LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, July 27, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Ninth
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its Ninth Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, July 20, 1993,
at 7 p.m., Wednesday, July 21, at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m., and Thursday, July 22, at
9 a.m. in Room 255 and Monday July 26, at 9 a.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 41‑‑The
Robert Harbottle ‑ Private Citizen Steve
Masson ‑ Granges Incorporation Armand Boulet ‑ Lumber and Saw
Workers' Union William Burbidge ‑
Written Submissions:
Robin E. Carpenter and Mary Carpenter ‑
Private Citizens Elen M. Carpenter ‑ Private Citizen William Ferreira ‑
Private Citizen Mary J. Carpenter ‑ Private Citizen Steve J. Lesavage ‑
Private Citizen Bruce Dunlop ‑ The Prospectors Association of Manitoba
Elizabeth R. Sellick ‑
Your committee has considered:
Bill 41‑‑The
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT section 5 be amended
(a)
by striking out the part of the section preceding clause (a) and substituting
"In accordance with park classifications and land use categories, the
purposes of a provincial park system include the following"; and
(b)
by striking out "and" at the end of clause (c), and by striking out
clause (d).
MOTION:
THAT clause 7(2)(a) be amended by striking out
"large" and substituting "representative".
MOTION:
THAT clause 24(1)(c) be amended by striking
out "in the opinion of the officer".
MOTION:
THAT the Preamble be amended
(a)
by striking out "AND WHEREAS" and substituting "WHEREAS";
and
(b)
by adding the following at the end of the Preamble:
AND
WHEREAS a system of provincial parks will contribute to the province's goal of
protecting 12% of its natural regions;
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
*
* *
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I beg to present the Eleventh
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have
leave to present the report? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Economic Development
presents the following as its Eleventh Report.
Your committee met on Monday, July 26, 1993,
at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee adopted at its July 26, 1993, 7
p.m. meeting the following motion:
MOTION:
THAT the committee limit the presentations and
questions to a total maximum of 20 minutes per presenter.
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 42‑‑The Liquor Control
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
reglementation des alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois
Leslie King ‑ Private Citizen Stephen
Roznowsky ‑ Private Citizen John Read and Randy McNichol ‑ Manitoba
Hotel Association Larry Jocelyn ‑ Gordon Hotels and Motor Inns Limited
Leo Ledohowski ‑ Hospitality Corporation of Manitoba, Inc. George Bergen ‑
Private Citizen John Ford ‑ Private Citizen Daryl Silver and Keith Martin
‑ Private Citizens Keith Pierce ‑
Written Submission:
George Tsouras ‑ Private Citizen
Your committee has considered:
Bill 42‑‑The Liquor Control
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
reglementation des alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT proposed section 10, as set out in
section 4 of the Bill, be amended by adding the following as clause 10(1)(d):
(d)
requiring the giving of notification to consumers purchasing liquor at retail
for consumption at a place other than the place of sale about the potential
health hazards associated with the consumption of liquor, including the
potential damage to a foetus, and prescribing the form and content of such
notice and the circumstances in which it is to be given.
MOTION:
THAT section 24 be amended by striking out
"Clause 79(1)(c)" and substituting "Clause 79(c)".
MOTION:
THAT section 31 be amended
(a)
by striking out clauses (d) and (e);
(b)
by renumbering the section as subsection 31(1); and
(c)
by adding the following subsection after subsection 31(1):
31(2)
The following subsection is added after subsection 96(3):
Licensed premises 96(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3),
"licensed premises" includes any parking lot that is owned or leased
by the licensee or is otherwise under the control of the licensee.
MOTION:
THAT section 44 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed subsection 148(2):
Application of by‑laws to specialty
wine stores 148(2.1) The provisions
of a by‑law of a municipality under this Part that have the effect of
prohibiting a liquor store in the municipality are deemed to apply to a
specialty wine store with such modifications as the circumstances require.
MOTION:
THAT section 46 be amended by striking out
"172,".
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the
amendments adopted by this committee.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: 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.
* * *
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a resolution regarding Capital
Supply, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Annual Report of The Discriminatory Business Practices Act for the fiscal year
1992‑93.
* (1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Cabinet Shuffle Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the acting
Premier.
There are fewer people, in fact 10,000 fewer
people, working today in
Even more disconcerting to all of us and to many
Manitobans is the fact that this government, over the last seven or eight
months, has proceeded on an agenda that has been totally unfair to the people
who are most vulnerable in this province, whether it is the silencing of the
antipoverty organizations, whether it is the cutbacks and reductions of support
in home care, whether it is reducing the grants to the Indian and Metis
Friendship Centres, whether it is cutting back on ACCESS and New Careers and
putting that money into corporate training, and on and on and on.
This is a government that has a lot of unfair
ministers on its front benches, in its government today.
I
would like to ask the Deputy Premier:
Will he be recommending to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that there be a
cabinet shuffle immediately and that‑‑(interjection) Well, you
know, we seem to be missing somebody here today, but I cannot talk about that,
because it is unparliamentary.
Will this government be changing its ministers
after this session is completed to give the people of
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I am not prepared
to accept any of the preamble which the Leader of the Opposition has put on the
record.
Mr.
Speaker, this province and this country have been faced with extremely
difficult financial situations over the past few years, with not only a
national but an international recession which we are all dealing with. One looks at the difficult decisions that not
only Manitobans have had to make through their government‑‑and I
say through their government because we are trustees for the taxpayers of this
province.
It
is not personal money we are directing or are dealing with. It is on behalf of the taxpayers of
Our
criteria, Mr. Speaker, has been one of maintaining the essential services in
this province‑‑health care, education services and family needs
through the Family Services programs. Those have been and are our priority
areas for maintaining support for communities and families.
On
the economic front, there have been many initiatives, Mr. Speaker. I am disappointed that the Leader and the
members of the opposition have never been positive about the economic agenda we
are developing and will develop in this province.
As
far as his recommendations on a cabinet shuffle, Mr. Speaker, I have to be
quite honest. I see it as a possible
conflict of interest and would not want to enter into that area.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, in terms of fairness, we also
see the action of the government that promised us no new taxes during the last
election‑‑read my lips, no new taxes‑‑and then, just
like George Bush, broke its own promise.
He broke his own promise, and the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) own briefing
notes say that tax increases were equivalent to a 5.7 percent increase in the
personal income tax of
More of a concern to us is the fact that those
taxes were not a challenge to share the pain, as the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) had indicated, but rather a tax increase through property tax credits
that meant people in Tuxedo paid a 1 percent tax increase, people on
That is the sharing of the pain the Tory way,
Mr. Speaker‑‑cut the most vulnerable and tax the most vulnerable.
That is the Tory way.
I
would like to ask the Deputy Premier:
Will he be recommending that they shuffle this old, tired, economic deck
to get us jobs and fairness in this province, rather than the status quo that
is failing the people of this province?
* (1340)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me at the outset say this to
the Leader of the Opposition, who sat in a government that saw
Mr.
Speaker, the sales tax‑‑who was the last government in this
province to increase the sales tax rate in
I
think the people of
Minister of Health
Replacement Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): They are not totally unhappy‑‑a
mere heartbeat away. What can we say?
Mr.
Speaker, this whole cabinet needs a heart transplant because they have no heart
at all, and they need a brain transplant to go along with it, too.
Mr.
Speaker, I withdraw those comments.
Mr.
Speaker, we have a Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who loves to fight. He loves to debate. He loves to disagree. He loves to deny. But his style, his bombastic style of picking
a fight with seniors, with the disabled, with the heads of seniors wards in
hospitals, picking a fight with doctors, with nurses, with patients, having a
reform package and then having to bring in an American consultant to really
tell him what reforms and cutbacks to bring in, has been an absolute disaster
for the people of
I
would like to ask the Deputy Premier, the acting Premier in the absence‑‑I
cannot state that. It is
unparliamentary, so I will not.
I
would like to ask the Deputy Premier today on behalf of the seniors and
disabled and other Manitobans who are vitally concerned about their health care
system today: Will he give us his
commitment and the government's commitment that when this House comes back, we
will not have the same Minister of Health, that we will have a new Minister of
Health who will build partnerships with the people of
* (1345)
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Let me, at the outset‑‑and I do
not know whether I will get another opportunity, and with your generous
endurance, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House‑‑I would like to
say that I can only use this example, and that is that the Leader of the
Opposition‑‑and I say this with respect to the former critic for
the Department of Health who, I understand, probably will be leaving this
House.
She
is leaving this House, as are one or two other members, at least one we know
of, and I want to wish them well in a meaningful way, in their trying to get
through that bottomless pit they are going to try to cross to the next House of
Commons. I say genuinely, good health and limited good luck in their next
endeavour. But I say genuinely, they
have made a contribution to this House, and I respect them as members of the Legislature.
Now, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think
the ability of our Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has been demonstrated by
the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had to change critics, that there
was not an ability to get, in any way, the point that the Minister of Health
was not doing a good job and is not doing a good job.
We
are committed, Mr. Speaker, to ensuring the longevity of the health care needs
of the people of
These are tough decisions, and I believe our
Minister of Health has delivered these programs very responsibly and at the end
of the day has told the truth to the people of
Minister of Health
Replacement Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, almost every single action in
the health care field undertaken by this government in the last six months has
been totally contrary to the government's own health care reform package, be it
the pediatrics consolidation to Children's Hospital, be it user fees and ostomy
supplies or home care supplies, or be it the cutbacks to the home care
maintenance program or the Children's Dental Program, all contrary to their own
plan.
My
question for the Deputy Premier, Mr. Speaker:
Will they stop blaming the critics?
Will they stop blaming the messengers, take a look at this minister and
before they allow him to do any more havoc, because there is a lot more havoc
that could be wrought on the health care system by this minister, before that
happens, step in, replace him and listen to the people out there in the
community, be it the MMA, be it the nurses or be it the patients who know the
truth about what this minister is doing?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I think that per chance, this
might be the last Question Period that maybe my honourable friend is critic,
because I have gone through four of them in the NDP, and maybe he is the next
one to leave.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is important that I give a quotation to the House, and we
will not have the normal guessing game as to who said this. I will tell you who said this. This is Premier Bob Rae out of
That, Sir, is why I have said consistently
through four critics of the NDP, do not tell us what you are against, tell us
what you are for, because in today's environment, whether you govern in the
You
can disagree with those decisions, but I remind Manitobans who are watching
this Question Period that the member for Kildonan will not stand up and commit
today at his last opportunity in this session that he would reinstate all of
those programs that he is so egregious about.
He will not reinstate one single decision. All he is doing is articulating grievance,
telling us what he is against, but never will he tell us what he is for.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows we would fire
Connie Curran tomorrow and put that money right back into direct patient care,
something he is refusing to do.
Health Care System Reform
Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My supplementary to the Deputy Premier: Why is it that it is the head of the MMA, it
is the head of geriatrics at St. Boniface, it is the head of geriatrics at
Health Sciences Centre, it is the nurses, it is the patients, it is the
Will the Deputy Premier step in and before he
wreaks any more havoc, at least talk to these critics‑‑he does not
have to talk to us‑‑talk to the head of geriatrics at St. Boniface,
talk to the head of geriatrics at Health Sciences Centre and all the
others? Will he at least do that before‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
* (1350)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have had the one single
solution again advanced by my honourable friend the New Democrat: Cancel a $3.9‑million contract. You know what that does? That operates our hospitals for one and one‑half
days this year‑‑one and one‑half days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is my honourable friend
the New Democrat going to do for the other 363 and a half days, wherein at the
end of this process, we expect to have savings without compromising patient
care, with providing more care by nurses, a saving of a minimum of $45 million
every single year in two hospitals alone?
That is $45 million that can be used to provide more surgery, that can
provide more home care, that can be used to provide more education, more
economic development support. It can
even be used to reduce the deficit if government so chooses, or it can be used
to stop raising taxes, as is the penchant for New Democrats.
So
my honourable friend's solution provides one and a half days of operation at
our hospital in one year, no longer a solution.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, they promised that in their
health care plan before they brought in their big, high‑priced, $3.9‑million
plus $800,000 expenses tax‑free
My
final supplementary to the Deputy Premier, who has not answered any of the
questions to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who has refused to answer any questions
about this Minister of Health: Will the
Deputy Premier at least undertake, before the major changes and all of the
reports that are coming out in August and September when we are out of session,
to talk to people in the health care system, the patients, the doctors and the
caregivers, not to listen to this minister but talk to the people who really
know what is going on in health care?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, in that very skillful
articulation of grievance the New Democrats are so skillful at in opposition, I
want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are talking to doctors. Contrary to the allegations of the doctors'
union and the president of the doctors' union, there are 41 committees studying
health care reform, and there are 171 physicians on those committees‑‑171. That works out to more doctors as a percent
of their profession than any other single profession.
There are a number of nurses involved in those
committees, hospital administrators involved in those committees, citizens
involved in those committees, the Manitoba Health Organization involved in
those committees, and, Sir, the reports that come through and the
recommendations we accept will make sense because they will be recommended to
us, examined beforehand by professionals in health care delivery.
Now, I know my honourable friend the New
Democratic critic will still criticize every single one of them, but he will
not offer a single alternative that will work.
Immigration Policy
Selection Criteria
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Premier.
Tomorrow, the Prime Minister arrives to visit with our Premier. I note that it is reported that one of the
very select, few important issues the Premier will be raising has to do with
immigration. The
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a reversal of the
position put forward by the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, who has
said on many occasions she does not favour such restrictions. It also poses a severe threat to the many
thousands of Manitobans who are applying under the Family Reunification Program
to be joined with their relatives from around the world.
Can
the minister or the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) indicate today whether or not
that indeed is a policy of his government, to impose special skills and
requirements heretofore not put in place for immigration, and can he table what
the new criteria are going to be, Mr. Speaker?
* (1355)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are in
ongoing negotiations and talks with the federal government looking toward more
control over immigration for
Mr.
Speaker, it is in all areas. Refugees,
of course, are strictly a federal responsibility, but family reunification and
those who can come here to help fill the job skills and shortages that
Manitobans have when there are jobs and there is no one available to do those
jobs here in Manitoba‑‑we want to be able to more proactively
recruit those who can come into
We
still have major concern over ensuring that those who are coming here for
family reunification have access in an expeditious way.
Mr. Edwards: As the minister well knows, quotas are
assigned and if you give to one area, there is going to be a result, a
reduction in another area.
