑that money should
be given and used as a cash flow for anyone operating rental accommodations as
a business in that sense for any purpose other than for security deposits.
In that sense I think the government should
have stayed with the security trust accounts for any of those monies that were
paid to landlords, and I think that the government should continue with that
purpose.
Now the government has said that this is a
cumbersome provision, and it is difficult to audit, I believe they said. That
is the sense. But I think that if you
were to canvass or survey members of the public and ask them whether they think
these monies should be kept in a trust account, I think the government would
find that quite likely, in almost all cases, the members of the public would
believe that a security trust account would be the best way to go, and that
landlords should not be given the opportunity to use this as part of their cash
flow.
I am not sure whom the minister has
consulted on this legislation. I know my
colleague the member for Burrows has asked questions of the minister regarding
whom the minister has consulted. We have
asked the minister to provide us a list of names of people who have made
representation to the minister's department asking that this legislation be
changed.
The minister, to this point in time, to this
day, has not come forward with any names.
Maybe, as the member for Burrows has indicated, it is quite likely that
they could have been Conservative landlords who had put considerable lobbying pressure
on the government to change the act to allow the landlords themselves to
continue to use the trust account security deposits that tenants would pay to
the landlords.
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
important that we keep the trust accounts in place. By way of legislation, we need to have a
balancing of the needs of the landlords with the rights of the tenant to have
some sense of protection.
* (1550)
That is the purpose, from my understanding
at least of The Residential Tenancies Act.
It provides that balance. By
taking away the security deposit provision from the legislation, it removes
that sense of fair play, that sense of fairness that should be there. It removes that balance and skews it in
favour of the landlords to use that money now for their own needs.
Of course, as I mentioned about my own
community where we have some 30 percent of the accommodations in the community
as rental accommodations, the people who are living in there‑‑and
as I mentioned, a lot of them are seniors and single parent families‑‑do
not have the finances available to them, should they run into problems to go
after the return of their security investments.
I know I have had a few calls to my
constituency office and, in fact, at my office here in the Legislature over the
course of the last nearly three years now, dealing with landlord and tenant
issues. I have had to make use of the
office available to have a resolution of any concerns or any complaints that were
brought forward to my office. I must
admit that the office was very helpful.
In most cases we were able to resolve the
issues, but for issues in dispute, quite often I sense that members of the
public will not want to go to any great lengths to attempt to recover a
security deposit. To a lot of members of
the public, that may not be a large sum of money, but to people from single
parent families or for seniors, as much as a month's rent that would be held
for the use of landlords would be a significant amount. But many people will not be willing to fight
the system to get their money back.
Landlords have the opportunity, if there are
any problems with damage to the rental accommodations, of legal counsel that is
available to them because they have, in a lot of cases, a fairly large cash
flow. Of course, they have their
Landlords Association that makes representation to the government on various
issues, so they can bring forward their concerns there if they want to have any
lobbying done or any changes or they have any concerns about the way the
legislation is impacting upon them, something that is not afforded to members
of the public at large.
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, with that, it
is important that the government recognize that the balance has been skewed
now, that the needs of the public are not balanced with the rights of the
landlords in this case. I think the
government should look seriously at the reasons why they have brought this
change forward and that it is not in the best interests of the public at
large. I think they should reconsider
their decision to bring this change in the security deposit system in place
because of the impacts that it is going to have on members of the public.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you
for the opportunity of adding my comments on this important piece of
legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I was interested in listening, and the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) did a good job in terms of representing what
has occurred in the last number of years inside this Chamber with reference to
the residential tenancies bill itself. I
know, as the critic at the time, when it used to be over in Housing, I had many
opportunities to ask questions of the then minister. We met with dozens of individuals, including
the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who was the head of a housing
coalition group at that point in time, met with all sides‑‑landlords,
tenants and so forth‑‑in an attempt to try to bring in legislation,
because we had agreed with the idea of consolidating the two acts and making
some very positive progressive reforms so that both tenant and landlord would
be the benefactors of it.
In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can recall
the report. It has been a couple of
years since I have seen it last, but there was, in fact, a report‑‑and
the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) made reference to it‑‑back in
'87 that was brought forward to the then‑Minister of Housing. We had asked the question in terms of those
130‑plus recommendations. Not all
of them were 100 percent or a full consensus, if you like. There were some dissenting opinions. The report itself just made a report on the
recommendations that had passed through on that particular committee.
That was a good starting point in terms of
dealing with the different interest groups and individuals: to take those 130‑plus recommendations
and start talking about them, because through that we had a number of
amendments that we had suggested. In
fact, I can recall introducing a private members' bill on behalf of the Liberal
caucus at the time that would have seen, I believe, more tenant
protection. By protecting the tenant,
you are also, Madam Deputy Speaker, protecting the interests of the
landlord. It was something that we had
spoken out on on a number of different occasions. That was, of course, the damage control
within the units, damage report.
We suggested that they should be mandatory
so that when you move into an apartment block you would fill out a form, and
that form would, in fact, have to be filed with the department. Ultimately, we
did get a compromise from the Minister of Housing, even though it was not exactly
what we wanted. At least the government
at the time was a bit more sympathetic to what it was that we were wanting.
I will give credit to the former Minister of
Housing for the efforts that he had put in, because even with the interest
groups that I had met with, many of them had expressed with me, or shared with
me, that at least the minister was listening in terms of what it was that they
felt were problems with respect to that particular piece of legislation.
After the bill had passed, even though it
was supposed to pass a while back‑‑but eventually it did pass. After it had passed, we had somewhat expected
to see something to come out of it.
After all, it is a fairly significant piece of legislation. We have that
before us today in Bill 47.
I listened to the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate (Mrs. McIntosh) who is now responsible for this bill; previously it
used to be the responsibility of Minister of Housing. Why it is that they decided to change it over
to the other department, I am not sure.
An Honourable Member: I think he offloaded his responsibility.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for St. Boniface says, maybe he
wanted to do a bit of offloading of responsibilities because of the overwork
that the current Minister of Housing does.
I do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker, why it
was shifted over. I can recall talking
to one fellow, and he had indicated to me‑‑and I do not know how
factual it is‑‑but I believe that the Premier, at one time, was the
critic for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and he always believed that that is,
in fact, where it should be located.
Ultimately, I guess because he is now the Premier, he calls the shots on
this and decided to shift it over.
Anyway, Bill 47 changes the provision for
the security deposit so that the landlord need not maintain a separate account
or forward security deposits to the director of Residential Tenancies. Madam Deputy Speaker, this was, in fact, a
very controversial issue that came up before the committee. Presentations were
made both, no doubt, to the minister and to both opposition critics at the
time. We had felt that this was a
positive move in terms of going in this direction.
But what appears on paper or what is being
said might make a lot of sense. When you
actually implement it and put it into practice, as the minister in her opening
remarks had commented, we have, on the one hand, something that sounds good,
but her concern is that we are using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will actually be pleased with what I am going
to say, because actually I think that the minister to a certain degree is right
in her assessment.
I was glad to see that she made reference to
this bill setting up a compensation fund for the tenants, so at least it shows
that the minister has been able to demonstrate that she is being sympathetic to
the tenants, realizing that if you take away this auditing process or the
director having to maintain it, it can be somewhat costly to do it. If there is a better way of implementing a
change that will address the issue, well, then albeit. Hopefully, what the minister, the current
minister is suggesting will do just that, that we will not see the problem that
we had prior to the legislation. Only
time will tell on that particular issue.
Ultimately, if that does occur, then I am sure that this aspect of the
change in the bill will be in the best interests of all landlords and tenants.
We know that yearly in
* (1600)
It is a significant amount of money, the
interest that could be derived out of it.
If it were being used to help subsidize rental costs, one would be able
to argue that it is a positive or that there is nothing wrong with that. So we would have, I guess, liked to have seen
something or some reference to this accumulation of tenant dollars in terms of
what the government believes should be done with that.
The return of the security deposits is now
guaranteed by the government, as I say, which is a positive thing. The bill will also give the department the
authority to collect unreturned deposits from landlords through redirecting
other rents or placing a lien on the landlord's rental property.
Again, that is important, because under the
current legislation, with the landlord giving the money or handing the money
over or having to keep it in a trust account, the government had a sense that they
would be able to recover the money.
Under this legislation, they are still going to be given that assurance,
because they can apply a lien onto that piece of rental property.
Again, even though the minister has taken
some action on the one hand, she seems to have been able to address the concern
that would have come out of it had she not added in that particular aspect of
the legislation. So, again, that is a
positive thing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know the New
Democratic Party has a bill before us, Bill 202, which deals with the
establishment of some of the residents associations or tenants
associations. We would like to see good,
strong tenants associations in all different blocks, not only in the private
sector.
I would encourage, in particular, the
Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) today, that he too should be looking at those
large nonprofit houses and complexes in particular and work at building some
very strong tenants associations, tenants associations such that we see in, let
us say, the Gilbert Park or the Lord Selkirk Park, and look at areas like Blake
Gardens, and seeing in terms of what can be done to promote those tenants
associations.
In terms of tenants associations in the
private sector, we are somewhat limited, as government, to do something in that
area. But what is most important is
that, if there is something government can do I believe it is more so to ensure
that landlords do not manipulate or attempt to manipulate the potential of
having a viable tenants association.
Having said those few words, we are quite
prepared to allow it to go to committee at this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2), (Loi no 2
modifiant la Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: 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.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, could you please call Bill 45 and follow that by Bill 50.
Bill 45‑The
Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
45, The Coat of Arms, Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les armoiries, les emblemes et le tartan du Manitoba), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), standing in the name of the honourable member
for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
has a coloured version of what I have, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think it would exemplify even that much
more than the black‑and‑white picture of it, and that is the fact
that this bill should never have seen the life of day or the day of life or
whatever the proper terminology‑‑
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): The light of day.
Mr. Lamoureux: The light of day. Thank you, from the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie).
Madam Deputy Speaker, in looking at the
emblem itself, you know, I am not necessarily a great fan of abstract art, but
I can say that I do appreciate the time and the effort‑‑and no
doubt, I think that, for those individuals, you have to acquire a taste for
abstract art. No doubt, there are a
number of people‑‑(interjection) Oh, you are darn right, I am going
to oppose this thing. When it comes to
talking about spending public dollars on abstract art, I do have to call into
question in terms of some of the validity of doing that.
For example, we purchased a painting the
other day in
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say, I am
biased when it comes to abstract art. I
do appreciate the fact that there are some people who do appreciate that form
of art, and I respect that. I know the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) often talks about how wonderful art of that
nature is. (interjection) Oh, she has not, no.
For those who like it, fine, but for those
of us‑‑and I think I speak on behalf of a vast majority of my
constituents. When they see a public
purchase of a piece of art that is that bad in the eyes of so many, they look
at it as a waste of tax dollars.
I look at this particular emblem and, Madam
Deputy Speaker, the beaver is holding a crocus in one of his paws. On the back of the beaver sits a crown, and
then we have the unicorn. Where do we
have a unicorn in the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Beside the beaver.
Mr. Lamoureux: Beside the beaver, says the Minister of
Health.
In looking at the emblem as a whole, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would not put this on my letterhead. I do not know if anyone else would want to
put it on their letterhead. (interjection) The Minister of Government Services
(Mr. Ducharme) says to put it up‑‑can you imagine this particular
emblem being above your head, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the chair that you have
the coat of arms on now, or even a bit higher on the ceiling, as the minister
says? I would not want to have to look
at the chair every day and see something of this nature.
In fact, we have this art in the foyer or in
the rotunda area. I think that if the
government does not allow for a free vote on this, that should come out of the
rotunda, because I do not know if even the public as a whole appreciates
that. We should put it in front of the
Premier (Mr. Filmon), so that every day he sits here and stands up in response
to a question or addresses us on a bill, he has to look at what he has told
Manitobans is our new coat of arms‑‑
* (1610)
An Honourable Member: Augmented.
Mr. Lamoureux: Augmented coat of arms.
I remember different debates that occur
inside this Chamber. At times, the government made fun of the former member for
Assiniboia on a bill that he had introduced.
I remember the member for Niakwa and others commenting on another bill
that was brought in where time was wasted, if you like. Every so often, you do get some bill in which
a political party or individuals somewhat take issue with.
It is amazing the number of things‑‑the
Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) came up with about 20 ideas of
what we could do with this emblem. I can
honestly say, I do not like any of the 20 that he has suggested. Some Manitobans might have a suggestion, and
I am one of those Manitobans who have a suggestion. I believe what we should do on this
particular bill is scrap it.
Mr. Storie: Who was the first MLA to say that?
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Flin Flon, I believe, was the
first MLA, because he had first opportunity to stand up, and I was very pleased
to hear the member for Flin Flon say that.
I am sure between the member for Flin Flon and myself, we could come up
with a new home for that thing that is outside in the rotunda area.
An Honourable Member: It is an anchor for Gerry's boat.
Mr. Lamoureux: An anchor for the Minister of Government
Service's boat or maybe a nice decoration for the Premier's house or something
of that nature. I do not even think we
would have to charge him for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, there are a number of ideas that we can
do.
What is most important, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is I want to hear what the government has to say about this particular
bill. I want to hear what in particular the dean of the Chamber has to say
about this bill. I was somewhat hopeful
that I would be able to at least influence him to stand up today and talk about
this bill. Unfortunately, it is likely
going to go to committee, but maybe when we get to the third reading. Unfortunately, it will likely go to
committee, unless, of course, we can convert, if there is some indication from
the government side. (interjection) A free vote would be a wonderful gesture.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I can
honestly say that there is at least one member of our caucus who is sympathetic
to it. (interjection) Oh, I am not going to say who that individual is. I will
let you do some lobbying, but I believe there is at least one. I will even narrow it down to some
degree. I must be honest, I am still
lobbying her‑‑and that narrows it down to two‑‑to
reconsider the way in which she might be voting on this particular bill.
I encourage the government to have a free
vote on this particular piece of legislation, because I have had numerous conversations,
Madam Deputy Speaker, with many of the government members. I am not going to put any names on the
record, but I have had conversations with them.
I can tell you that, with the polling that I have done of this Chamber,
if there was a free vote inside this Chamber, in fact this bill would not pass.
I know the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) has become somewhat sensitive to the debate on
this particular bill. I recall when we
were in a committee room, and the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) just said
about three words, two words: it is
ugly. The Minister of Culture and
Heritage took such great offence to it.
You know, right away she jumped to the defence of the artist and how
symbolic it is to the
An Honourable Member: Who is the artist?
Mr. Lamoureux: We asked that question, who the artist is, to
the minister, and she could not tell us who the artist was at the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, either way, we would
like to see this particular bill have that free vote, because I am more
interested at this stage in the game to hear what, in particular, ministers,
backbenchers have to say about this bill, if in fact they do support it. The government is not going to fall on this
bill if it fails. They might have wasted
a bit of money but think of the long‑term ramifications of our having
this.
Some people actually use this emblem. I was in the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) office
yesterday, and I saw a big poster of it. Some people are going to be using
this, and I believe that if we want to have an augmented coat of arms, what we
should be doing is going back to the table.