I
want to remind the minister of her comment June 18, 1992, wherein she
said: "I have said many, many times
that I share the concerns of any policy that might discriminate against any
person that might want to be coming to our country to fill job skills or just
to immigrate for whatever reasons."
Can
the minister indicate whether or not she stands by those words and, if not, if
we are changing, can she table what the new criteria for immigration to this
province are going to be, because that is of utmost importance to the thousands
of immigrants currently, recent immigrants in this province, who want to be
reunited with their families and are applying under the existing criteria for
immigration to this country?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, of course I stand by those
words. We do not want to discriminate here in
Mr.
Speaker, what we want to do in
Mr.
Speaker, we want to ensure through an immigration agreement that we have some
control over expeditiously allowing those to come to fill job shortages, with
job skills that are not here in
There are several different classes of
immigrants. I have already indicated
that the refugee class will always be a responsibility of the federal
government, but where we can try to gain more control and try to get our fair
share of compensation from the federal government for those who are coming to
Mr. Edwards: I have yet to hear from the minister, Mr.
Speaker, whether or not this government is indeed moving toward a selection
process, as indicated, that they want to select immigrants with special skills
based on the Quebec‑type model, where those restrictions are put in
place.
Will the minister table today what the
selection criteria are going to be, or will she repudiate that statement? What does this province want, and on what
basis are they intending to select immigrants?
Can she be clear for the thousands of people who want to know that, who
currently are applying to be reunited with their families around the world?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Leader of the
Second Opposition is either not hearing or not understanding my answers. I am not quite sure where he is coming from.
I
have indicated that there are different classes of immigrants who come to
So
I want to assure those immigrants that we are not changing that in any
way. What we want to be able to do is,
yes, to select those who can come to
* (1400)
Home Care Program
Housekeeping Guidelines
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate
that I leave here with a great deal of worry and concern about the future of
our health care system, something that has preoccupied me for the last three
years, and particularly worried about the well‑being of our senior
citizens who are seeing the most quality program, internationally acclaimed
program go down the tubes‑‑the cuts to home care by this Minister
of Health and this government.
I
want to ask the Minister of Health if he will not acknowledge that any
inappropriate care, any abuse under the home maintenance program of Home Care
could be addressed quite adequately through following the guidelines now set
out under the Continuing Care Program through regular assessments.
Will he simply assure us he will deal with
concerns by following those guidelines?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly, precisely what
we are doing, and I want to remind my honourable friend as to when those
guidelines on domestic services, laundry and cleaning, came into place. They came into place in 1984 when my
honourable friend sat around Howard Pawley's cabinet table.
They have been implemented in 1985 and on, and
what we are doing today is very consistent with my honourable friend's policy
guidelines that she put in place, that she endorsed, that she agreed to in
1985.
The
only thing that has not changed in the five years, except for critics of the
NDP in Health, is their method of raising issues, because my honourable friend
will recall that to raise this great fear campaign in the Home Care Program this
year, she tabled the same letter a former critic, Mr. Jay Cowan, tabled in the
House four years previous‑‑the identical letter, same issue, same
four‑year‑old letter, Sir.
Nothing new except the NDP in opposition refuting their own policies.
Review
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
If
nothing has changed, why are all of these areas under review, and will the minister
not admit that these are further cutbacks on top of reductions to home care
equipment, user fees for ostomy supplies and waiting lists for our seniors in
all important areas of health care services?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Again, the critic for the NDP did not say and
commit today in front of the media that they would reinstate any of these so‑called
cutbacks that they allege. They will not
reinstate, they will not reverse a single policy, because they could have made
that commitment today, from the Leader, from the critic, and now even a
departing New Democrat could make that commitment, but they will not.
The
reason they will not is this, that the review on meals, the review on laundry
service, the review on housecleaning is consistent with the 1984 policy
directive of Howard Pawley and the NDP, and currently, an important fact is
that over 50 percent of seniors in
This review process will make that policy of
the NDP, 1984‑85, consistent across the province.
Consultations
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): First of all, Mr. Speaker, with all respect
to my honourable friend, I have to reject her preamble and her assertions in
her preamble to this question.
Secondly, I said, alleged cutbacks by the
NDP. That is what I indicated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend had the
opportunity to say they would reinstate the ostomy program and they would
reinstate housecleaning free of charge to all seniors and go against the policy
they put in place in 1984‑85, but, of course, they did not, and here is
why‑‑and I think it is important to have another quotation, if I
might.
This is from Mr. Barry Pashak, a defeated NDP
MLA in
Now, Mr. Speaker, we cannot say that of these
people.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
throughout this session, we have come to see that the minister has originally
started off reading his nonanswers into the record. Now we are seeing the minister read in
statements from other provinces.
We
would like an answer to what is happening here in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister, to finish with your response
now, sir.
Mr. Orchard: We could never make that statement of a New
Democrat in
Children's Dental Health Program
Cabinet Decision
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I
want to ask the acting Premier to explain to this House today why his cabinet
did not overrule the decision by his Minister of Health to target this very
progressive and community‑based program that was very effective and very
beneficial to rural and northern children.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again, from the comfort of
opposition, New Democrats decry decisions of government, but when governing in
Mr.
Speaker, let me reinforce for my honourable friend that a key component of the
health reform package is prevention and education.
In
the Children's Dental Health Program, yes, we are eliminating the treatment
portion; in other words, filling cavities, extracting teeth and those
reparative services.
Mr.
Speaker, we intend to maintain the education and prevention portion of that
program, because that is the value of health care programming, to educate, to
bring people into prevention so we do not have to spend money on repair.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans would be happy to have
the program that
* (1410)
Reduction Justification
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
How
could they ignore this information provided to them and cut the dental program
and ignore the long‑term effects there would be by cancelling this
program?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my
honourable friend's defence of decisions in
Mr.
Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend some of the decisions we chose not to
make. We chose not to raise the
Pharmacare deductible to $1,700 per family, as
Mr.
Speaker, we have chosen not to close 52 acute care hospitals in
Multiculturalism Secretariat Dismantling
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
This government often looks to opposition in
making suggestions in terms of where we would save money. Mr. Speaker, we want to provide a line in
which we, as the Liberal caucus, would like to see this government save money,
and that is the multicultural secretariat's office. The government of the day could save a
quarter of a million dollars today if, in fact, the government had the will to
dismantle what is nothing more than an apple‑shining group of individuals
who do nothing more than prop up this particular government within the
ethnocultural community.
My
question to the minister is: Will she do
the responsible thing and dismantle the multicultural secretariat and save the
taxpayers of this province $250,000?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, I believe and I know our government believes, as a result
of a recommendation that came from the task force on multiculturalism that was
commissioned by the former administration‑‑the recommendation was
made that we needed more support, internal to government, dealing with
multicultural issues. We accepted that
recommendation and the Multiculturalism Secretariat was set up.
The
Liberal critic might believe there is nothing happening in the Multiculturalism
Secretariat, but I think Manitobans should be asked that question, because I do
know that many, many services are being provided, and consultation is ongoing
with the community. So he may not agree
but the community does.
Justification
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My
question to the minister is: How does
she justify having the multicultural secretariat's office when, in fact, the
Manitoba Intercultural Council provided all of the things plus more of what the
multicultural secretariat provides for this government and at a cheaper cost?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate again, we seem to have a little bit of a
contradiction within the Liberal Party, because I listened very intently to
speeches from the Liberal opposition on the repeal of The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Act.
I
did quite distinctly hear the member for
Point of Order
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
What in fact was said was, and let me quote
from Hansard: So he has been unable to
be the quality of the person that he could have been because of the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up in terms of
the point of order that has‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have ruled there was no point of order.
Dismantling
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I
am asking the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship today to dismantle
the multicultural secretariat's office and save the taxpayers of this province
a quarter of a million dollars.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, I have indicated right from the beginning that when staff
was hired in the Multiculturalism Secretariat, Manitobans would be well served
by that person. I think it has been
proven.
Ultimately, it will be Manitobans who decide
what kind of job this government is doing and what our commitment to
multiculturalism is, not the member for
Swampy Cree Tribal Council
Child and Family Services Agency
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Northern
Affairs some questions.
The
Swampy Cree Tribal Council has for the past six years been working to establish
a Child and Family Services agency in The Pas area to service the seven‑member
bands that comprise the tribal council.
It appeared that at one time the provincial government was going to
support that council's pursuit for an agency, but, unfortunately, it appears
now they may not be willing to support it or may even be withdrawing that
support.
My
question to the Minister of Northern Affairs is: Could he advise the House whether indeed that
support has been withdrawn? If it has not been withdrawn, I would like to ask
him when that agreement, which has been sitting there for about a year now, is
going to be signed.
Hon. James Downey (Minister
of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think
I should at the outset put on the record that this government has over the past
indicated and clearly shown our ability to work with the Swampy Cree Tribal
Council, unlike when he and his government were in government in this
province. They were unable to accomplish
a major northern nursing program in his home community, of which it took this
government to get elected in order to accomplish working with the northern Swampy
Cree Tribal Council.
As
it relates to the specific question, Mr. Speaker, I will take it as notice for
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and have him respond
directly to him.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, could I also ask the same
minister, when he gets back to me as he puts it, to also outline the reason for
having such a long delay in the signing of the agreement, when he confers with
the Minister of Family Services?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows
somewhat about long delays, as it was in 1986 or '85 that he tried to get the
nursing agreement signed with the New Democratic government and had not been
able to accomplish that until 1988, when it took a change in government to get
some action on behalf of his community.
Mr.
Speaker, I will, as well, take that as notice.
Mr. Lathlin: My final question to the same minister
is: Seeing as how he is in a fast‑track
mood today, could I ask him then exactly when might we expect the minister and
this government to get together with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council family
services people and sign the agreement?
When will that agreement be signed? Will it be one month, two months‑‑when?
Mr. Downey: I will do everything possible to get the
information back to the member as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to recognize our Dutch community celebrating the 100th anniversary
of Dutch immigration to
When the Dutch people came to
The
Dutch community has played an integral role in building, developing and
strengthening our society. To help mark
the hundred years of Dutch settlement in
Each year,
The
centenary celebrations will also include the
I invite
all members of this assembly to join in congratulating the Dutch community as
they celebrate 100 years as Canadian citizens.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
It
is interesting that just over a year ago, we celebrated the 100th anniversary
of Ukrainian immigration to
My
only regret, Mr. Speaker, as we depart today, is that we do not have time to do
a resolution to ensure forever inscribed in the records of this Legislature
some official recognition of this very important anniversary. However, this moment today allows us that
opportunity, and I join in this very important celebration.
* (1420)
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Pas have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
rise this afternoon in the House to pay tribute and offer my sincere
congratulations to all of those First Nations athletes who travelled to
Mr.
Speaker, I know all of those athletes sacrificed a lot of their time, along
with their coaches and families, training for those games. I also want to acknowledge the tremendous support
and encouragement that our aboriginal athletes received from their respective
First Nations councils, community councils and the aboriginal organizations
here in
Mr.
Speaker, our athletes, as you may know, not only competed in the various events
in
I
talked with some of the athletes while I was in The Pas over the weekend. They told me they were extremely proud to be
called up to the podium to receive their medals on behalf of their individual
First Nation communities. Our athletes
from Manitoba First Nations, Mr. Speaker, won a total of 53 medals, out of
which 42 were won by teams representing the Swampy Cree Tribal Council. Four medals were won by
I
do not know the rest of the breakdown of the number of medals that were won by
the other First Nations communities, but I congratulate all of them. Those athletes have done themselves
well. They rightfully should be proud of
themselves, because I know I am proud of each and every one of them.
Thank you.
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, from
time to time, important personal moments and events occur involving members of
our House and our Legislature.
One
particular member on our side has realized an important milestone not so often
reached anymore in today's society. The
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), the affable and gregarious member for Arthur‑Virden,
who embodies of course the real spirit of the southwest in every one of his
moves, and his wife, Linda, are celebrating their 25th wedding anniversary.
Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of all the members of our side, congratulations to Linda and
Jim, and, of course, many more years of good health and happiness to them.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I just want to acknowledge and thank the government House leader for
those kind words of congratulations.
As
well, I want to join with the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) in his
congratulations on the accomplishments of the aboriginal athletes who performed
so admirably on behalf of their communities and for the
I
thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, report
stage, please. Would you call Bills 41
and 42.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 41‑The
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach), (by leave) that Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux 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 presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House was report
stage of Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendment Act; Loi
concernant les parcs provinciaux 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.
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 42‑The Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): I would like to move an amendment in terms of
proclamation.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst),
THAT Bill 42 be amended in Section 48 by
striking out subsection 48(3) and substituting the following:
Coming into force: other provisions 48(3) Clause 10(1)(d), as enacted by section 4 of
this Act, subsection 96(4), as enacted by section 31 of this Act and section 47
of this Act come into force on a day fixed by proclamation.
(French version)
Il est propose que le projet de loi soit
amende par substitution, au paragraphe 48(3), de ce qui suit:
Entree en vigueur par proclamation 48(3) L'alinea 10(1)d, edicte a l'article 4 de la
presente loi, le paragraphe 96(4), edicte a l'article 31 de la presente loi,
ainsi que l'article 47 de la presente loi entrent en vigueur a la date fixee
par proclamation.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), (by leave) that Bill 42, The Liquor Control
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
reglementation des alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Economic
Development, be concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
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.
*
* *
* (1430)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 29, please.
THIRD
Bill 29‑The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 29, The Minors
Intoxicating Substances Control Act (Loi sur le controle des substances
intoxicantes et les mineurs), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
The
minister who has sponsored this bill will understand some of those mixed
emotions. All members in this House will
recall the history behind Bill 29 and will understand that the idea behind this
bill goes back decades, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of this Legislature, goes
back five years when individuals in our community looked to this Legislature
for legislative action, brought forward their ideas to some of us in this House
and called on us to act. We took up that
call to action.
The
work in the community, the need for action, became the basis of Bill 91. Bill 91 was recognized from the very
beginning not to be the only, the final answer to a very serious problem of
solvent abuse in our society today. It was
recognized to be one part of the solution.
It was recognized that even if one death could be avoided because of
such legislation, it was worthwhile.
That bill received thorough discussion and
debate and input in this Chamber, and the result was a fine piece of
legislation in the eyes of many.