Yes, you can tell the artist, whoever the artist is, that we want the
beaver incorporated. We want the crocus
incorporated. The unicorn, I have a
tough time with the unicorn personally, but I am flexible, as you can tell. Let
them know in terms of what it is that you might want incorporated into it and
have them come up with a couple of ideas.
In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, one could
even be as bold to let artists in the province of Manitoba all be able to
participate in coming up with an augmented form of what we currently have of
our coat of arms. I believe that we
would find something that does the province a better service. It has been pointed out to me in terms of one
of the most significant symbols that is missed is the one of multiculturalism.
An Honourable Member: What would you put on there for
multiculturalism?
Mr. Lamoureux: What would we put on there for multiculturalism?
I am not going to add anything more to this for the simple reason I believe
that what is currently here, Madam Deputy Speaker, should be revisited and, at
the very least, realigned. I think maybe
we might even want to delete some of the stuff that it is not necessary to have
on there. I am open to hear from artists
throughout the province as to what they believe would enhance the looks and
give Manitobans that much more pride in the symbols because symbols are very
important.
We all have the coat of arms on our
letterhead when we send it out. Why is
that? It is because symbolism is very
important. We hand out something to
dignitaries who come to the
An Honourable Member: I just ordered you 500 pins.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for St. Norbert has ordered me 500.
He can keep them because the moment you hand out one of these the first
question you are going to be asked is:
What does this mean? What does
that mean? Why is the beaver holding the
crocus? It is appropriate to have the
royal crown on‑‑(interjection) I was not out there participating in
it, I can say that much.
I could not defend this, but I noticed that
when I was in the Premier's office, Mr. Mantey did a wonderful job in a serious
attempt to defend it. My hat is off to
him for doing that‑‑Rick Mantey.
* (1620)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that we should
be as‑‑I do not really want to use that word "collective
group," because I know the NDP have a monopoly over that particular word‑‑(interjection)
Well, no, what I am saying is that the government is not going to fall if we
have a free vote on this particular piece of legislation. That is what I am saying. (interjection)
Well, is it an important piece of legislation for the government not to have a
free vote? Does it have to be binding to
the minister who had asked in terms of the importance of the issue.
(interjection) That is why I made reference.
The Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings)
was wondering why it is I might be standing up speaking on this particular
piece of legislation and maybe questions in terms of why it is. Is it, in fact, a waste? I can assure the Minister of Environment that
it is no more of a waste of our time than when we had the great debate on the
spruce tree. I can assure him of that or
of the dirty licence plate. I made
reference to that at the beginning of my remarks, too.
Madam Deputy Speaker, is it? No, I do not believe it is a waste of time,
because I do believe at the very least, it can be a symbolic gesture from
government that, yes, we want to have some free votes. It will have absolutely no impact on the
policy of this government. It might
cause a few hurt feelings possibly for those individuals who would end up
voting for it, but I would imagine that there would be some individuals who
would vote in favour of it.
Again, I did not go writing down names of
members inside the Chamber, but my rough calculation is I have not heard any
New Democrats in the off‑the‑record discussions talk positively
about this bill. I have not heard any of
them. I do not think any of them are
supporting it. Unfortunately, we have
one member who is sympathetic in our caucus, but there are a significant number
in the government that do not like this bill.
If we allow that free vote, I am sure, or at least I feel confident, that
this bill will not pass.
One or two egos might be hurt, but the
government will not fall over this issue.
I think that it would give some hope for individuals who are inside this
Chamber that if you are ever going to have a free vote‑‑if you cannot
have a free vote on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, what can you have a free vote
on with this government? I can
understand them‑‑I do not necessarily agree with them‑‑but
I can understand why they would say no to a free vote on Sunday shopping, but I
do not really buy the argument in terms of why they could not have a free vote
on this particular piece of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they do not have a
free vote on this particular piece of legislation, I would like to hear the
comments of a few members of the government side as to why they feel that this
is such a wonderful piece of art, that they would like to hand out the pins and
put it on their stationery or they want all the tourists to come. Imagine tour guides‑‑(interjection)
To ridicule, no doubt. The member for
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) might want one to ridicule. Can you imagine the tour guide? The tour guide has to take people going
through this building and explain to them why it is that we have the augmented
coat of arms in the rotunda.
I have not‑‑maybe I should have
before I spoke on this bill, I should have talked to a few of the individuals
that would have been doing the explaining.
I do not want to explain it to my constituents because, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I do not believe a majority of my constituents would support something
of this nature. I know a majority of my
constituents would not support government dollars being used for this. I can say that when it comes‑‑
An Honourable Member: And we do not know what it cost.
Mr. Lamoureux: We do not know what it cost, because we did ask
the question of the minister in committee the other day along with who was the
one that came up with the idea, but we were unable to get an answer at that
time.
Having said those very few words, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I trust that the government and those individuals on the
government side that support this particular augmented form of the coat of arms
will come forward and speak strongly in favour of it. Those individuals, in particular those
individuals that really and truly believe as I do, and that is that it is ugly,
they stand up and they be counted on this particular piece, because government
is not going to fall if in fact this bill is never seen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, again, having said
those few words, unfortunately, it will likely end up going to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 45, The Coat of Arms, Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment
Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some Honourable
Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: 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.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Bill 50‑The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 50
(The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993; Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on this
opportunity to deal with The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993, as brought in by
the Minister of Justice. I can indicate
that I will probably be, in fact I will be the only speaker from our side of
this House with respect to debate on this particular bill. We will pass it on to committee to have many
of our questions answered arising from issues concerning this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, generally, statute law
amendments are matters of a technical nature that are put through towards the
latter part of the legislative session in order to deal with some
exigencies. I am going to get to that,
but first I want to deal with some of the things that are not in this act, that
are lacking in this act.
When one looks through the index, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I know it is very difficult dealing with The Statute Law
Amendment Act to deal with the principle of the bill, because the principle is
wide and varied. I will do my utmost to
try to stay within the confines of our tradition in this Chamber in dealing
with this bill.
The act amends basically, Madam Deputy
Speaker, 110 statutes or variations of those 110 statutes in the
When I look at amendments to The Health
Services Insurance Act, I am shocked at the lack of action on the government's
part in terms of amendments to try to include some of the suggestions that have
come from members of this side of the House with respect to the government's so‑called
health care reform.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have proposed many
suggestions to this government to try to put in place some kind of effective
measures so that the public and the caregivers involved in health care could
make representations to this government, representations that they are now
forced to make on the steps of the Legislature in the form of public
rallies. That is the only way this
government seems to listen.
When I look at the index to this particular
statute and I look at Section 18, I see no reference to public accountability,
no reference to allowing the public to make their representations to try to
move this government, to try to move this Health minister, to try to move this
Premier, to try to stop this misguided health reform, to try to prevent the
destruction of the health care system in the province of Manitoba. I see nary a word in these statute law
amendments referring to this.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the single largest
consulting expenditure probably in provincial history, the Connie Curran APM
contract is not in this Statute Law Amendment Act. There is no reference whatsoever to this
single largest consulting expenditure on the part of this government.
Why it is a tragedy is because at the same
time that they are paying the Connie Curran gravy train $3.9 million plus
$800,000 in expenses, probably tax free, while they are doing that, they are
taking away from the sick, the elderly and the disabled, their home care
maintenance program. There is not a word
in there about this, not a single word. It
is deficient in this particular amendment.
They are taking away and they are charging a
user fee on home care supplies now, on the sick, the elderly and the
disabled. In addition, they are charging
for the first time in history a payment for ostomy supplies, a very cruel and a
very hard‑hearted decision. These
people, who require that equipment, do not ask to be sick. They do not ask to have to have this
equipment but, no, they are forced now to pay a fee on this. It is a tragedy that this government, be it
in the general statute itself or be it in Section 18 of this particular act
dealing with the Health Services Insurance Commission, did not make reference
to this.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I note in this act
that the government amends The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Act. While it is a technical amendment, what this
act does not say, it does not talk about the thousands and thousands of
Manitobans who have seen their drug costs rise dramatically since drugs have
been delisted. There is nary a word in
this particular amendment. When I look at this particular act, when I look
under The Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Act, I do not see a single
reference‑‑
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
An Honourable Member: Did you find it in any other act?
* (1630)
Mr. Chomiak: Nor in any other act, nor in the 109 sections
of this act, Mr. Speaker. I do not see
one reference to the government's scuttling and the deindexing of so many
prescription drug benefits that have happened, nor do I see the changes to the
formulary that have been put in place by this minister because that has been
done by regulation and not by statutory amendment. I do not see any
reference. We are seeing in this
particular period of legislative session, as a result of amendments or lack of
amendments in this particular statute, taxes on the sick, the disabled and the
elderly, unprecedented in this provincial history. I suggest that the lack of reference and the
lack of dealing with matters of those kinds in this particular amendment is
cause for all Manitobans to worry about where health care reform is proceeding
in this province. Certainly, the public
is very concerned and certainly we have seen probably the most serious erosion
of our medicare system since the creation of medicare in this province.
When I look through this Statute Law
Amendment Act, be it amendments of a technical nature or be it of a substantive
nature, I see no reference in dealing with the difficulty. Further, when I look
specifically to references of The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, Mr. Speaker,
in this act there are amendments to The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, but nary
a word about the state and about the conditions of LPNs in our province, no
commitment on the part of this government who was supposed to receive some
report by the end of June which, like most reports of this minister, have not
been tabled, not a mention in this particular amendment about the role, the
very important role, to be played by LPNs in our system.
This gap, this lack of reference to LPNs, it
is an opportunity for the government to provide its commitment to LPNs, but,
no, that is not the case. So as we look
throughout this act, particularly in the area of the lack of health care reform
in this province, Mr. Speaker, we see over and over again, by omission, a
failure to deal with some of the real issues facing Manitobans and a real issue
facing the health care system as it presently exists in our province.
Mr. Speaker, the government will be called
to account for this lack of activity in the health care system and, more
importantly, for the lack of any kind of meaningful public input to health care
reform through their lack of reference in The Health Services Insurance Act
under Section 18 of this act through their lack of recognition of the role of
licensed practical nurses in our system and for their lack of a comprehensive
universal continuation of the prescription drug cost program and their lack of
reference in Section 31 of this particular bill to the prescription drug plan
as it exists.
When I look at most of the amendments in The
Statute Law Amendment Act, most of them are of a technical nature and are not
substantively altering any significant statutes. There are some concerns, and I will point out
these concerns for reference when we enter the committee stage so that the
minister can be advised that we will have questions and perhaps can provide
answers at that time as to some of the concerns we might have.
When I look under the reference of The
Communities Economic Development Fund Act, and I know in principle we are not
supposed to be specific, Mr. Speaker, but just in general I would suggest that
there are some significant amendments to The Communities Economic Development
Fund Act that deal with the appointment of general managers and operators under
the act. That is a fairly substantive
piece of law. We will be looking for
some direction from the minister as to why that particular reference is in the
act.
Further, Mr. Speaker, when we look under The
Homesteads, Marital Property Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, I see
some significant amendments dealing with that particular act. I would hope that the Minister of Justice
(Mr. McCrae) will provide us with a spreadsheet explaining the significance of
those changes because The Homesteads, Marital Property Amendment Act affects
virtually all Manitobans and the consequences of that act are significant in
terms of the allocation of the assets of a marriage or relationship. Further, The Public Schools Act has a
significant amendment dealing with boards of reference and the retroactive
validation of laws.
That is something this government has become
very adept at, and that is retroactive legislation and retroactive validation
of acts, something that we have warned this government about on many, many
occasions, most notably the regulations and laws dealing with the Sunday
shopping.
More significant, at least of recent
concern, is the retroactive taxation that has been imposed by this government
on the citizens of Manitoba in terms of the expansion of taxes of the PST to be
collected at the border, to be done retroactively, something that most
Manitobans are now aware of, that despite the fact that members opposite talk
about no tax increases, this government has over and over and over again piled
on taxes in a subtle and insidious way on the backs of Manitobans, be it
offloading taxes on property tax owners, be it through the expansion of the
PST, be it through the various tax measures that have been imposed on various
Manitobans.
So, as I was indicating in my comments,
these references and these concerns to the retroactive legislation of The
Public Schools Act are applicable and are worthy of discussion when this matter
comes to debate during the committee stage of debate. Further, The Real
Property Act is significantly amended. I
suggest the significance of the amendments under The Real Property Act appear
to me, at least on the surface, to be of a kind that are of legal effect and
could have a bearing on the determination as to status and title. So therefore I would suggest that the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), at the committee stage, also provide a
spreadsheet and an explanation as to the significance of that particular
reference.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I note that The
Attorney General's Act itself has a fairly significant amendment in terms of
the roles and duties of the minister. I
would also look towards the minister to provide us with an explanation and
explanatory notes at committee stage as to the significance of those changes,
because, again, they do not appear to be as technical in nature but rather more
substantive. It would be useful for the
members of the House to receive from the minister assurances that these are simply
of a technical nature, not requiring substantive debate; otherwise, the act
itself should have been a separate piece of legislation brought in by the
minister.
Generally, therefore, other than those
concerns, the specific questions that we intend to raise at the committee
stage, and of which we have by virtue of this speech given somewhat advance
notice to the minister, we are prepared to probably pass this piece of
legislation on to committee.
Just with the closing comments, I just want
to reiterate in my closing comments about the many omissions in this bill, most
notably the lack of action in health care reform, the lack of action in
consulting the public, the lack of action in providing some kind of
accountability to the public to allow them to have input, and to caregivers to
the minister, because every day we see in the province of Manitoba caregivers,
doctors, nurses, patients and the like, looking for a forum and a vehicle to
try to make some kind of impression on the minister and his rapidly
disintegrating health care reform action.
* (1640)
That activity and that opportunity is
presented and is not apparent in this bill, as well as the fact that the Connie
Curran contract‑‑no reference, of course, is made in this
bill. Even though it is the single
largest consulting expenditure made probably in
An Honourable Member: . . . there is no legislative authority for
it?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad there is
legislative authority for it, because if there were not, it would certainly be
of benefit to the
Having completed those comments, Mr.
Speaker, I can indicate to members of this House that we are prepared to pass
this piece of legislation to the committee stage.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, on House business if I may, I think if you would canvass the House,
you would find a will to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? (agreed)
Mr. Praznik: I would ask next if you could please call
Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act.
Then followed by the completion of the business on that piece of
legislation, I would ask if you could please call all of the bills listed on
the Report Stage in the order in which they appear.
Bill 52‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act; Loi
sur la Fondation du Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak
today to Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act, and to put some thoughts on the
record on the principle and some of the elements of this particular bill.
The purposes of this bill are to create a
foundation as a Crown office, essentially to create a magnet fund which will
provide funds for public institutions, specifically in the context of this
bill, museums, universities, colleges and hospitals and, at the same time, to
provide much larger tax benefits than are usual to individuals and to estates
who are making donations to the Manitoba Foundation fund.
Mr. Speaker, from our perspective on this
side of the House, or at least in the New Democratic Party, we would
philosophically prefer to see this kind of a bill in the context of a policy of
fair taxation and a public policy which was committed to public
institutions. Both of these areas the
government, I think, are moving in exactly the opposite direction, very much
directed and aided and abetted by the federal Conservatives as well.