However, as everyone knows, that bill gathered dust for three years
despite commitment from this government to ensure its proclamation.
Bill 29 was introduced as a replacement to
Bill 91. Bill 29 differs considerably
from Bill 91 in a couple of significant areas, areas that have caused us a
great deal of concern and debate around this particular piece of legislation.
It
departs in two important ways. Number
one, for the first time in the history of this Bill and this Legislature, it
seeks to charge the victim, the youth who has been sniffing one of these
horrible, deadly substances. Mr.
Speaker, it also creates wide‑open defence provisions for someone charged
under this act, someone charged with selling to minors that makes us all wonder
whether prosecutions will be possible as a result of this change.
Throughout all of this process, there has been
little understanding, little information given to us to understand why the
change, why Bill 91 gathered dust for three years. What were the problems? What parts were so unenforceable? What caused this government to break its word
and not proclaim Bill 91?
I
suppose some of my mixed emotions today have to do with that lack of
information, lack of clarification and lack of forthright response to our
questioning over the years.
To
this day, we remain in the dark about the reasons for the government's
delay. To this day, no legal opinion has
been tabled. No information has been
forwarded about why Bill 91 was so much more difficult to enforce than Bill
29. Some information would have
helped. It would have helped us
understand and would have, perhaps, led to a more productive and enlightened
process around Bill 29.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do not want
to dwell on history. I do not want to
live in the past. I think all of us want
to do something in this area. We want to
ensure that there is some legislation in place to begin to deal with a very
serious problem in our society.
The
government left us in a very difficult position around Bill 29. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) will
know the quandary that we have been placed in as a result of the substitution
of Bill 91 with Bill 29. The minister
will know, and others who attended the committee hearings will know from most
of the presenters that a move to charge the minor, to go after the victim, may
be counterproductive, may, in fact, do more harm than good.
So
the question we had to ask ourselves throughout this process was precisely
that. Does this bill do more harm than
good, or is it better to have something as opposed to nothing?
Mr.
Speaker, we listened carefully to all the presenters. We asked those questions, and we heard some
very grave concerns from just about every group that presented to us. One group was not able to come down to
That brief, along with all the others we heard
from during the committee hearings on Bill 29, indicated some very serious
concerns with Bill 29. I refer members
to page 3 of that brief where MKO clearly states: Government has failed to address solvent
abuse treatment and instead are focusing to bring criminal charges to youth who
are involved in a destructive behaviour.
Number 2, the proposed legislation has many loopholes, as it will be
difficult to prove that minors who purchase solvent are purchasing it for the
purposes of sniffing it or for other reasons.
Number 3, it is legislation that will be expensive and unnecessary in which
to deal with a problem that is a health and social problem. Number 4, the new legislation is intended to
emphasize rehabilitation even though there is no solvent abuse treatment. This will bring more youth solvent abusers
into detention homes which will serve no purpose for the abusers and will only
hinder them further to seek the treatment they really need.
Mr.
Speaker, I think those four points summarize the concerns that many brought
forward to the committee and indicate the kind of dilemma that we face today.
The
overriding message from all those who participated at the committee stage of
this bill and, in fact, on Bill 91, is that unless the government of the day is
prepared to look at the root of the problem, the causes of solvent abuse, any
kind of legislative action to restrict the sale of solvents, to crack down on
sniffers, is meaningless.
So,
Mr. Speaker, the message was left strong and clear for this government. I hope the message has been taken very
seriously and that action will follow. I
am a little worried, based on some of the comments yesterday in debate on
concurrence from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that this government
may, in fact, again, be hiding behind jurisdictional issues to avoid acting on
a serious problem. I hope that it is not
the case. I hope that, collectively,
good sense will prevail, and it will be seen by this government to be a very
critical issue that needs action, regardless of whether we are dealing with
individuals on reserve or off reserve, in inner cities or in the suburban parts
of our communities.
Mr.
Speaker, it is widely recognized that this is a problem that can touch the
lives of anyone in our province today.
No one is excluded. Young people
from all walks of life have experimented with sniff. Some have faced the consequences in terms of
very serious health problems. Some have
actually died. So the overriding message out of this whole process has been a call
for action to get at the root causes of solvent abuse.
Finally, I have to address the question, the
dilemma, the quandary that our caucus has been in around this bill and that I
face personally, and that is, what do we do, what is our final recommendation,
how do we stand on this bill?
* (1440)
I
want to indicate today, Mr. Speaker, that we have concluded that something is
better than nothing, that in fact we will give our reluctant support to Bill
29. We will do our best to continue
working hard in this area bringing these issues to the attention of government,
community leaders, nonprofit organizations, and we will be looking and watching
for the impact that this legislation will have in terms of dealing with a very
serious problem in our society today.
We
give our reluctant support today on the understanding that with the belief that
should this legislation prove to be ineffective at cracking down on those who
sell solvents to young people, particularly those who deliberately prey on the
vulnerabilities of our youth, that this government will return to this
Legislative Assembly with amendments to this act or with new legislation that
will be more effective.
So
on that note, Mr. Speaker, I want to end by thanking all those who had a role
to play in ensuring that some sort of legislation will go down in our books, in
our statutes after this legislative session.
I
want to thank, in particular, all those members, individuals who have been part
of the Anti‑Sniff Coalition and the people against solvent abuse
organization over the last several decades.
Those who have stuck with this issue, who have fought long and hard for
ways to have this matter addressed, I want to pay tribute to that perseverance,
that determination for trying to get a very serious problem in our communities
addressed today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few
comments on record, because this has been the bill that was brought forward and
I guess it grew from Bill 91, and it is a problem that deals with people right
across
Mr.
Speaker, this is a very, very serious problem that affects citizens right
across. It does not only affect minors,
but this bill is dealing directly with minors, and it has been a bill that was
brought forward, I think, because the government could not foresee the
nonpartisan way that Bill 91 was brought forward by my colleague. At this time, I would like to commend her for
her dedication, hard work and her co‑operation with organizations and
individuals that were also concerned about the solvent abuse problem.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
She
took the time to consult with the individuals, to share their ideas and to get
feedback from them. When I was in committee,
I never heard that same kind of participation by the government. Everyone said, how come we were not
consulted? How come we never had any
input into this? These are the people
that were front line workers, people that worked with the people that were
solvent abusers, and it is these people that know first hand.
It
is important for any government, before they bring forward a bill such as this
which impacts, hopefully, positively on individuals' lives, that they consult
with the individuals, consult with the community, because they are the ones
that know first‑hand what it is all about and what the individuals need
to overcome some of the barriers that they need to in order to change their
lives around.
One
thing with this bill, it misses two points.
I heard over and over and over from almost every individual that was
giving a brief and a presentation, why are the minors being charged, and why
are the minors going to be carrying a record with them for the rest of their
life, I guess, instead of looking at trying to overcome what the initial bill
and, hopefully, what this bill will address later, to get at the people that
are supplying the solvents to these youths?
We heard that from almost every person that spoke. They are saying incarceration will not solve
the problem. What I heard over and over
and over again, and I hope the government will act on it, is they were talking
about proper treatment, proper support back in the communities.
All
we have to do is look at the alcoholism rehabilitation program, just look at
that as an example. When individuals
need the help, they are not charged.
They go for a treatment program where they learn about what the effects
of the alcohol abuse is doing to the individuals, to their families, and on and
on and on. Then there is a treatment
program and a support program for when the individuals come out.
That is what we kept hearing over and over and
over. Yet, in this bill, there is no
mention of increasing or putting in proper treatment programs, proper treatment
support systems, and what we hear almost on a daily basis, we hear about a
northern treatment program. We hear from
the aboriginal leaders. We hear from the
aboriginal communities. We hear from all
northerners. We hear that over and over,
and yet there is nothing that has been addressed to deal with that.
It
is easy to pass the buck onto the federal government, say it is a federal
responsibility, but this bill is trying to deal with solvent abuse. What all the individuals said, to treat
solvent abuse, to solve the problem, you need treatment centres.
When we were looking at the bill and hearing
people giving their presentations, one big area that they saw missing was why
is there not something in that bill to deal with the people that are supplying
the solvent, whether it is for sexual favours, for money, or what have
you? We heard from people that were
front‑line workers, people that were directly involved and directly knew
the people and were giving us examples of why these individuals were supplying
the paint thinners, the glue and other products, and they were saying that it
is unscrupulous sellers that you have to try and do something about.
My
colleague mentioned that we will be supporting this, and one of the reasons
that we are supporting it is, what some of the people that were giving their
brief and their presentation had indicated was, at least this is a first step,
that this is better than nothing. So if
that is the case, then I hope that the government will be willing to look at
this through a period of time, and if certain areas are not working, certain
areas have to be added to, bring in the appropriate amendments to add to it.
Let
us learn from this. It is a step in the
right direction, it is a first step.
What we have to do is try and incorporate some of the recommendations
that individuals have brought forward in their briefs, and when we see through
court actions or whatever process that the individuals who are supplying the
products are getting off scot‑free and they are still continually
supplying the minors with these solvent products, that we take measures, bring
in an amendment to take measures to deal with that.
* (1450)
If
the courts are being too lenient‑‑for instance, we heard from
people giving presentations that one of the fears of this bill was there was no
minimum fine or penalty for people who are selling or supplying solvent
products. If the judges are bringing
forward too small of a fine or below acceptable fines, then let us bring back
an amendment, bring in an amendment that deals with a high minimum fine to
hopefully discourage people from trying it again. We who were in the meeting heard that over
and over.
I
would like to, in my own way, congratulate the government for bringing this
bill. Like I said, it is a first
step. Let us learn from it, and let us
let the actions grow. Let us do this in
the most positive way we can for the betterment of the people who are abusing
the solvents and who are ruining their lives.
If it takes treatment centres, if it takes support programs, if it takes
the education in our school systems, let us seriously look at addressing that
so that way we can eventually, in the end, hopefully help some individuals
overcome the barriers that are holding the individuals back. Let them grow and become positive citizens of
So
we will support this, and we look forward to see how this bill works out. We look forward to the government's co‑operation
with the interest groups and citizens of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 29‑‑
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, just before you put
the question, I would just very briefly thank honourable members for their
contributions to the debate and discussion, not only here but also in
committee, also thanks to those who came forward to committee to give us the
benefit of their experience and their advice.
I
think when you look at the amendments that flowed from committee and report
stage, it is evident that the government was listening and is attempting to be
responsive. Albeit our amendments do not
go as far as some people, including the honourable members opposite, would like
to see us go, I do think though that we have taken away from the judiciary the
right to impose imprisonment on young people for abusing the substances.
In
the interests of brevity, though, I would like to call attention to the
contribution made by the honourable member for
I
may not get another opportunity publicly to speak in this way about the
honourable member for
I
would just wish her well and let her know, and I think many members will join me
in this, that she is not afraid to stand up and speak out on behalf of the
issues that she feels are important to do that with. I respect her for that and wish her well in
her future endeavours.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is Bill 29, The
Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act (Loi sur le controle des substances
intoxicantes et les mineurs), be now read a third time and passed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? (agreed)
*
* *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, would you call Bill 55, and then the bills in descending order
starting after that Bill 53.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 55‑The Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on third reading, on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 55,
The Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblee legislative et apportant des modifications
correlatives a une autre loi), standing in the name of the honourable Minister
of Finance.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, our side has certainly made all of our comments on this bill, and we
recommend it and commend it to the House at this time to be considered by way
of vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 55. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
THIRD
Bill 53‑The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act
Ms. Becky Barrett (
According to the minister's comments on second
reading, it was done to clarify the intention of The Justice for Victims of
Crime Act and, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill does not clarify the meaning of
this act. It abrogates and changes in a
major, very basic way the intention of The Justice for Victims of Crime
Act. It allows the provincial government
to raid the Justice for Victims of Crime fund which has been established
through this piece of legislation from fines paid by individuals who have been
convicted of criminal offences.
This fund was established specifically to
support projects and services external to the government itself. This "clarification" which is a
raid on the part of this government to gain more money at the expense of
individuals and victims, literally, victims in this particular instance, is a
travesty of justice and the government, but most particularly, the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), who in this House day after day after day stands up and
unctuously states how committed he is and his government is to the concept of
zero tolerance for violence, justice for victims, and all those wonderful
things. Yet, time after time in this
session, bill after bill brought forward by this particular Minister of
Justice, he has given the lie to that principle.
He
knows it. His government knows it. He is doing this because the Treasury Board
has said, thou shalt cut spending‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might have the co‑operation
of the honourable member for
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Certainly, I think
we should strike all of that other material off the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to properly introduce
this bill for third reading, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), that Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'acts criminels), be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion presented.
* (1500)
Point of Order
Ms. Barrett: If I may, on a point of information, or a
point of order before I begin, I would like to ask if the comments that I put
on the record prior will remain on the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes, your previous comments will indeed
remain on the record, and you may continue your debate on third reading of Bill
53.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: I will conclude my remarks. I think I have stated fairly forcefully our
government's position on Bill 53.
An Honourable Member: Is there any way you could make a clear
. . . ?
Ms. Barrett: I am not sure, in response to the Minister of
Justice's question to me, if there was any way I could make clearer our
feelings about this piece of legislation.
I must regretfully inform the Minister of Justice there is no way within
the bounds of parliamentary procedure, and within the rules of this House for
me to make it any clearer.
I
wish I could, Madam Deputy Speaker, because perhaps if I could be a little
clearer or a little more forceful, I might, on behalf of, literally, the
victims of criminal actions in this province who are going to potentially and
probably in actuality, suffer as a result of Bill 53. I wish that I could speak out even more forcefully
on their behalf, and I wish the Minister of Justice would listen.
However, we have seen an enormous deafness
having arisen on the part of the government members when listening to the cries
and the concerns being raised by Manitobans from Churchill to Steinbach, from
Dauphin to Sprague. With those remarks,
I will conclude our debate on Bill 53 and state that we will be, as we did in
second reading, unalterably opposed to this piece of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'actes criminels). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
question?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition):
Yeas and Nays, please.
Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'actes criminels.
All
those in favour of the motion will please rise.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Had I not been
paired, I would have voted against the bill.
Bill 49‑The Summary Convictions Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 49, The Summary
Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les poursuites sommaires et apportant des modifications correlatives a une
autre loi), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: 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 47‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh),
that Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant
la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak
one last time against these amendments.
These are very significant amendments.
They are going to affect approximately 100,000 apartment units in the
Mr.
Speaker, they were done with undue haste.
It is only 10 months since The Residential Tenancies Act was
proclaimed. This minister claims to have
had broad consultation, but in fact she has not even appointed her advisory
committee.
This
process has been very different than the process that was used to bring in The
Residential Tenancies Act, an act that was supported by all three parties in
this Legislature because the process was fair and just. There were representatives of tenants. There were representatives of landlords, and
there were representatives of civil servants.
They issued consensus recommendations and near‑consensus
recommendations, and their report was made public. It was the basis of the legislation. That
legislation had a rough trip, but eventually it got passed with the support of
all three parties.
What happened this time? This time this minister consulted her Tory
landlord friends. She alleges to have
consulted one group, the Housing Coalition.
She said I am a member of it, I would like to put on the record I am not
a member of the Housing Coalition. It
does have one or two people who are renters on it, but they do not primarily
represent tenants. They represent people
who are interested in housing issues, including some civil servants. All good people, but not truly a tenants‑only
organization.
* (1520)
This minister has made major changes in The
Residential Tenancies Act. One of the
most controversial areas of the review committee discussion was on security
deposits, tenants' money. We are talking here about $25 million of tenants'
money in security deposits, and the issues are who is going to monitor them,
who is going to control it, and who is going to make sure that the money is
there when the tenants move out?
The
compromise position, not the position that tenants wanted, not the position
that landlords or property managers wanted, was there would be security‑deposit‑in‑trust
provisions, which this government did.
They gave landlords one year to set them up, September 1, 1993. I think it is very significant that we are
passing this on July 27, 1993, because if these amendments have not been
approved or were not approved‑‑they are certainly going to pass
because the government has a majority‑‑but if these amendments had
not been brought in, those landlords would have been required to put the
security deposits in trust by September 1.
Now they do not have to.
Do
we know whether the money is there? Do
we know whether the landlords lobbied this minister and said, we do not want to
put these security deposits in trust by September 1, 1993 because we do not
have the money?
Some of them have probably spent it. Some of them use it for their cash flow. In fact, that is why we were opposed to
landlords having control over security deposits in the first place, because we
believed many landlords used it for their cash flow.
In
fact, I did some research for these amendments.
I phoned my landlord. I said, what
do you think of these amendments. He
said, oh, they are great. I said
why? He said, because we need that money
for our cash flow. Well, that is exactly
what I was saying about landlords for the last 10 years.
Some of them I would have to say, not all of
them, but some of them do not keep the money in a bank account so that it is
there when the tenants move out. This
leads to all kinds of problems when tenants do move out. Tenants need that money for their next
security deposit.
The
rules for social assistance have been changed, so they do not get a second
one. What do they do? They take the money out of their food
allowance, their personal needs allowance, or their household needs allowance,
and then they go to a food bank so they can eat. This is unconscionable that this minister
should not have strict provisions to make sure that that money is there.
What have they done? They have given this gift of $25 million to
landlords and said, do whatever you want with it. They did not even wait one
year to require them to put the money in the trust provisions that were in the
act.
What is going to happen now? Well, security deposits in trust are not the
only concern. Not only do they not have
to return it to the tenant or the department within 14 days. Now they have 28 days, and the minister sent
me a note. I appreciate the note she
sent across the Chamber. She said, well,
the reason we are doing this is because it helps tenants, because in the past
the landlords came down and they said, oh, we do not have a final estimate of
the cost; give us a few more days. They
kept dragging it out and dragging it out.
Well, how much time does a landlord need? All they need to do is go into the suite once
when it is empty, ascertain how much it is going to cost to make repairs, if
any repairs need to be made, and then tell the department what that figure is
and remit the money with a claim.
Landlords do not need 28 days.
They are just going to put it in a daily interest account and earn
interest on that money for 28 days, and it is the tenants' money.
When tenants sign a lease, they have to make
the deposit up front at the same time they sign the lease. What do landlords get? Landlords get 28 days. These are two gifts that this minister has
given to landlords. First of all, she
has given them a gift of $25 million.
Now she is saying, you can keep that money for 28 days instead of 14
days.
There are so many things that are bad about
this bill, that in the time I have been allocated I could not begin to list
them all. This minister has made major
changes in the area of furniture. Now,
furniture is another area where low‑income tenants in particular are very
vulnerable, because the landlord can charge an exorbitant amount for the
furniture and the controls that used to be there are not there.
The
landlord can withdraw services. If a
landlord wants to get rid of a tenant, the landlord can withdraw all kinds of
services in order to encourage the tenant to move out.
An Honourable Member: They can open his windows, take his windows
away.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans), gives a very good example. When
we were on the review committee, one of the things we had to put in the act was
a requirement that the landlord have a door.
That may seem kind of absurd, but the reason was that somebody had a
problem at the Residential Tenancies Branch, and they won because the previous
act only said a doorknob, it did not require a door. So some slum landlord went and he won because
the act did not refer to a door.
I
mean, there are all kinds of tricks that landlords will play. For example, I was on a board of directors
with an individual I will not name because I would not want to embarrass a
current city councillor. We were afraid
that a particular tenant would not move out.
He said, well, my father and I, when our tenants do not move out, we
take the doors off‑‑totally illegal, because the landlord must
provide heat at a certain temperature.
I
think these laws need to be greatly improved for many low‑income
tenants. They need the protection. What landlord and tenant laws are really
about is balancing the power between landlords and tenants, and landlords have
always had more power. They have always had the ability to hire lawyers who
understand the legislation and to protect their interest. Tenants normally do not have the wherewithal
to hire a lawyer to protect their interest.
In fact, the act costs $11 or $12 at Queen's Printer.
This minister has an obligation to do as much
education as she possibly can with landlords and tenants to emphasize and to
educate people as to what their rights are and what their responsibilities are.
One
of the good things about the act is that it does talk about rights for
landlords and responsibilities for landlords and rights for tenants and
responsibilities for tenants. That is
one of the good things about the original act, and fortunately the minister did
not touch that part of the act.
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible bill. These are terrible amendments. They are not going to provide the kind of
protection that tenants need for their money, the $25 million of security
deposits that is their money. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to say a few things
about this bill. One of the difficulties
of legislation coming in close to summer and being debated through the July
month is the very little public debate that has taken place on this bill, which
we believe is a manifestation of the landlord lobby that has operated fully
with the Conservative Party of Manitoba ever since the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was
the Minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the early '80s,
and has continued on through successive ministries to fulfill the agenda of the
landlords of Manitoba.
Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that legislation dealing with landlords and
tenants has to be balanced. We want a
fair return for the investment, and we want fair accommodations and
arrangements for accommodations for tenants.
But there is no question in our mind that the government has, in a very,
very insidious way, changed the balance dramatically to side with the landlords
and friends of the Conservative Party, rather than with the tenants.
* (1530)
Let
me go over a couple of issues in this bill that have not caught any public
attention. One is the issue of Section
134(3), dealing with condominiums. Maybe
this is the Donald Trump section of this bill by the minister responsible for
this bill, a bill that allows condominium‑‑well, the minister makes
some very rude gestures, but that does not change the fact that by stating that
134(3) is repealed, that is dealing with 136‑‑(interjection)
Well, the minister mentions Jimmy Carter. The minister will know one of the things that
was stated at the ecumenical presentations of Habitat for Humanity was the
whole issue that people should own houses and be fairly treated in housing, not
have a few people control the housing stock for many.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is a conversion of
condos, and the notice for conversion of rental apartments to be converted into
condominiums. This was meant to protect,
particularly those people who lived in residences, particularly seniors who
lived in the downtown area of
There was a procedure in place to allow
particularly elderly people to protect themselves with the old Sections 136 and
136(2). The government never had that,
and the minister never had that in her press release. They did not want to tell the people of
If
the minister was confident of the changes, why was it not in her original press
release? Why did she hide that from the
people of
A
second change is in the way in which landlords can unilaterally change‑‑boy,
the landlords have done very well with this minister. They may make her the person of the year, Mr.
Speaker. The may make the minister
responsible person of the year, because look at 138(1) and 138(3). The tenants' rights when services are
withdrawn could be dealt with by an adjudicator.
The
minister may turn her back on the tenants of Manitoba and may turn her back on
the people in this Chamber, but we are not going to let the tenants forget who
has allowed the landlords of this province to unilaterally change the services
and deny them the rights to deal in a fair and reasonable way with those
changes.
How
would you like it, Mr. Speaker, if your services, your fridge services, your
stove services, your other essential services could be unilaterally
changed? Your apartment could be painted
pink in the middle of the night; your apartment could be painted Tory blue in
the middle of the night, it could painted all kinds of colours and what could
you do about it?
It
may not be the apartment you originally rented, it may not be the services you
originally intended to have, but you could have it unilaterally changed by the
government of the day. You know, the
government has again given a major power to landlords to use the change of
services to kick people out of their apartments.
Some Honourable Members: Come on.
Mr. Doer: Well, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are
naive or are not paying attention, because even though the vacancy rate in
Again, usually it is the downtown areas or the
older areas where a lot of seniors reside or people who are not necessarily
having all the means to be as mobile as they would like, and landlords could
just willy‑nilly change the services.
Look at the definition of services.
Now, did the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) tell us about that amendment, that little insidious
change for the landlords in this province?
No. She is turning her back on
those people.
Mr.
Speaker, I really believe that any government that allows landlords to change
the conditions for fridges and stoves in apartments does not understand the
plight of tenants and certainly has again had another Donald Trump clause in
this contract to just trample over the rights of tenants and trample over the
rights of 100,000 renters in this province.
They do not care. This minister does not care. She just walked out on all the renters in
Lastly, there are conditions under this bill
dealing with the whole issue of calculations for purposes of rent regulation
period. The rent regulation period has
gone from 15 years down to three or four years, or for six years. The changes in late fees for rent gives
landlords much more power for establishing interest rates, et cetera.
This bill is clearly a result of a very quiet
and direct landlord lobby, a very effective lobby because they have Tory ministers
that do their bidding in bringing in unbalanced legislation that allows the few
developers in this city to profit at the expense of the 100,000 renters in this
province.
The
minister said before in this Chamber that she had literally thousands of names
of renters that she has talked to and listened to. We do not know who they are. Certainly the people in the rent advocacy
area have not been consulted on this bill.
I hope that all political parties oppose this bill at third reading.
I
was a little disappointed the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) voted with
the government at second reading at committee, but I am sure they have caucused
this issue and I am sure they are aware of all the very negative effects on
renters.
I
would ask the Liberals to join with the NDP and vote for a fair and balanced
treatment for tenants and renters in this province and vote against the
landlord lobby as manifested by the Tories in this bill before us in this
Chamber. Thank you very much, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on the record
that it is a pretty tough time for a lot of tenants in
I
think this is a really disgusting piece of back‑room legislation. This is the clearest attempt on behalf of a
minister, I think, in this session, to show bias towards a lobby group that has
the ear of the Conservative Party, that is an arm of the Conservative
Party. That is some of the
landlords. I do not say all, because
many landlords have not even asked for this kind of legislation.
I
have fought four elections in Thompson and, lo and behold, surprising as it may
be, I believe that a handful of landlords in Thompson have financed the entire
Tory election campaign. In 1981, they
outspent us three to one. We won. In 1986, they outspent us three to one
again. In 1988, the same thing. In the last election, 1990, I think they
outspent us four to one. They had a
candidate who was able to walk into a $75,000‑a‑year job when she
lost, but the power of the landlord lobby could not defeat the power of the
people.
The
lesson to this government is: Remember
the lesson of 1981. You took on the
tenants of this province. You said, yes
sir, yes madam, to the landlords, to that landlord lobby from within your
party. The end result was you were
defeated.
I
look to some of the members opposite who will remember that. The Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), I wonder where he stands on this bill, because when he was minister
dealing with this particular legislation he said no to the landlords. This minister said yes. This minister said, what do you want? We will put it in.
They did it, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are opposed to this bill. I say in the next election it is going to be
like 1981 all over again. There is only
one party that has stood for the tenants of this province. It is not the Liberals who voted for this
bill in committee. It is not the Tories
who say anything to the landlords. It is
the New Democratic Party.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 46, please.
Bill 46‑The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment
Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 46,
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels), be now read a third time and
passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 45, please.
Bill 45‑The Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that 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
Motion presented.
* (1540)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
*
* *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 44.
Bill 44‑The Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 44, The
Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre l'alcoolisme et apportant
des modifications correlatives a une autre loi), be now read a third time and
passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few words
on record pertaining to this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, the Alcoholism Foundation has always dealt with people who had
drinking problems, and then they stepped into narcotics addictions. Now they are working with alcoholics and
people who are abusing substances pertaining to narcotics.
One
caution I would like to bring up again is by changing the name of the
Alcoholism Foundation to Addictions Foundation, I hope, like I said before in
my speech, that is not a guise to try and put individuals who have solvent
abuse problems to treatment centres that are set up to deal with alcoholism
across
If this
name change, the government hopes, will take care of the solvent abuse
problems, I think it will be a big mistake unless they have adequate funding
and resources and appropriate training for the staff who are there to deal with
a totally, totally different problem pertaining to solvent abuse versus alcohol
or narcotics.
Mr.
Speaker, with those words, I just caution the government and will be monitoring
it very, very closely. If they are going
to be tying in solvent abuse problems, put adequate training dollars in place
and make sure there are adequate dollars to hire additional staff, so that for
the staff who are in place now dealing with the problems that exist for the
centres, there will not be additional responsibilities on top of their existing
workload.
So
with those cautionary words, like I say, we will be watching this closely, and
we will be supporting the government on this, in trust. We hope it will be just a name change and not
a paper guise to look as if they are dealing with solvent abuse across
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 44, The Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte
contre l'alcoolisme et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre
loi, be now read a third time and passed. (agreed)
*
* *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Would you call Bill
43, please.
Bill 43‑The
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): I move, seconded by
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that 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), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
The question before the House was third reading of Bill 43.
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.
*
* *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, could
you call Bill 42, please.
Bill 42‑The Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Government
House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), (by leave) that Bill 42, The Liquor Control
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
reglementation des alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois), be now read a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable acting government House
leader have leave for third reading of Bill 42? (agreed)
Motion presented.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief on this
legislation. I want to begin by thanking
members of the committee, including the minister and the member for
The
amendment had to do with an amendment requiring the Manitoba Liquor Control
Commission to warn consumers of alcohol of some of the dangers inherent in
alcohol consumption. One of the
principal reasons why that issue was before committee was a concern that I and
other members of the Legislature and certainly many, many members of my
constituency have with respect to the impact of alcohol on unborn children.