This government and their federal allies
have, over the last 10 years, altered the egalitarian principles of
Certainly this has happened at the federal
level as well as is happening at the provincial level. Though it has not happened to the same degree
as it has in the
Secondly, we would prefer to see this bill
in the context of a government and a policy which aims at full support for
public institutions. Of course, what we
are seeing is exactly the opposite. We
are seeing the withdrawal of support from public institutions, whether they be
colleges or universities or hospitals or, indeed, museums, in the context of
this bill. We are seeing a government
which is determined slowly but surely to privatize important parts of what we
used to think of as our public culture.
On our side of the House and in the New
Democratic Party these are principles for which we have always stood, for the
support of public institutions where people find themselves equal. You are equal in the public library. You are equal in public schools. You are equal‑‑well, we used to
be in the colleges and to a lesser extent in the universities. Certainly that sense of equality, that sense
of a communal activity which is providing for our society, support, activities
and training, which we could not provide for ourselves individually, and which
benefit the community as a whole, those are the kinds of institutions and
policies for which we stand.
Gradually we see this government and its
allies in‑‑well, not only in Ottawa but, of course, in England and
in the United States in the past, we have seen societies move toward increasing
privatization, to withdrawing public assistance from formerly public
institutions, from making such institutions increasingly more exclusive than
they have been in the past, increasingly to creating two Canadas and two
Manitobas. In the context of that, Mr.
Speaker, I think we must place this bill which does enable greater private support
for public institutions. We would always
welcome that private support, but in the context of diminishing public support,
I think it does deserve great care and great attention in looking at it.
It is my assumption that this bill had its
origins in the push from the universities in particular to create foundations
that would attract those large donors, those people who perhaps at later stages
in their life had estates to dispose of and who were looking across Canada for
locations worthy‑‑and indeed they are worthy institutions‑‑to
receive their large donations. These are
usually people who would have financial advice either from lawyers or from
accountants and they would in the natural course of events look beyond their
home province for a repository for their final donations or for locations of
their fortunes or of their real property or of their estates.
If people were faced with a choice between
making a donation to a Manitoba university, where they had the normal Revenue
Canada limitations on the amount of tax write‑off that could be achieved
through a donation, versus this kind of foundation, which creates a Crown
agency and enables a much larger write‑off, 100 percent write‑off
of the gift, obviously they would look very seriously at those which offered
them the greater financial benefits for the planning of their estate.
So it is an attempt on the part initially of
Manitoba universities, and now a much broader series of institutions, to become
nationally competitive in the race, and it is a race, although the institutions
do not like to think of it in that sense.
It is competitive, and it is a race to find the kind of private funding
which will support the maintenance and even perhaps the expansion of certain
areas of university education.
* (1650)
It is I think particularly important for
I would like to congratulate the
universities in
I think if you look across
The universities want to expand beyond this
base and to at least feel competitive with
One of the difficulties that
That economic decline of
I have looked at the
I believe it was the interest initially of
the universities to pattern themselves upon the bill in
Indeed in 1990, for example, when
I believe, speaking informally and from the
perspective of all the universities, not just one university, that this was the
preferred route of the university sector at least in
In particular, I think the addition of those
into one large foundation might in the long run pose some problems. So I would like to have the opportunity to
discuss with the minister the reasons behind that decision, since it does fly
in the face of the Alberta and British Columbia experience or at least their
practice, and perhaps there are some difficulties, some advice and experience
that Alberta and British Columbia have gained that indeed the minister is
codifying in this particular legislation.
His introduction of the bill did not give us
any indications of that, but I think that is something that we might want to
discuss at a later date.
The purpose of this bill is to encourage and
to expand private funding for universities, colleges, hospitals and
museums. Here, Mr. Speaker, I think it
is important to put on the record some concerns that any institution has when
it begins to rely increasingly upon private funding. These are not particularly applied to this
bill, but certainly this bill if it does create a magnet fund will, in a sense,
magnify these concerns which are always there when we start to rely upon
private funding.
Private donations are often given for
particular purposes. For example, in the context of museums you will find that
it is‑‑I would not say relatively easy anymore, but certainly in
the past, it used to be relatively easy to find private donations for
exhibits. Rothmans, for example, is
often associated with art gallery exhibits.
Some of the banks have been very generous in their support of particular
exhibits, either at the national gallery or at the
Exhibits are flashy. They are spectacular. They remain in the public mind as a form of
advertising, which of course it is for the banks. That is how they decide on where to put their
cultural dollars. They do, in effect,
evaluate the advertising and the prestige value of each of the institutions to
which they are donating. What they do,
of course, is to look for the biggest cultural, educational, medical bang for
their dollar. That is the kind of business that they are in. So they are looking for things which are
publicly visible and which will be publicly acceptable or commended by the
population of the day.
So what often happens is, for example, in
museums you get donations for exhibits, sponsoring of exhibits, sometimes ones
that might last a year. They might last
a shorter time and perhaps be very splashy and very memorable. But what you very rarely get, or what is far
more difficult to find in the corporate sector in donations is the support for
the long term, less glamourous, but absolutely necessary functions of
conservation, of storage, of cataloguing.
Exhibits cannot be done without this, but so often what happens is that
the unglamourous part falls to the public sector, and the private sector in effect
supports that which is visible, demonstrable and which gives them a private
bang for their dollar.
This has distorting effects upon all
institutions and particularly so at colleges and universities. For example, it is relatively easy in the
current neo‑conservative climate to find donations for graduate work in
business, to create graduate fellowships in accounting, to provide for a
professor's chair in business administration or indeed in some parts of
engineering or in some of the professional fields.
It is far more difficult but absolutely
necessary to find the money for the infrastructure, for the libraries, for the
teaching assistants, for the laboratories, for the replacement of equipment,
but instead of which the private funding is tied to those things which are
often the most visible and so that areas such as classics, such as the teaching
of fine art, such as the teaching of languages often does not attract that same
amount of money. So the institutions
themselves, whether they be universities or colleges or museums, do find that
their ability to have a balanced program, or their ability to develop programs
in new areas which are not attractive to private donors, becomes more of a
problem.
The ties that come with private donations
are ones which distort, to a greater or lesser extent, the goals of the
institutions or indeed the public goals themselves. As I said in the beginning, this is not
something which necessarily stems from this bill, but since this bill will
enhance and expand the opportunities for private donations, one assumes also
that the downside of that, the disadvantages of an increasing reliance upon
private donations and the distortion that that often involves for the programs
of particular institutions, will indeed be exaggerated itself.
I want also to address the issue of the
additions of hospitals and museums to this particular bill. It was my understanding that there was an
earlier act which began under Premier Schreyer, called The Heritage Act‑‑not
The Heritage Resources Act, but The Heritage Act. That particular act, back in the late 1960s or
early 1970s, did provide for something very similar to Bill 52, the
universities foundation act.
* (1700)
That bill did enable the donation of real
property and personal gifts to the Crown for the purposes of museums and for
the purposes of public education and display.
Now, I am not clear; I have asked the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) in Estimates on this particular issue. Her answer I perhaps was unclear about, but
it seemed to me that what she was arguing was that under that bill, there was
still only the 20 percent reduction available for the donor, whereas under the
current bill before us, there was the 100 percent deduction available from
Revenue
That was in my interpretation of the earlier
heritage act. I know it has been little
used, but perhaps indeed that may have been one of the reasons it was not
used. So I look forward to an
explanation from the minister as to why museums have been included in this.
I know indeed that the Museum of Man and
Nature is embarking and has been for the past year embarking upon a very large‑scale
attempt to raise monies for new galleries and for new buildings. We certainly,
I think, all wish them well in that. We
are well aware that the
If this bill, which I know they do support,
enables them to find and to enhance their funding for that particular expansion
and for the new galleries, I think we would all wish them well in this. But I am unclear as to why indeed that could
not have been done under the earlier heritage act.
I am also concerned about the addition of
hospitals. Now, I have not had the
opportunity to consult with all hospitals, but I do know that there are some
hospitals to which this came as a great surprise, that there was no
consultation with the hospitals. There
are indeed some questions amongst the hospitals about the role of their own
foundations in this particular bill.
I look forward to the committee hearing,
when the minister perhaps will be able to explain his process of consultation
with
The hospitals, as we know, have been able to
co‑operate in a number of areas.
The trihospitals lottery, for example, has certainly brought together
some co‑operation in what overall could be considered quite a competitive
field in the raising of funds for medical research and for ongoing hospital
institutions and projects.
So the addition of hospitals, which sets off
this bill from the kind of bills or acts in place in Alberta and British
Columbia, indeed, I think have raised some concerns and questions, and I look
forward to the minister's account of his consultations with hospitals in this
area.
This bill also calls for the appointment of
trustees by the government. Again, I
have some questions here which I look forward to the minister answering in the
committee stage.
It is a narrow group which will be appointed
only by the government. It is a group
which will receive no remuneration, and I hope the minister would consider some
modification of that so that the replacement of wages lost by people who
attend, trustees who attend meetings, may indeed be part of this bill.
Certainly it would enable a wider representation from the community than a
purely volunteer board, unless of course meetings can be arranged for evenings
and at times satisfactory to all members of the board.
There is some confusion in my mind about the
appointment of trustees to this.
Certainly they will all be appointed by government, but it does seem to
leave some loopholes. Again, at second
reading I would not go into the specifics on this, but there does seem to be in
principle an opening for the co‑option of particular members of the
board. Again, I look for some
clarification from the minister on this.
In particular, I would draw the minister's
attention and the attention of the House in general to the selection of
trustees. I know that, for example in the Alberta act, the institutions
themselves or certainly the institutional fields put forward lists of trustees
from which the minister then selects.
Such a process is not contemplated in
I think also there are concerns, other
concerns dealing with the appointment and reappointment of trustees because
there is I think some‑‑what would I say‑‑
An Honourable Member: We are all waiting on every word.
Ms. Friesen: Oh, good, I wish I could find the word.
It is not a discrepancy, Mr. Speaker, but it
is perhaps a looseness in the bill which suggests that only two people from
each of the sectors of the institutional areas, say for example colleges or
universities, may be appointed to a committee which will make recommendations
to the trustees as a whole. I think
there may be some concerns in the community about the relative looseness of
that particular advisory approach.
Now the powers of this particular board of
trustees will be quite extensive.
Perhaps the drafters of this bill were not anticipating a very powerful
board of trustees. It is very difficult
to tell. I think there are some people
in the community who have been involved in this bill, have looked at it as
providing a funnel, providing an enhancement of donations that will be
specifically tied to specific institutions, that we are looking here at people
who are making large donations and who will have financial advice and will have
very clear and specific instructions as to which particular college, or perhaps
even which particular program, their donation will go to. In that case, the purpose of this bill, the
function of this bill, in fact, will suit them very well, and it will suit the
institutions well, and the powers of the trustees will be administrative rather
than of a policy nature.
In the long run, Mr. Speaker, it is quite
likely, and perhaps even in the short run too, that there are people who will
want to make donations to a general field.
Suppose, for example, there was a donor who wanted to make a
contribution to cancer research, not tied to particular institution. As we know in
So here then we would have a particular
choice for the board of trustees, this very narrowly appointed board of
trustees, to be selected only by the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
with no recommendations from the particular sectors as we find in Alberta. Then they would have to make a decision, and
perhaps for a very large amount of money, to distribute it between
institutions, to allocate it to particular institutions.
There I think the power of the board becomes
very extensive, and the power of that particular board to direct certain areas
of university research or of hospital research becomes rather large. This is a board, which is appointed by the
minister, responsible only to the minister and which reports only to the
minister, and that has an audited report that then eventually will find its way
through the minister to the Legislature.
I think there is a narrowness there in the
development of public policy for some very significant public institutions in
I think another concern that I am hearing in
the community is that perhaps this bill enhances the fundraising opportunities
for the larger institutions, be they the larger institutions of museums or
hospitals or universities or colleges.
These institutions already have an advantage in the sense that they can
hire and have hired fundraisers who have been in the business now for a number
of years, who have developed ongoing relationships with particular categories
of donors. This bill, in fact, enhances
the existing opportunities of those larger institutions for donations. So there is a concern, I think, that the balance
of private funding may begin to shift to the larger institutions in an even
greater way than it does at the moment.
Another area of concern that I draw to the
attention of the House is the impact that this will have upon the community
foundations. I think every member of the
House is aware of the work of the Winnipeg Foundation, of the Brandon
Foundation, of the Killarney Foundation.
There are community foundations, some large, some small, across
* (1710)
Some of them are based, in a sense, on
ethnic groups as well. The Jewish Community
Fund is also in the similar kind of competitive environment for private
donations. Yet this foundation, the
Manitoba Foundation, establishes a very powerful magnet, the 100 percent tax
write‑off for a donor, and yet it extends it not to the Winnipeg
Foundation or the Killarney Foundation or to the Manitoba Jewish Foundation,
but it extends it only to the universities, the hospitals and the museums.
I think that is of concern, and I would look
forward to hearing from the minister when we are in committee, the consultation
process that he involved himself in or his department when he was looking at
this particular bill, because the impact, perhaps not in the first five years
but over the long term‑‑and of course these foundations are built
for the long term‑‑over the next 10 or 20 years there may indeed be
some quite marked impacts upon those community foundations which have served
Winnipeg and Brandon and Killarney in a very significant way over a long period
of time. So I draw the minister's attention
to that and I look forward to the committee hearings where I believe some of
these concerns can be raised.
I am also concerned, at one level, of
course, there is the question of why at hospitals, why at museums? Museums, I think there was an existing act
which perhaps dealt with some of their concerns. Hospitals, I look forward to the minister's
arguments for putting it into one fund with universities and colleges, and the
process of discussion that was involved in that.
But I am also concerned if we are to have an
omnibus foundation, and it looks as though that is what we are creating here,
why the exclusion of cultural organizations and, for example, archives, or
municipal corporations? Why, for example,
cannot an artist‑‑never really, certainly in the case of
As we know, recently some arts papers from
So I think those are our general concerns,
Mr. Speaker. I think we always look for
community support for our public institutions.
This is one way of adding to that and a very powerful way in fact. I wish we were doing it in an atmosphere
where we had governments, both federally and provincially, who were committed
to public support for public institutions, and who were committed to fair
taxation policies. I think with that I
will leave this. I am concerned, as I
said earlier, about the impact of this upon community funds, and I know that
some of the institutions themselves are concerned about the role of larger
institutions. Some of the hospitals are
concerned about the impact it will have upon their individual foundations, and
I think at this stage we look for the responses in committee as we move towards
that stage.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
REPORT
STAGE
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings), that Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition, reported from the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 3‑The
Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded again by the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that Bill 3, The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act;
Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois, as amended and reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 10‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded again by the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, as amended and
reported from the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources,
be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 14‑The
Personal Property Security
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 14, The Personal Property Security and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi concernant les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, as amended and
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 15‑The
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 15, The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la
Commission de la boxe et de la lutte, as amended and reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 16‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
move again, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that
Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred
in.