The
fact of the matter is fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects are more
common in
We
used to talk and hear a great deal about Down's syndrome. We used to talk about
spina bifida. The fact of the matter is
that fetal alcohol syndrome is now the most important source of impairment on
unborn children on our continent.
Mr.
Speaker, I and others who have taught and travelled in northern
I
think that although it is now up to the Manitoba Liquor Commission, which has
been given the power by regulation to warn consumers of alcohol of some of
these dangers, I believe that it is an important first step. I believe that the Manitoba Liquor Commission
will be taking on the task of implementing the amendments to The Manitoba
Liquor Control Act in a responsible and diligent way. That is my hope, Mr. Speaker, and I will be
watching that with a great deal of interest.
Mr.
Speaker, I know there are some in our society who would suggest the application
of a warning label is not in and of itself sufficient, that it is not going to
make that much difference. I remind
people that 25 years ago when many people began to lobby for the application of
a warning label on cigarettes, there were those, particularly the industry, who
said it will not have any impact. To
this very day, people inside the tobacco industry would deny that warnings on
cigarette packages have any impact.
* (1550)
But, Mr. Speaker, something caused the change
in society's attitude towards smoking.
Something caused it, because today it is unacceptable for people to
smoke thoughtlessly in the presence of others.
It is unacceptable for people to smoke in many, many public places by by‑law
and by custom.
I
believe that over the long haul beginning to make people aware of the effects
that alcohol can have on the developing fetus is an issue which education and
awareness over the long run will serve to correct. Mr. Speaker, we are never going to stop in
total the effects of alcohol during pregnancy, but I think we can start here.
Mr.
Speaker, having said that and having indicated last night that my caucus
wholeheartedly supports that amendment and thanks the members of the committee
and the government for agreeing to include that amendment in the bill, the fact
of the matter is that this bill falls short in many respects.
It
was instructive to listen to presenters at committee last night, because this
did not represent simply a collection of individuals who oppose alcohol
consumption for their own personal or religious reason. There were representatives of the Mennonite
community there, representatives of the
Mr.
Speaker, what was interesting was that we saw a coalition developing who have
genuine concerns about the approach the government is taking with respect to
liquor sales in particular. We had representatives of the Manitoba Government
Employees'
Mr.
Speaker, even Mrs. Loscerbo, who was mentioned here, who would have liked some
liberalization of the resale laws, acknowledged, when asked a direct question,
that she did not want to see the Americanization of liquor sales in the
province of Manitoba.
We
have a custom and a practice in
Mr.
Speaker, one of the most interesting presenters last night was a man by the
name of Mr. Choate who represented Alberta Distillers Ltd., one of the largest
purchasers of rye from western
I
remind members that this government is not about creating a level playing field
with the Liquor Commission. What this
government is about is giving private wine sellers the right to remain open
longer hours than the Liquor Commission, and they are giving deeper discounts
to the individuals; in other words, costing the government of
Mr.
Speaker, even the presenters who are interested in pursuing the possibility of
selling wine privately acknowledge that the Manitoba Liquor Commission has done
a good job. They acknowledge that the
Liquor Commission over the past few years has worked diligently to be more
customer‑oriented, to meet the needs of wine enthusiasts, to be informed
as sellers and suppliers of wine, to answer questions the public may have. So this is an unnecessary move.
I
want to add to that coalition which opposes the liberalization of liquor sales
and the privatization of liquor sales, and some other amendments that were
suggested. Added to that coalition has
to be the Manitoba Hotel Association and a representative of one of the largest
chains of hotels, cocktail lounges, beverage licence owners in the province,
who expressed concern about the changing of the rules of the game so
dramatically and so often.
Mr.
Speaker, so it was not simply a matter of those who have personal concerns
about the consumption of alcohol who were there opposing this legislation. It was a coalition of those people who have
genuine personal, religious convictions opposed to this kind of a process. It was a coalition of people who are employed
by the Manitoba Liquor Commission, who are supporters of the Manitoba Liquor
Commission, who believe the Liquor Commission has done an adequate, if not an
excellent, job.
Then it is a coalition, as well, of members of
the hospitality industry who believe the playing field is adequate and that the
amendments the government was introducing were going to cost jobs, were going
to create uncertainty with respect to future investment, large‑scale
investment, and I think that is something we should be concerned about.
Having acknowledged the co‑operation of
the government in passing a single amendment that I think goes some way towards
balancing the direction the government is taking by acknowledging the problems
we are creating, in fact there are many, many problems with this particular
piece of legislation as we heard last night in committee.
Mr.
Speaker, with those remarks we are prepared to let this issue come to a vote.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
What we did in the amendment process last
night was I think something I have been advocating in this House for some time
with a lot of support from members from all sides of this House. When I first raised, some three years ago,
the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, there was an immediate response from
members in all political parties that if there was something we could do about
this particular syndrome then we should in fact do so.
It
has taken some time. The first step on
the part of the government was to put up posters in liquor stores indicating
that there were indeed problems with fetal alcohol syndrome and people should
educate themselves. Although that was a
good first step, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it has still failed to address
all of the requirements needed in order to prevent these very substantial fetal
deformities which lead to very serious birth defects.
It
has been estimated that a child with severe fetal alcohol syndrome can cost
society anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million in their lifetime, not only
because of the additional medical costs, but the additional education costs and
the support services required for this individual child.
* (1600)
As
a result of last night's amendment, we now have in law a regulation‑‑well,
actually in the law, not in the regulation itself but in the law‑‑a
process by which the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission will have to look at
ways to inform the public each time they purchase an item for alcoholic
consumption within a liquor outlet. They
have not determined exactly what that process will be, and I think that at this
stage that is reasonable.
The
minister indicated in her remarks last night that some preliminary studies had
indicated it would cost some $3 million to label the bottles and there was also
a federal process whereby they were examining this. I must say that I had some regret when the
former Minister of Health at the national level, the Honourable Benoit
Bouchard, had indicated that he had not heard from a single Minister of Health
across the country with respect to labels being placed on bottles. If he had heard from ministers across the
country, then he might have been prepared to act.
I
urged our Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to act at that time, and he chose
not to do so. I think that is deeply
regrettable, because obviously if this labelling could be put on at the
bottling when other labels are placed and it would become part of the federal
labelling act, then it would be a much simpler process and would cost the
Manitoba Liquor Control Commission nothing.
It would be absorbed as part of the manufacturers' costs. I think that obviously is the preferred way
to go.
So
I wish the minister good fortune, quite frankly, in coming up with whether it
will be the bags that liquor is placed in, the boxes it is placed in, the
bottles themselves, which I think is still the preferred option. Whatever we come up with will be better than
what we presently have, and that was a positive thing. We had lots of jokes last night about how people
who liked sausages and obeyed laws should not see either one of them being
made. I think that is true, but last
night, if I can say with respect to this particular provision of this bill,
good law was made because it was very much a beginning to some serious address
paid to the whole issue of fetal alcohol syndrome.
With respect to the bill itself, Madam Deputy
Speaker, there were a number of presenters who made presentations last night
that gave me grave cause for concern.
One of the areas of concern was with respect to the potential of lost
revenue for the
But
when they started to look more seriously at the number figures, and we began to
look at figures like $16 million and $17 million that might be lost to the
Province of Manitoba as a result of sales within these boutiques and that this
money would then be lost to the province to spend on social issues and on
health care issues, then I have to suggest I began to have very serious
reservations about what was transpiring here.
I
also have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in my years in this House, we have
always done this kind of event. Here we
are, on what is supposed to be the last day, and there we were at one o'clock
in the morning, making amendments to laws, the amendments written out in
longhand, nobody even sure how they could be read, asking those in the audience
who were interested whether or not this met their particular need or whether it
did not meet their particular need. It
is not the way to make law.
If
we are serious about what we do in this Chamber, we have to review the
rules. There should be no way in which a
bill is amended, literally, less than 24 hours before we are going to adjourn
this House and have those amendments be substantial in form. That is what we were doing. We were making substantial amendments to
legislation, amendments that are going to affect people for years to come, and
there we were, doing it at 1 a.m. in the morning, expecting these same MLAs and
staffpersons to be in here early this morning and to keep on going.
I
would recommend to the House leaders, because I know they have worked on it in
the past, to please do something in the process before we meet in this Chamber
again, so we can find ways that we can make laws that make rational sense,
instead of the ways in which we make laws, quite frankly, what appears so often
to me to be on the fly.
I
hope we can come to that kind of agreement, because I think everybody in this
House wants to do the right thing, wants to pass legislation which is
legitimate, which is valuable, which does truly what the intention was of the
original drafters and the amendments that are legitimately made.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with that, I propose
that we bring this matter to a vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 42, The Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des alcools et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois).
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 41‑The
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
with the leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), (by leave) that Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a third time and
passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to proceed
through third reading of Bill 41? (agreed)
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 40‑The Legal Aid Services Society of
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), that Bill 40, The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendment
and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'aide
juridique du Manitoba et la Loi sur les procureurs de la Couronne), be now read
a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: 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.
Bill 37‑The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), that Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe
d'assurance publique du Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a
une autre loi), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 36‑The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), that Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant
le Code de la route), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 32‑The Social Allowances Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), that Bill 32, The Social Allowances Amendment Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'aide sociale), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): We have a number of
speakers at this point in time on the bill.
In fact, I know the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) wishes
to speak, and the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) and the member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie). I, personally, will be
voting against this bill.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I just want to say a few things on the record
on The Social Allowances Amendment Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's defence
on this bill has been absolutely inadequate all the way through the debate, and
ever since the announcement was made in this Chamber by the Conservative
government.
There are three issues in social assistance,
fairness, opportunity through education and training and work, so that people
can have dignity and life‑skills training to eventually go from
dependency to independence. On every one
of those key issues dealing with social assistance, the Conservatives have
turned back the clock. They have changed
the standardization to mean that about 80 percent of people, families with
children, two to three children, would suffer the most by Conservative economic
changes. They have absolutely negated
all the potential and former programs to get social assistance people on work
programs, save a lobby by the Conservatives in Crescentwood and
The
last and most ridiculous change this government has made has been the
elimination of the social allowance provisions manifested through The Social
Allowances Amendment Act of Manitoba.
What logic can there be, because the minister will know, and that is why
he and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Premier from Tuxedo, was unable to table
at any point in time the cost benefit of this decision?
Now, first of all you have to understand that
social allowances and social assistance is cost‑shared 50 percent by the
federal government. So the money that
they are alleging they are saving is not being saved. It is only 50 percent of the money is being
allegedly saved.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you look at
the fact that most of those people, instead of going into education and
training and remain on education and training, will go onto municipal
assistance, which is cost‑shared by the provincial government, and then
will go onto provincial social assistance later. You will not be saving more than $100,000
over what looks to be a $4‑million cut‑‑$100,000. Now, what is the long‑term cost to the
people of
The
Conference Board of Canada has calculated that for every person who is unable
to get education and training, it costs
So
it takes three social allowance students out of the 1,100 to break even from the
decision that was made by the provincial government, the Premier, the minister
responsible for Treasury Board, and the Minister of Family Services, let alone
the 1,100 people who are being cut off by this government through their
decision, and that results in some cost per year of long‑term costs to
the people of Manitoba of some $32 million.
Those are the strict economics of the decision the government has made.
Obviously, this is one of those decisions that
trickled down from the Premier to the Treasury Board, trickled down from the
Treasury Board over to the minister, trickled down from the deputy minister and
the assistant deputy ministers into the department, and it superficially looks
like they are saving $4 million, but they are not. They are saving $100,000 at most, and it is
going to cost and cost and cost.
Remember that commercial, you can pay me now
or you can pay me later? This is a
government that believes in you can pay me later and later and later and more
and more and more. This is a government
that believes in increased welfare costs, in increased numbers of people on
welfare. This is a welfare government,
because everything they do and every time they make a decision, it increases
dependency and increases the costs of social assistance and increases the
number of people on welfare‑‑the welfare government, the welfare
Premier from Tuxedo. This is the great
irony of members opposite.
So
the economics, Madam Deputy Speaker, are undeniable. They are undeniable, and that is why the
government has not produced one shred of evidence on the 18 questions we have
asked in this Legislature to justify their decision. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) from Tuxedo stood up
here and said, no other province is doing this, so therefore we have to cut it. That was his first defence. Even yesterday, he had this pathetic recorded
announcement to justify the decision they had made. What an absolute inadequate answer to the
people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen) and the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) have shot holes in
his arguments about other provinces, so his arguments are absolutely in
tatters, and his logic is falling like a house of cards because there is no
fact behind his assertion.
So
that is the one argument they made.
Nobody else is doing it, so we are not going to do it. Nobody else has medicare, so we are going to
get rid of medicare. Nobody else has
home care, so we are going to get rid of home care. Nobody else has people working instead of
going on social assistance, so we are going to get rid of that program
established by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). What brilliant logic. Everybody jumps off the pier and we are going
to jump off with them because we do not want to be the only one standing on dry
land, being intelligent about our social assistance.
So
there is no economic justification. This
so‑called tough decision that had to be made by the government was a
stupid decision. It was utterly and
totally economically stupid.
Let
us look at the other part of this issue, the whole issue of dignity for people,
the whole issue of giving people an opportunity. On this one, there is absolutely no humanity
and no heart left with the government of the day, because as they stated in
their Speech from the Throne, education and training is the key that will
unlock the opportunities, the economic opportunities for our province and for
people. These are only words cut out of
a Brian Mulroney Decima poll.
Every time Tories are in front of a group of
people, they talk about education and training and making
They do not believe in education and training
for people. They believe if you are lucky enough to come from a family that has
the good fortune to send its children to an advanced state of school, you can
get that education, and if you are unlucky enough to come from circumstances
that do not allow you to get it, we are not going to have an opportunity or
programs provided by the public to let people have a fair chance.
But
we believe in a different philosophy. We
believe that everybody should, as much as possible, start at the same starting
line in life. To start at the same
starting line in life, the one area that we can help people start at the same
place in terms of providing for a career and dignity is education and training.
There is no other better program for young people today and young adults today
than education and training.
* (1620)
We
do not believe that education and training is a lottery. We do not believe,
like the Tories, it is a lottery, that if you are born into a rich and wealthy
family you win the lottery prize and can go to university, can get an education
and training.
Life should not be a lottery for education and
training. It should be an opportunity
that society provides so each and every one of us can fulfill to the greatest
of our abilities, our talent, our aptitudes, our skills and our contributions
to our collective society in
So,
we reject the lotto training program of the Conservatives opposite, and we
support a social welfare program and social allowance programs that are fair,
that provide for work opportunities so people can get back on their feet, and
also and most importantly, provides for education and training so that people
can get back on their feet and off the cycle of dependency.
Shame on the Conservatives for bringing this
forward. Shame on the minister, shame on
the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Let us have a
last whiff of conscience on members opposite, let their conscience be their
guide. Let us not have an education
system that is based on luck, let us have an education system based on
fairness, and let us vote against this bill in this Chamber today.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to add a
few words in this debate on this legislation, which is without question a
backward step taken by this government along with some other backward steps
that have been taken in this session by this government, including the cuts to
Home Care, the scaling down of Pharmacare benefits, and now the attack on
student training of young people and others who are on social allowances.
All
of these are backward steps. I think
back when they were first brought in under the previous NDP governments of
Schreyer and Pawley. We went
forward. We brought in a lot of useful
social programs, progressive programs that provided opportunities for people,
that lifted people up who did not have the same opportunities as others,
disadvantaged people, programs that helped the elderly, programs that helped
the sick.
Now
we see a scaling back, we see an erosion, we see an attack on all these useful
social programs, Home Care, Pharmacare, property tax credits, that have very
much affected low‑income people, those cuts and so on.
Now
we have this particular bill on students, on training of those who are on
social allowances. As our Leader said,
we are concerned about fairness for people, we are concerned about proper
education and training for our people, and we are concerned about providing an
opportunity to have a work experience so that people then could go on and be as
independent as possible.
Surely government has an obligation to do
everything and anything possible to help people get off of welfare, to get off
of social allowance, to become independent, to become productive, to produce
the goods and services for all of us to benefit from.
As
our Leader has said, the cost savings here are definitely illusion. There is no question that you are not going
to save the money you think you will be.
In fact, in terms of what these people could be doing with their
training it is definitely backward because perhaps they would definitely not be
able to be as productive in various fields as they could have been with proper
training. So there is no question that
it is a backward step.
I
think back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to initiatives that were taken a few years
ago in the Pawley administration, '82‑83.
We had a major employment program where we zeroed in, among others, on
people on social allowances. I think it
was a very positive experience. It gave
work experience to thousands of people, training experience to thousands of
people who would not have had that otherwise.
I reject the criticism, these were just make‑work projects; it was
a waste of money added to the debt. That is nonsense. That is false.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we gained from
that.
So
I say to this government they should look at some of the experiences we had and
some of the lessons from the past where we made a major effort through the
They have put forward a program which has the
endorsement of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, a program that is going to
improve the infrastructure in the city of Winnipeg sewer and water systems,
among other things, will utilize the skills and energies and services of
people, several thousand people on welfare, and provide something of benefit to
this community, provide something of benefit to the province of Manitoba. As the chamber has pointed out, the money is
being paid out anyway. So we are not
looking at an effort in this case that is going to decrease considerably the
expenditure levels of the government.
For
the life of me, I do not know why this government is dragging its feet in this
matter, why it does not get on and sign an agreement with the City of
I
would hope the same for other municipalities, including the city of Brandon, Portage,
Dauphin, Flin Flon, Thompson and other municipalities that may have a number of
people on social assistance who would like to utilize the funding we now have
under the social assistance program to provide work opportunities for those
individuals.
As
I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, instead of going forward using our imagination,
being progressive about the matter, all we see are cutbacks and erosion and a
tax on existing programs. One that fits
very well into this as another example is the scaling back of the Human
Resources Opportunity Program. The Human
Resources Opportunity Centre in Dauphin was one of the latest victims of the
cutbacks of this government in training opportunities for people who normally would
be on social assistance. Those centres
around the province, some still exist.
They eliminated the one in Selkirk a year or so ago, now Dauphin. Who is next, I do not know.
This is sad, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is sad, and it is right along the lines of
the philosophy behind this particular act, The Social Allowances Amendment Act,
the same philosophy of cutting back on spending in an area where it is really
foolish to cut back, because what we have in these centres are people getting
some basic training and also some work experience to enable them to get off of
welfare and to become productive citizens in the province.
Many of these people are disadvantaged for all
kinds of reasons, and the centres have a good record of dealing with and
improving the lives of those people who are disadvantaged for whatever
reason. But nevertheless, you have seen
that program cut back, and we just worry‑‑in fact, I think back to
the
Even Sterling Lyon did not attack work
programs for welfare people as this government is doing. Sterling Lyon looked at the Human Resources
Opportunity Centres, and I believe he cut back by 10 percent across the board
but he did not eliminate them. He did
not eliminate Selkirk, he did not eliminate the centre in Dauphin and he did
not attack this particular program which goes back many years to the Schreyer
period. He did not attack this
program. He left it intact.
So
for all the criticism that the
Regrettably, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are
living in a day and age of chronic, high unemployment. It is almost unthinkable to talk in terms of
about 10 percent, one out of 10 of our workforce being unemployed, and yet that
is what is happening in Canada, that is what is happening in Manitoba.
A
few years back, we used to look at 2 percent and 3 percent unemployment. When we got up to four, five and six, we
became worried. Now we are around 10
percent. It is just unacceptable, and I
know this particular legislation will not solve that problem, but it fits into
a solution for that problem. It is one
piece in the jigsaw puzzle that could help us in attacking this problem of
chronic unemployment, but I will be the first to admit there are many, many
other programs, many other initiatives that have to be taken to try to put
people in
This party believes in work, not in
welfare. We believe the ideal situation
is to have everyone off of welfare, everyone productively employed producing
goods and services that benefit us all.
* (1630)
Surely it benefits the individuals too,
because there is nothing more debilitating than having to stay at home and not
being able to get out and have an opportunity for some training or an
opportunity for some work experience.
There is nothing more debilitating than not being able to get a job,
wanting to work and yet not being able to work.
There is a social cost that we are
paying. It is very difficult to measure
it, but you see those social costs in many ways. You see them translated into family violence,
into abuse, into crime on the streets and so on. If we could reduce unemployment and provide
job opportunities for our people, we will see these social problems, these
social evils, begin to shrink, begin to be reduced. This is, in my view, one of the most positive
ways to do this.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, we regret the government is, in keeping with its thrust,
taking another backward step and zeroing in on those most unfortunate among us
who happen to be on social allowances.
Instead of doing this, we should be doing just the opposite. We should be providing more opportunities for
training, more opportunities for jobs for people who are out of work.
As
I said before, the City of
I
do say, however, back in the early '80s we did get the co‑operation of
the federal government. In fact, there
was a federal agreement right across the country for any province that wanted
to utilize welfare funds to provide job opportunities. We did it in
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with regret that
we see this legislation being brought forward.
Of course, this opposition is definitely going to vote against this
particular bill. Thank you.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak on this bill. I did
not have the opportunity at second reading, so I will take a few minutes to put
some of my comments on record, because this has been a very puzzling bill. I have puzzled over the origins of it, of
where it began and why the government would bring in such an obviously penny‑wise
and pound‑foolish approach to both education and to dealing with young
people. I think the conclusions that I
came to led me to think that there were three origins to this bill.
I
think the first of them comes probably from the bowels, the most primitive
parts of the Tory Party who are reflecting the economic conditions that many
people find themselves in today. There is a sense that a much harsher world
exists for people in Canada and Manitoba, people who have lost their jobs,
people who are facing now going into senior citizens' homes where in some cases
they will now lose their life savings, who are having to pay user fees for
health care, who are looking at student loans for the post‑secondary
education of their children.
They are looking at a world which has become
much more uncertain. They do not know
that they have jobs anymore. They
certainly are beginning to recognize that under Tory governments in
Who
can blame them, I think, for looking for scapegoats, for looking for someone to
blame their ills on? I think that is
what is happening here. People are
looking for others who they see might be having a "free ride." I heard that phrase used a number of times
around the table at the hearings on this particular bill. So they believe that these students, many of
them from broken homes, many of them who were born into poverty, faced great
difficulties throughout their lives, they turned on them and said, these are
the people we must get rid of, these are the people who must go on welfare, and
we will close the classroom doors to them.
It
is the kind of thinking that is common, I think, when the economic pie begins
to shrink, and that is what happened here. People felt there was not a part for
them and so others should have nothing as well.
Second of all, I think it comes from the
individual 19th Century liberalism that is well represented in other parts of
the Tory Party, the belief that one is or should be the author of one's own
fate, that children should have better sense than to be born poor, that they
should have better sense than to be born into brutal families, and whatever
conditions they are born into, they are the author of their own fate and
society owes them nothing. That is a
19th Century liberalism which we found I think in a number of other areas of
this government's legislation, particularly in its approach to government in
general. But here, turning away the
immigrants, turning away the children who were in the care of Child and Family
Services, or the young adults, I should say, those who had been born poor and
who had left school at 16 perhaps to help the family, all of these were now to
be turned out of secondary education.
It
was, in a sense, the 20th Century version of the new poor law of the 1830s
which brought in the harshness of the workhouse and which said to people, you
are the author of your own fate and we will make life as harsh as we can for
you, even at great cost to the state itself.
I
think the third origin of this particular bill is in the need to find monies
for programs such as Workforce 2000. It
is interesting to see the equal balance in these programs. For the section of Workforce 2000 which deals
with the small‑ and medium‑sized businesses, we have approximately
$3 million per year. That is just about
what is going to be, quote, saved, by the government in the ending of this
particular program of keeping students in school and enabling them to graduate
and to perhaps go onto post‑secondary education or to have the prospect
of a job.
So
what the government did was essentially make a choice which says, yes, we want
to have better private golf courses, we want to train people as cashiers for
those private golf courses. That is important to the economic future of
They said in Workforce 2000, we want better
car dealerships across
Those were the choices they made, and those
were the choices that they continued to defend at the committee at which we had
hearings on this.
The
government had other defences throughout the course of this bill, Madam Deputy
Speaker. They talked in the beginning
about not turning students out of classrooms, not taking away an education from
people who wanted to be in the classroom and who wanted to improve upon their
opportunities for work. They talked
about an "adjustment," a callous and misleading use of language which
I think brings all governments into disrepute.
They continued with that line that this was merely an adjustment in
changes to policy.
They talked about sharing the pain, and it was
indelicate at the very least and gross at the most to talk about these students
sharing the pain with Bob Kozminski and the other friends of the government who
have benefited so much from legislation in different parts of this government's
program.
They talked about difficult choices, and,
well, yes, I suppose it was a difficult choice to choose between the car
dealerships, the owner‑manager seminars at Clear Lake and the better
cashiers in private golf courses, and to turn out those students from those
classrooms and give them at least the first rung on the ladder that would
enable them to gain some access to post‑secondary education or at least
to a reasonable job. That must have been
a difficult choice.
* (1640)
We
have presented information time after time which showed that in five other
jurisdictions at least, there were other programs which served exactly this
same function. What we heard from the
minister, from the Premier (Mr. Filmon), even today we heard this was not the
case, even after material had been tabled by the presenters, material tabled by
the Canadian Council on Welfare.
These are not my figures, although, indeed, I
did phone across the country to corroborate some of the material that was
presented to me, but this government preferred to stick its head in the sand
and say essentially, no other jurisdiction did this, a pathetic excuse at the
best, and wrong, absolutely wrong, and they continue to maintain it.
They talked about the defenders of their
policy, and, indeed, there were three defenders who did come to the public
hearings, and there were two additional written presentations which supported
the perspective of this government, but in answers in Question Period and in
speeches in the media, the government continued only to speak about those five
presentations, a selective memory, a selective use of the evidence which I
think is unconscionable.
I
am quite happy for them to talk about those five defenders. Yes, they should. If there are people who defend their policy,
they should, but when there were hundreds more who were represented who did not
support their policy, then they are duty‑bound in honesty to speak about
those people, as well, and the material and the information they presented.
Finally, they talked about in the last days of
this Legislature the dynamic changes that were coming to welfare legislation
across
Gradually, it seemed to me, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that their defences were slipping away. Even the mask of regret was slipping away,
that this was a painful choice. We heard
around the discussion tables, people should have no second chance in Manitoba,
that 16‑year‑olds who came from broken homes and who left home and
tried to make their own way and finally realized they could not in a world such
as these Tories have created, they decided these people should have known
better, that Manitoba was to be a harsh land, a land of no second chances.
We
heard in those hearings from students, from former students who are now in
jobs. We heard from teachers and
administrators who spoke of the successes of their students, and I was moved, I
think, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was on no other bill in this Legislature, by
many of those stories. The utter idiocy,
the utter stupidity of this government, that they would not listen to those
people.
They sat there stony‑faced. They listened to impassioned pleas from
Councillor Murray, for example, who said, at least if you are going to turn
these 1,400 students into welfare recipients, change the rules so we can put
them in school, so we can keep them in school, so they will at least have a
chance in life. The minister sat there
stony‑faced, refused to listen, refused to comment, moved that bill
without any amendments.
I
must admit I had been, I think, so wrapped up in the stories we had heard about
the successes of that program that I actually believed until the last minute
that the minister would withdraw that bill or that he would amend it.
(interjection) The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) suggests I am an
optimist, and, yes, I did believe that might have been possible.
But
the minister instead tended to speak about alternatives, about how students
could go to school half time, how they could get a job, how they could go to
evening school. For one or two of these
students, that might well be possible.
But what we heard over and over from the vast majority of students and
from their teachers and from employment counsellors is that with a Grade 9 and
Grade 10 education you do not get a job.
We heard about the 17.5 percent unemployment record in Manitoba for young
people in that age group, young people with degrees, young people with high
school graduation, and the minister kept saying that you could find a job, the
old able‑bodied, 19th Century illiberalism, send them to the poor
house. That is, in effect, what was
happening here.
Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday the minister‑‑not
changed his mind, but he simply made this bill a straightforward offloading of
1,400 students onto the City of
I
think what changed their mind was the polls.