Motion presented.
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is that Bill
16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques,
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it, on division.
Bill 17‑The
Crown Lands Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded again by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 17, The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les terres domaniales, reported from the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18‑The
Corporations Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded again by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 18, The Corporations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les corporations, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 19‑The
Court of Queen's Bench Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move again, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 19, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la
Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, reported
from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20‑The
Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 20, The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act; Loi
validant un reglement d'application de la Loi sur l'aide sociale, reported from
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 22‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week
and
Compensation Management Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des
salaires dans le secteur public, as amended and reported from the Standing
Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is that Bill
22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act; Loi
sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des salaires dans le
secteur public, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Economic
Development, be concurred in.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
An Honourable Member: The Nays have it. The Nays definitely have it.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Bill 23‑The
Retail Businesses
Employment
Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) that Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment,
Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail, la Loi sur
les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur le paiement des salaires, as amended and
reported from the Standing Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is that Bill
23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards
Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
jours feries dans le commerce de detail, la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la
Loi sur le paiement des salaires, as amended and reported from the Standing
Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 25‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act (4)
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 25, The Public Schools Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, as amended and reported from the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 29‑The
Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, for Bill 29 (The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act; Loi sur
le controle des substances intoxicantes et les mineurs), I would like to move
an amendment at the report stage.
I would move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 29 be amended
(a) in subsection 7(1) by adding "or (3), as
the case may be" after "subsection (2)"; and
(b) by striking out subsection 7(2) and
substituting the following:
Penalty re contravention of ss. 3(1) 7(2) A person who is found guilty of an offence
under subsection (1) with respect to a contravention of subsection 3(1) is
subject to any one of the dispositions set out in section 20 of the Young
Offenders Act (Canada), or any number thereof that are not inconsistent with
each other, as the court may determine, other than a term of imprisonment that
exceeds 3 months.
Penalty re contravention of ss. 3(2) 7(3) A person who is found guilty of an offence
under subsection (1) with respect to a contravention of subsection 3(2) is
subject to any one of the dispositions set out in section 20 of the Young
Offenders Act (Canada), or any number thereof that are not inconsistent with
each other, as the court may determine, other than a term of imprisonment.
I believe the honourable Attorney General
(Mr. McCrae) may wish to provide explanation to this.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the Minister of Labour
(Mr. Praznik), seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 29
be amended. Dispense?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: You want to read it? Okay.
(a) in subsection 7(1) by adding "or (3), as
the case may be" after "subsection (2)"; and‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Members have asked that it be read.
An Honourable Member: Who?
Mr. Speaker: I heard that the members wanted it read.
An Honourable Member: No, they did not.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister want to reflect
on the Chair? I heard they wanted it
read. I want to read it.
(b) by striking out subsection 7(2) and
substituting the following:
Penalty re contravention of ss. 3(1) 7(2) A person who is found guilty of an offence
under subsection (1) with respect to a contravention of subsection 3(1) is
subject to any one of the dispositions set out in section 20 of the Young
Offenders Act (Canada), or any number thereof that are not inconsistent with
each other, as the court may determine, other than a term of imprisonment that
exceeds 3 months.
Penalty re contravention of ss. 3(2) 7(3) A person who is found guilty of an offence
under subsection (1) with respect to a contravention of subsection 3(2) is
subject to any one of the dispositions set out in section 20 of the Young
Offenders Act (Canada), or any number thereof that are not inconsistent with
each other, as the court may determine, other than a term of imprisonment.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I apologize on behalf of
members on this side of the House for putting you through having to re‑read
this motion. We did call out that that
could be dispensed with, and we certainly respect that when you heard a
negative comment, you felt obliged to read the whole motion. It need not have been done, in my respectful
opinion, since in the committee stage on this bill, I gave notice to all
honourable members that this amendment would be coming, so there really is not
any need to go through it twice.
* (1730)
But that having been done, Mr. Speaker, the
notice I gave to honourable members was that it was decided at the committee
stage that it was not the intent in this bill to place young offenders in
jeopardy of imprisonment for using intoxicating substances. However, in passing
our amendment at the committee stage, it had not been intended that those young
offenders who would supply intoxicating substances to other young offenders
ought to go free, so that this amendment deals with both issues, the issue of
supplying, which provides for a penalty not to exceed imprisonment of three
months, and the penalty for young persons using intoxicating substances, there
is no imprisonment penalty. That is what this amendment clarifies.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this
amendment. Our critic for this bill had
a number of amendments in committee, and the government, having a majority,
chose to vote down our amendments. We
were disappointed that they did not listen to us. I believe that we were much more in keeping
with the public presentations that were made on this bill than the government
was. The vast majority of presenters
recommended that minors not be penalized, that they not be drawn into the
criminal justice system. Now, we
appreciate that the government made one exception, but we felt that there
should not be any involvement in the criminal justice system by minors.
In fact, the consistent theme that
presenters stuck to, and without collaboration but individually as they
presented, the ones that I was familiar with, that I knew before this bill came
to committee from my work in the inner city and on the anti‑sniff
coalition were united in saying that they believed that it was primarily a
health problem and that people should receive treatment, that they should not
be penalized for using sniff products as minors.
Now, this bill is really a very, very
different bill from the bill that was introduced by the MLA for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis), and this amendment does not really have anything to do
with the original bill that our member introduced. This bill and this amendment are really quite
different, and we are disappointed that even though it was a private member's
bill, it passed. Private members' bills
rarely pass in this Legislature, but during the minority government, I believe
there were three bills that did pass.
The member for
We asked the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) why it was not proclaimed. The
minister continually stalled in answering questions, eventually said that they
had legal opinions, I believe, about something in the contents, but he would
never table the legal opinion. So we
could only speculate as to why the Minister of Health would not proclaim the
bill.
So we disagreed with the government on some
parts of this bill. We are pleased that
they took some action. I suppose they
would want us to be grateful for half a loaf, but this amendment really does
not address the concerns that we had with the government's bill, and we wish
that they had listened more closely to the presenters, because what they had to
say for a lot of them had to do with their own experience.
In fact, we were quite surprised and touched
by the honesty of people that came to present, all of them adults, but in the
case of three people, they disclosed, quite to our surprise‑‑I am
really amazed at their honesty‑‑that they had sniffed different
kinds of products when they were minors and had really turned their lives around
since that time. One of the presenters
is a university student. One is a
solvent abuse treatment worker at Sagkeeng First Nation at their treatment
program, and another one is a graduate in the social work program at Winnipeg
Education Centre.
We were pleased that they came forward and
expressed their concerns about this bill and that they were so honest about
their personal experience. Probably, the
most moving one was Donna Glover, who talked about her experiences and made
some recommendations. The one that was,
I think, unique was the recommendation that people be offered the opportunity
of healing rather than being penalized.
This amendment really just makes an
exception to one of the penalties under the Young Offenders Act, and I am sorry
that I did not have time to look up all of the dispositions in the Young
Offenders Act, since the Young Offenders Act is referred to in this amendment,
but I know that there are many dispositions that judges have. This minister has only made an exception to
one of those dispositions that judges have.
Of course, it is the most serious
disposition that judges have, that is, imprisonment, so it is good that the
minister made this exception, but we feel that it still does not address the
fundamental problem of penalizing minors.
So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, we are ready to see this bill
through to Report Stage. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? (agreed)
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 29, The Minors
Intoxicating Substances Control Act; Loi sur le controle des substances
intoxicantes et les mineurs, as amended and reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 30‑The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 30, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables
ayant une deficience mentale et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Economic
Development, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on
House business, I would like to make a number of announcements with respect to
standing committees.