I think what the government realized was that the people had more sense
than this government, that people saw that a shorter time in education meant
that people would not stay on welfare, that they had a better and a more full
sense of fairness than this government does.
I think they believe that
After creating havoc and disruption and anger
in thousands of students and their teachers in this province, they simply
washed their hands of the whole business.
They turned out the lights. They took away hope. They passed the bill. Then, when the polls told them that the
people of
I
think the passage of this bill, the arguments the governments have used, the
way in which they have disrupted the lives of those students are really
shocking. I shall be opposing this, and
our whole caucus will be opposing this.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 31‑The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that
Bill 31, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'assurance‑maladie), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
* (1650)
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition
House Leader): On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Bill 30‑The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental
Disability
and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship
(Mrs. Mitchelson), 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), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to just
put a few brief remarks on the record before we pass this bill.
This
is a very lengthy and comprehensive bill.
It has 210 clauses, 109 pages, and it is the result of a major change‑‑or
it will result in major changes in the rights and the protection and in many
other areas that affect the lives of vulnerable persons living with a mental
disability.
We
are supporting this piece of comprehensive legislation. We believe there is
widespread support in the community for this bill. There are, of course, people who have
disagreements with parts of this bill.
The minister did make some amendments at committee to alleviate some of
the fears that people had about certain parts of this bill. We think those individuals were pleased with
those minor amendments.
However, there were amendments I made which
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) did not accept, which I
considered to have been major amendments.
For example, I moved an amendment that the principles which are stated
as a preamble to this bill be part of the act.
My advice was that was a significant amendment because when people go to
court, and eventually somebody will go to court under this bill, it makes a big
difference whether principles are part of a preamble or part of the body of the
bill itself.
My
understanding is that it makes a difference as to how a judge would interpret
the bill, whether the principles are in the preamble or in the bill
itself. When the principles are in a
bill, in the body of a bill, the judge must take those into account in making
an interpretation. We regret that the
government chose to defeat that amendment.
I
also moved an amendment that the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner report to the
Legislative Assembly rather than to the minister. I believe this is necessary because this bill
gives considerable power and considerable authority and considerable decision‑making
ability to the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner. Someone with that amount of responsibility
and authority needs to be accountable to the Legislative Assembly rather than
only to the minister.
We
have seen, in the case of the Children's Advocate, that when the Advocate has
concerns, those concerns are normally conveyed privately to the minister and
are not conveyed to the Legislative Assembly.
Therefore, we as members and the public have no idea what those concerns
are unless we find out some other way, as we did this spring with the
recommendations that the Children's Advocate made to the minister.
These amendments that I proposed were from a
report of the review committee. I would
like to table copies of the report of the review committee examining
legislation affecting adult Manitobans living with a mental disability as
vulnerable persons. It is dated November
29, 1991. It is titled: "Towards the Recognition and Enhancement
of the Rights of Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability." This report has not been made public before‑‑
House Business
Mr. Manness: I apologize to the member. I wonder if I could interrupt just for a few
moments for House business, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the honourable
government House leader to interject to deal with House business? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, could you canvass the
House to determine whether or not there is a willingness to waive private
members' hour?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to waive private
members' hour? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Would you also ask the House whether or not
there is a willingness to extend the sitting hours beyond six o'clock tonight
till ten o'clock tonight?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to extend regular
sitting hours beyond six till 10 p.m. this evening? (agreed)
*
* *
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, to
continue debate on third reading.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Deputy Speaker, the reason I am tabling
this is that the Minister of Family Services has chosen not to make it
public. I did not know this. In fact, I sent our research staff to the
Legislative Library to request a copy of it and instead I was sent a discussion
paper. I only inadvertently found out
when I went to the library myself that this report has not been made public.
Fortunately, one of the presenters at
committee included it in the brief. We
commend the Association for Community Living and their Liberal lawyer friend
who was there at committee stage for making this public. I suppose it is already public. I guess I am not doing it for the first time,
because it was part of their brief and so members of the Legislature had
it. I do not suppose anybody else has it
except members of the review committee.
Now, the significance I want to attach to this
is that the minister commended himself many times for consulting widely on
this. I do agree that he did consult
some of the groups and individuals and advocates and others who were affected,
but how widely can a minister consult if the review committee report is not
public? How can members of the public
read it if they cannot get it? How can
they make presentations on a bill at committee stage or write letters to the
minister or make phone calls to the minister or the critic expressing their
concerns if they do not have the review committee report? Since it was dated November 29, 1991, I
assume that is the date that it was given to the minister or the date that it
was printed. So it is a year and a half
since this report was, I believe, submitted to the minister.
I
asked the minister last night in the Chamber if he could tell us when he was
going to make it public and the minister refused to answer my question. I asked him twice. The minister would not say why or when this
report was going to be made public. So I
am disappointed that the minister chose not to make it public, because these
recommendations are very significant. In fact, the two amendments that I moved
in committee that I mentioned earlier are from this review committee report,
recommendation No. 5, having to do with the principles which the review
committee recommended be in the body of the legislation and that the vulnerable
persons commissioner, to quote, be established, preferably appointed by and
reporting to the Legislature. So both of
these recommendations were in the review committee report itself, the second
one being recommendation No. 25.
So I
am disappointed with the minister that he did not make it public so that more
people could have some input, so that more people could see what those
recommendations were from the people who were on the review committee who were
making recommendations to the minister.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, we are prepared to pass this bill. Fortunately, it met the approval of the
majority of the people who were interested in this piece of legislation but
were disappointed.
We
agree with most of this bill, but we are disappointed with the things that were
left out. We are disappointed with the
recommendations of the review committee that were not accepted by the minister
and not included in this legislation, and we are disappointed that the minister
did not make public this very important review committee document.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The
question before the House is third reading of 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).
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
* (1700)
Bill 26‑The Expropriation Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'expropriation), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Yes, I just want to say a few more words on
this bill. I spoke on this bill at
second reading. I am still very
surprised in the week that we are celebrating again Duff's ditch that we would
be passing a bill that really breaks the balance between what I believe to be
the rights of the public to expropriate for public goods and public works
versus the rights of individuals to get fair compensation.
I
know as minister responsible in the negotiations of The Forks, we had to
expropriate one individual's land for the 50 acres of land to be taken over
into public ownership.
The
right of a person to go to court for compensation, I think, is fairly
important. I think both the value that
is established in the court or by the appraisal commission and the extent of
that value should be allowed to be determined by courts through appeals.
I
do not believe the government through one ministry should be able to
expropriate, and then the government through the other ministry of having the
appraisal commission, which is established by Order‑in‑Council,
should set the value. Then, I do not
believe the government therefore should restrict the ability of going to court
under The Expropriation Act of Manitoba.
I
therefore believe that this is a bad bill.
It is unfair to private owners.
It is absolutely hypocritical for a government to propose to put
property rights in the Constitution. For
them to be coming forward with this bill makes just a mockery of all the sort
of rhetoric of the Real Estate Association, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and of
this province in his so‑called
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think when members,
particularly farmers, find out that the appraisal commission's determination of
your value of land can only now be appealed as a matter of law, not as a matter
of value, I welcome the time. The Conservatives
like to talk about standing up for rural Manitobans. I welcome the opportunity to go to individual
farmers and to go to the rural town hall meetings and talk about the ability of
this Deputy Premier to support big government.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
I
find it rather ironic that we believe in the balance of the public good through
government and the individual, but this government has totally taken to itself
the rights of government and totally trampled on the rights of the individual
in this society.
Shame on them.
Shame on their alleged philosophy.
Shame on their alleged ideology and shame on their hypocrisy for saying
one thing in the constitutional debate and doing another thing today in this
Chamber. We will be voting against this,
and shame on you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
This is another in a whole list of bills that
has been brought forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) that makes an
hypocrisy of the concept of justice. One
of the most important rights that an individual gives up under expropriation is
the right to ownership of their land, and the power of expropriation is one of the
most powerful rights that a state has in relation to the citizens of that
state.
In
order for expropriation to be fair, there must be a balance between the power
of the state to expropriate and the right of an individual to appeal the
decision of the commission that expropriates.
Bill 26 eliminates that power, gives the power to the state, takes away
power from individuals that has been fought for over centuries, and it again
goes against the entire concept of natural justice.
Mr.
Speaker, we will be voting against this dreadful piece of legislation. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) should
be appalled at the garbage he has brought forward in this session of the
Legislature.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 24‑The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that
Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les taxis et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre
loi), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my
comments on third reading of Bill 24, particularly in light of the comments we
had heard when this bill was before committee, when there was an opportunity
for members of the public to come out and add their comments about Bill 24.
During the course of the committee hearings,
we heard many interesting presentations.
In fact, we heard dozens of presenters over a period of some four days
of hearings, and in there, Mr. Speaker, I and I hope other members of the
committee learned significantly more about the taxicab industry than what we
had known about that particular industry before.
In
fact, there were some very good recommendations that came about as a result of some
of those presentations and some I know that the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) has listened to, and he has taken the opportunity to incorporate some
of those ideas, hopefully, into a restructured Taxicab Board.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, created
problems for the taxicab industry, as we heard so many of the members of the
industry come forward and tell us their concerns about this legislation, this
Bill 24. First they said, when a quorum
was broken on the Taxicab Board, since three members comprised a quorum, that
two or less members could continue the hearings, and decisions could be made
with less than quorum. They had great
concerns about that, because that would concentrate the power into the hands of
very few members of the Taxicab Board that were indeed ruling on the lives of
the members of the industry.
Secondly, there were broader fee‑making
powers. The members of the industry
pointed over and over again the financial problems that the industry is
encountering right now, the difficulties they have trying to make a
living. They had said that this broader
fee‑making power was the wrong move at the wrong time, Mr. Speaker. The industry could not afford it.
We
heard about almost all of the presenters telling us how they were working 60 to
80 hours a week to earn a living. Many
of them, in fact, almost all of them were working for less than minimum wage
when you calculate the number of hours that they worked to make their $12,000
to $15,000 a year of earnings.
One
presenter, Mr. Speaker, said that this government was acting as a Robin Hood in
reverse by this broader fee‑making power.
In fact, they were taking fees away from the poorest of our society, the
working poor, and putting those monies to pay down the costs of the minister's
Taxicab Board operations.
We
heard members of the industry tell us about the horrendous cost of their
We
heard some very serious concerns about the safety aspect of those members of
the industry that are employed in the taxicab industry, not only safety from
the purely operational point of view of their vehicle, Mr. Speaker, but also
from the verbal and the physical abuse and, in fact, actual assaults that many
of them spoke about. In fact, one
presenter indicated that there was an occasion where he was outnumbered three
against one all over an $11.65 fare.
You
can see, Mr. Speaker, that there are many safety concerns out there, issues
that still have not been addressed, that I hope the new subcommittee will be
established that the minister has indicated a willingness to work towards and
with, that they will work towards improving the safety for those that are
employed in the industry. We know the
Taxicab Board is primarily a quasi‑judicial body and in fact that its
history has been a regulatory, punitive body.
Members of the taxicab industry have said, almost all of them, to the
last presenter, that there was no consultation and that there was no respect by
the Taxicab Board for members of the industry.
I
think that is wrong for the Taxicab Board.
I think they should have an expanded role. The Taxicab Board does not currently perform
an advocacy role. I know the members of
the industry pointed that out. They
wanted to see that forum, and the minister has agreed to move in that
direction.
The
members of the industry were concerned that there was no right of appeal, that
this legislation will be held over their heads, that there was no opportunity
for them to appeal any decisions made by the board, no chance to appeal to the
courts. They were quite concerned about that.
What the members of the industry did suggest,
that if the minister was intent on going towards having broader fee‑making
powers for the Taxicab Board, there be some process of graduating those fee
increases, spreading it out over a longer period of time.
I
know the minister, in his discussions with members of the industry, has
indicated a willingness to look at that and that he will look at some
recommendations that will come forward on that.
Members of the industry said that this Bill 24 will increase the amount
of fines. I believe it is up to a
maximum of $1,000. The members of the
industry said, you may as well make it a million dollars because, if they do
not have the money to pay it, that is going to have to be looked at as
well. They do not have the money; the
income is not there for them at the time.
* (1710)
Some of the presenters went as far as having
what I think, Mr. Speaker, are very constructive suggestions. They looked at ways where the Taxicab Board
could bring forward in an advocacy role a meeting of all of the stakeholders in
the industry, not only the members of the taxicab industry, the owner‑operators,
drivers, but also limousine services, the hotels, City of Winnipeg, the
government, to work together as a group for improvements to the industry as a
whole. I thought some of their
suggestions they used were well thought out and would provide for improvement.
I
know that in consultation with the industry and members of the two opposition
parties, the minister agreed there was some room for improvement. I thank the minister for recognizing that
there should be some improvement there and that there should be an advisory
body that would advise the Taxicab Board on matters pertaining to the
industry. At the same time, the minister
has indicated a willingness to look at appointing a member of the taxicab
industry to the Taxicab Board considering, I believe, from my understanding,
that a vacancy exists on that.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
In
that sense, it will allow the taxicab industry itself to have some control over
the decisions that are made because what we heard over and over again is that
the industry, if they are going to be made responsible for the administrative
costs of the operation of the Taxicab Board, they want to have some control
over the people who are on the board, the people who are doing the work, and
whether or not the Taxicab Board and the Department of Highways can hire at
their own discretion people to be in administrative functions for the Taxicab
Board.
So
the industry wants to have some control over the administrative costs, and they
wanted to have that right to speak out on issues that were affecting them. I think the subcommittee that is being struck
has been given three months to work toward some ideas or constructive
suggestions for the minister and another three months to report back to the
minister on that beyond the first three months, for a total of six months,
which will give them sufficient time to bring forward concrete recommendations
that the minister and his department, the Taxicab Board, can act upon for the
overall improvement of the taxicab industry in the city of Winnipeg.
Now, there were some concerns I presume will
be coming forward and that is to deal with the other vehicles that are
operating in the city from facilities such as the hotels that are operating
what is deemed to be a taxicab service in the city of Winnipeg and transporting
patrons of the hotels back and forth to the airport or to other transportation
centres. In that sense, they are taking
away business from the taxicab industry, and it is impacting upon the
opportunity for members of that industry to earn a livelihood.