Tomorrow morning, the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments will sit to further consider Bill 24, sitting at 9 a.m.
Also at 9 a.m., the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources will continue to hear presentations on
Bill 41.
Tomorrow evening, Wednesday, the Committee
on Law Amendments will sit, Mr. Speaker.
I have not had a chance to discuss this with the House leader of the
Liberal Party, but I would ask that it consider these bills, 26, 54, 51, 45,
and then revert to Bill 24. I would
expect that that would happen roughly around nine o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
I would like to thank the honourable Government House Leader for that.
Mr. Manness: Also, tomorrow evening then, at 7 p.m., at
the same time, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
will continue listening to presentations on Bill 41.
I will not give any announcement with
respect to Thursday. I will, though,
with respect to Friday and indicate that publicly it was announced today by the
three House leaders that a committee of the Legislature, and at this time we
will say Law Amendments, but that may change, will possibly begin to hear
presentations on Bill 55, given that that bill passes the House Thursday. So I indicate to the Clerk that phone calls
can be made to those presenters indicating that by all appearances at this
point in time that committee will sit at one o'clock on Friday afternoon.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer),
with his committee changes.
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 Public Utilities and Natural Resources, this is for the 9
a.m. sitting for Wednesday's session:
the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for Riel (Mr.
Ducharme); the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik); and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for
Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).
* (1740)
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments
be amended as follows: the member for
St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay); the
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae); and
the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau).
Motions agreed to.
House
Business
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I have an error in one respect,
and I have asked the unanimous consent of the House to move Bills 26 and 54,
which had at another time been referred to the Standing Committee on Municipal
Affairs. I would ask unanimous consent
of the House to move those two bills to the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to move Bills 26 and 54 from Municipal Affairs over to Law
Amendments? Is there leave? (agreed)
Bill 31‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move again, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 31, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, reported from the Standing
Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 32‑The
Social Allowances Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, again seconded by the Minister of Finance, that Bill 32,
The Social Allowances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale,
as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be
concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 32, The
Social Allowances Amendment Act, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale, as
amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be
concurred in.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. On division.
* * *
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you could please
call Bill 33 for Report Stage. I believe
there are some amendments that the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger) will be moving.
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Based on the undertaking that I took in
committee that I would review some of the suggestions at the time on Bill 33, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
THAT Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"adequate and suitable", in section 36 and substituting "reasonable".
THAT Bill 33 be amended by adding
"confidential" after "filed with the board any" in clause
38(1)(g).
THAT Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"charged by a carrier" in subsection 40(1) and substituting
"charged by a railway company".
THAT Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"reasonable" in clause 50(1)(a).
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment, that The Provincial Railways and Consequential
Amendments Act, as amended and reported in the Standing Committee on Economic
Development, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) has actually done four amendments, minor ones,
mind you.
It was moved by the honourable Minister of
Highways and Transportation, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that The Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act,
THAT Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"adequate and suitable", in section 36, and substituting
"reasonable".
Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
The second amendment, as moved by the
honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), seconded by
the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
THAT Bill 33 be amended by adding
"confidential" after "file with the board any" in clause
38(1)(g).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
that motion? Agreed? Agreed.
It has also been moved by the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), seconded by the
honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
THAT Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"charged by a carrier" in subsection 40(1) and substituting
"charged by a railway company".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
that motion? Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
The honourable member for Transcona, on the
third amendment.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in
the fact that the minister chose to ignore one of the recommendations and
amendments that was put forward. I note,
and I have looked at the amendments that the minister has put in from his
department, and I find that all of the minister's amendments are reasonable and
that they will, in other words, tighten up the wording of the original
legislation. I am supportive of the
amendments that the minister has brought forward.
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the fact
that the minister chose only to accept one amendment. The amendment he chose was to follow the
practice that has been established by the National Transportation Agency
wherein they could go onto any railway property at any time to inspect what
they deem to be an infraction of the legislation or a contravention of the
legislation. I thank the minister for
accepting that amendment to that portion.
This will now allow the inspectors, either appointed by the minister's
department or under contract through the federal agency, to go onto railway
property and inspect for any infractions.
The one amendment that the minister did not
accept, Mr. Speaker, that causes me some concern, and that is dealing under
Part 6 of the legislation itself under the enforcement, the Evidence and the
Offences and Penalties section, and in particular under the Inspections for the
inspectors. The minister chose not to
accept the amendment for that particular section, and it says under the
legislation that the minister deems to leave in place here by his actions,
under section 49(1): The minister may
appoint any person as an inspector for the purposes of this Act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we had
put forward to deal with this particular section is so that the minister‑‑the
discretion that has been given him by the legislation says that he can appoint
anyone. It does not say that he has to
have anyone with expertise or knowledge of the railway industry, and we think
that it is important that if someone is going to inspect railway equipment,
whether it be trackage, roadbed, structures or railway rolling stock, that they
should have some expertise or some knowledge of the industry.
That is why we put forward an amendment that
would say, "who has demonstrated a knowledge and expertise in railway
equipment and operations" in place of "any person." The minister chose not to accept that. He has not provided any explanation why he
has not accepted that, and I think that it would be important that members that
have to go out into the field to inspect this equipment should have that
expertise.
Now, I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if there is
something that may have escaped my attention here.
* (1750)
Mr. Speaker: I will remind you right now. I will remind the honourable member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid) that what is before the House at this time is the
amendment as moved by the honourable minister.
I will read the honourable member the amendment.
That Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"charged by a carrier" in subsection 40(1) and substituting
"charged by a railway company".
That is the question presently before the
House. Okay. So I would ask the honourable member for
Transcona to kindly keep his remarks fairly close to the said issue.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister also tabled a
number of other amendments, and I thank you for drawing that to my attention.
Mr. Speaker: We passed those already.
Mr. Reid: Those amendments with respect to this
legislation will, like I said, tighten up some of the wording of the
legislation itself. In dealing in
specific where shippers have been used as the terminology, it talks about
carriers in place of that, and the minister has changed some of the wording in
specific sections that will make it easier to regulate, I suppose, the industry
itself.
Now it is unfortunate that the other
sections were not accepted. I hope that
the minister will provide some opportunity or some explanation why, because it
was members of the industry that had drawn this to my attention. They had pointed out in fact some of the
amendments that the minister came forward with that I thought were fair and
reasonable explanations or requirements for the legislative changes.
We had raised some of the concerns on these
amendments, Mr. Speaker, that are before us here, in particular the one that
you point out, we had raised some of those concerns as well at committee, and
yet we have not received any explanation why other areas have not been amended
as well to tighten up the legislation itself and to provide for some sense of
safety and security of the public and any employee of the railway or any
shipper or carrier that may be utilizing that service.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will leave on the
record that we still have concerns that all the amendments that were brought
forward were not carried forward by the minister. As he has indicated, he said he would come back
to the House and provide some explanation after consulting with his department,
something he has not done here. I think
that it is important that he should provide for members of the House reasons
why he has not brought forward other amendments, maybe things that his
department has expertise on that may not be available to other members of the
House. Thank you for the opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
third amendment of the honourable minister?
Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Now, it was moved by the honourable Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), seconded by the honourable
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
THAT Bill 33 be amended by striking out
"reasonable" in Clause 50(1)(a).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
that motion? Agreed? Agreed and so
ordered.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 33, The Provincial Railways and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les chemins de fer provinciaux et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), as amended and
reported from the Standing Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 34‑The
Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone
Schools Governance) Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings), that Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools
Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques (gestion des
ecoles francaises), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 39‑The
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would again move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that Bill 39, The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Cour provinciale, reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I think if you canvass you will
find that will.
Mr. Speaker: I just found that out. Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? (agreed)
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).