So
those were the concerns we had heard, Mr. Acting Speaker, during our
hearings. The minister has agreed, by
way of an amendment to this legislation, that he is going to change when this
bill comes into effect, when Bill 24 comes into effect. It had been originally intended, when the
government introduced it, that it would come into effect on royal assent. The minister has amended that for
proclamation.
Now, in that sense, the minister will continue
to hold the hammer over the heads of industry members, should the subcommittee
and the recommendations they bring forward not work (interjection) Well, I hope
the minister‑‑he says they are going to work together in co‑operation. I hope that is the case, because that was the
intent of the suggestions the members of the industry brought forward, and that
is why we continued to ask questions after we heard that from other presenters
as well.
We
believe strongly in the opportunity for members of the taxicab industry to be
involved in the determination of their own future and that there are
opportunities on the subcommittee advisory body and on the Taxicab Board
itself, and we hope that will work. Now,
I hope that this legislation does not have to be proclaimed, because I think it
is regressive legislation and will impact too severely and take away too many
powers from the industry and give too much power to the Taxicab Board itself.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
On
that, Mr. Speaker, we find that we cannot support this legislation. We will be voting against this bill based on
the concerns that we heard from the taxicab industry and the way that it will
put too much power into the hands of the Taxicab Board. With that, we thank you
for the opportunity to add our comments on Bill 24.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker, you will find that 50 percent of the Liberal caucus had spoken on this
particular bill, and only three members from the NDP caucus in fact spoke on
this particular bill, but there are many different ways you can play the
numbers and so forth. I did resist
playing the politics inside the committee room, because I know there were a
number of people‑‑
An Honourable Member: You had three out of seven. You used to have seven.
Mr. Lamoureux: Three out of seven, I stand corrected.
An Honourable Member: So it is less than 50 percent.
An Honourable Member: . . . a barbaric bill.
Mr. Lamoureux: Which it is, which it is. Having said those very few words, I did make
the commitment to refute some of the things that were being said, because the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) was being somewhat political, facetiously he
says, in some of his remarks with respect to the Liberal Party, and I did not
think that it was called for.
Getting to the bill before us, Bill 24 is in
fact a bad piece of legislation and a piece of legislation that should never
have come into the Chamber as a bill that had no consultation done
whatsoever. The minister responsible for
this piece of legislation did not do any homework, any consulting with any of
the industry whatsoever, any of the stakeholders. That is in fact the case prior to the
introduction of Bill 24, because I am not aware of any individuals who were in
fact consulted.
Mr.
Speaker, after the bill was introduced, there were a number of concerns. We in the Liberal caucus had brought them up
the day after the bill was tabled inside the Chamber in terms of why it is the
government did what it has chosen to do and so forth. We had encouraged the government to start
consulting. I, myself, had numerous
conversations with industry, with representatives from the taxi industry to
other politicians who have an input. I
know, for example, of Dr. Pagtakhan and Mr. Walker and so forth, with respect
to the impact of this particular piece of legislation on an industry that does
employ directly approximately 1,700 to 1,800 individuals and have the impact
indirectly on thousands of individuals who live throughout the city of
* (1720)
I
look at the process and in particular the committee stage. Mr. Speaker, I am
quite pleased with what actually occurred in the committee stage. We had members from the industry that came
forward and gave, I thought, wonderful presentations straight from the heart
from what they felt the industry and the direction that the industry was going
in. They believed in fact that there
were a number of things that the minister could do to change the general
direction and course of this particular industry.
I
know that the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), even
though not necessarily at the beginning, but during the committee hearing
stages, and possibly a week prior to that, started to meet and consult with
some of the stakeholders of the industry.
In
fact, towards the end of the committee hearings, I was able to sit down with
the opposition critics and member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), and we were
able to at least give, I believe, a ray of hope for those individuals within
the industry in terms of coming back to this Chamber with some form of changes
that will be in the best interests of the industry. Because at the end of the day, even though,
like the beginning of my speech it was somewhat political, I believe that at
the beginning it was very political, and we were able to take the politics and
put the politics to the side, and we started to talk about the industry and
what was in the best interest of the industry.
Once we were able to do that we saw a number
of things that had occurred. The
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) did make a commitment in terms of coming up
with an advisory board that would look at the industry as a whole and come
forward with some recommendations that could in fact be implemented depending
of course on what those recommendations are.
The
one vacancy that is there with the Taxi Board, the minister did indicate that
he would fill that particular position with someone from the industry or a past
driver or a past driver‑owner. It
was even suggested that if there was someone, a driver‑owner or whoever
it might be who is quite prepared to put his or her interests in a blind trust,
that individual could possibly be a member of the board.
So
again, those are two major and significant, I believe, gains that the industry
made. Hopefully, what this whole process
has allowed for is some communication links to have been established so that
the legislation that is currently in place, not this legislation but the
current legislation, will in fact be amended so that the concerns that were
expressed from the individuals that were there.
I
was touched by a number of the presenters, everything from the one presenter
who came forward with a licence plate that had Cadillac written on it and the
loss of hours as a direct result of that‑‑this is a factory plate‑‑to
the lack of actions being taken from the board to address a number of the
different issues within the industries, such as the vans that are not
necessarily being licensed. There is a
whole litany of events that occurred that so many individuals from within the
industry felt the board should have taken some form of action on.
This has been an issue that has been around
for the past number of years and has caused a great deal of concern to all of
the stakeholders. As I say, for the
first time, as a result of the committee meeting process, we do feel that there
is an opportunity here to put in some changes that will in fact have or could
have a very positive effect on the industry as a whole.
Mr.
Speaker, I could not articulate as well as many of the presenters that came
before the committee for the simple reason that those were the individuals that
were actually driving the taxis and had a direct interest. It was very clear that this industry has
experienced a great deal of hard times.
I
asked the question to a number of the presenters: Are you aware of any drivers that are
receiving in excess of $20,000 a year gross working 40 hours a week? Not one presenter, Mr. Speaker, was able to
tell me that. The prevailing feeling is
that these are all individuals, all the drivers are individuals that receive
less than the minimum wage that we have.
Mr.
Speaker, time after time, it was very clear from all of the presenters that
there were serious problems within that industry. I was very pleased towards the end in terms
of how we were able to take the politics out of it. I will commend the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau), the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and both
opposition critics, myself included, in terms of the efforts that were put in
in terms of trying to come to grips with this particular issue.
I
would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to come forward to the minister‑‑and
when I say, we, I am referring to the board.
I know the minister had even left it open for some form of participation
from the critics.
I
would be more than happy to take him up on that‑‑I cannot speak on
behalf of the New Democratic critic, but I assume he would too‑‑of
being able to play some role in ensuring there are actions that result out of
this committee.
Ultimately, as I had indicated to the minister
not only on the record but also off the record, I do plan on raising the issue
in the future. I hope I do not have to
continue to call for the current Chairperson's resignation. It would be nice if I did not have to do that
in the next session. I will bite my
tongue for now in hopes that, in fact, that will occur, and we will see some
very positive results as a direct result of the hard work that was put into it.
Mr.
Speaker, again, we oppose this bill, and we are pleased with the response,
generally speaking, from the minister with respect to it.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et
apportent des modifications correlatives a d'autre lois).
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 27, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Had I not been
paired, I would have voted against this bill.
* (1750)
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 26‑The Expropriation Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call third reading of Bill 26, please.
It is adjourned in the name of the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The House has already made a decision and
allowed the honourable member for
Is
there leave now to revert to Bill 26?
Leave? (agreed)
Third reading, Bill 26, The Expropriation
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation), standing in the name
of the honourable member for
The
honourable member for
Is
the House ready for the question? The question
before the House is third reading of Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act
(Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act.
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 26, The Expropriation
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation).
All
those in favour of the motion will please rise.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Carstairs, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey,
Driedger, Ducharme, Edwards, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry,
Gilleshammer, Gray, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae,
McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Reimer, Render, Rose,
Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans
(Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale,
Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 33, Nays 18.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Had I not been
paired, I would have voted against this bill.
* (1800)
Bill 46‑The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment
Act
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill 46 and
adjourn the third reading debate adjourned standing in the name of the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Speaker: The House has already made a decision on Bill
46. Is there unanimous consent to revert to Bill 46 at this time? (agreed)
Third reading Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries
Compensation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des
victimes d'actes criminels), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yes, we oppose this
bill, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels).
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels).
All
those in favour of the motion will 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.
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries
Compensation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des
victimes d'actes criminels).
All
those in favour of the motion will please rise.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 27, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I have been paired with the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Had I
not been paired, I would have voted no.
Bill 45‑The Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 45, adjourned debate, third reading, standing in the name of the
member for Thompson.
Mr. Speaker: The House has already made a decision on Bill
45 to allow this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member
for Thompson. Is there leave to revert
to Bill 45? (agreed)
Third reading, Bill 45, The Coat of Arms,
Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
armoiries, les amblemes et le tartan du Manitoba), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, no
offence to the unicorns, but we oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
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.
Mr. Speaker: No?
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.
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, please
call in the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 45, The Coat of Arms,
Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 27, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I have been paired with the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). Had I
not been paired, I would have voted against this bill.
Bill 47‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, can we
resume debate on Bill 47, standing in the name of the member for Charleswood
(Mr. Ernst).
Mr. Speaker: The House has already made a decision to
allow Bill 47 to stand in the name of the honourable Minister of Housing (Mr.
Ernst). Is there leave at this point in
time to revert to Bill 47? (agreed)
Bill 47, third reading, 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 Minister of Housing.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this bill.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to speak at length on this bill, but I do want to put some comments on the
record because, having reviewed the comments of the minister who brought this
bill forward and as well some of the recorded discussion at the committee
hearings, I believe there are aspects of this bill which have not been brought
out and have not been brought to the attention of all members of this House in
those discussions. I think that it is
important to understand some of the repercussions.
* (1810)
Let
me indicate at the outset that our party will be opposing this bill, Mr.
Speaker. (interjection) The member indicates that that is a switch. That is not accurate.
In
any event let me indicate that the primary issue which I have grave concerns
about did not come up and was not brought up in discussions either at the
committee, to my knowledge, or in the course of discussions in this House. Let me very quickly indicate what that is.
Under the current act, Mr. Speaker, The
Residential Tenancies Act, at Section 32 there is a very important provision,
and it is around Sections 31, 32, 33 that most of the debate has taken
place. There is a very important
provision, Section 32(1) in the existing legislation, which indicates that a
landlord shall return the security deposit with interest within 14 days of the
date of the termination of the tenancy, except where there is the written
consent of the tenant, and if that does not happen, then the landlord must
apply to, in a sense, keep the security deposit. The onus is on the landlord to prove and show
that the security deposit should be kept.
It
is important to understand what a security deposit is. It is money not tied to rent. It is not payable, due and owing because of
rent. It is there as money which is
still owned by the tenant. It is being
held as a deposit against potential damage to the premises. So, Mr. Speaker, the act which was in place
put the onus on the landlord if the landlord wanted to retain that security
deposit.
Now,
the change is that the landlord now has the option of not putting the money in
trust, not coming forward with some other kind of bond or guarantee that the
money is there and not sending it into the Rentalsman. I dare say, the vast majority of landlords
will take up that opportunity, which is essentially to not provide any
documentation and just put the security deposit into the operational budget of
the landlord.
The
result of that is and the result of these changes is that the new Section 32
and, again, this is not something which to my knowledge has come up beforehand,
says that the landlord who holds a security deposit and has no claim against it
has to return it within 14 days. But the
landlord already has the money, and by the very fact of believing he has a
claim against it, retains the money, does not send the money. The landlord has the money and does not send
it back.
Then a written notice has to go out to the
tenant, and that is to the last known address.
Let us face it, that is a very poor test. The last known address is the place probably
the landlord owns himself. There is
going to be a high level, I suspect, a high degree of cases, where that notice
never gets to the tenant.
In
any event then, the most interesting part of this legislation, I believe, is
that the onus then goes essentially to the tenant to go to the Rentalsman to
get the security deposit back. That is
important because, Mr. Speaker, what has to be asked is who should bear the onus
of going to the Rentalsman, the Residential Tenancies Branch, to determine
whether or not the security deposit should be held. I say the landlord.
I
say the landlord should pay the money back.
If he or she is not intending to pay the money back, that landlord
should have the responsibility to apply and prove the case that there is a
reason to hold the damage deposit. The
reason for that is twofold. Firstly,
landlords are in a far better position to be able to do that and understand the
system. It is a generalization, but as a
class, they are going to be far better able to understand the time limits in
the system and make that application to hold the security deposit. That is the first reason.
The
second reason is the landlords should bear the onus because the money belongs
to the tenant, prima facie. As a rule,
without proof that otherwise, the money belongs to the tenant. It is on
loan. It is a deposit from the tenant to
the landlord. This bill essentially turns back the clock to the days of the New
Democratic Party when, in fact, this was the rule. It turns it back to the way it was, and that
is the onus was on the tenant. The onus was on the tenant to understand the
rules, to find out and then to make application to get his or her money back.
We
all know and landlords know that this is not going to happen that often. They understand that, Mr. Speaker, and the
fact is there are going to be all kinds of tenants in low rental, as well as
high rental, but there are going to be all kinds of tenants who do not
understand all of this. They get a
notice from the landlord saying, I am keeping your damage deposit. There is no
specification that they have to be told where they can apply, how often they
have to, where they go, and the onus is going to be on the tenant to bring
forward a claim to get the security deposit back.
The
adage goes and the adage is correct, possession is nine‑tenths of the
law, and possession in this case is in the hands of the landlord. The landlord has the money, and the fact is
the new onus is going to be put back on the tenant to prove he or she should
get the security deposit back. That is
not the way this legislation should have been drafted. It should have been left in place that the
onus was on the landlord to prove that the tenant should not get it back, and
that is a significant change, that shift in onus.
While it seems a small section, in reality, in
the day‑to‑day life in the marketplace, that is a significant
change because everyone will understand and know that the reason for changing
the onus to the landlord in the first place was that tenants were by and large
having a very difficult time getting their security deposits back, and it was
their money to start with, Mr. Speaker.
So
to have switched that back, to turn back the clock to the days of the New
Democratic Party, when, in fact, that was the case‑‑(interjection)
Let us be clear. The NDP supported the
original Residential Tenancies Act, and we did, and that Residential Tenancies
Act they said was a massive improvement. They never did that under their
tenure, never brought that forward in all the years of government that they
were in. The onus was on the tenant
then. They are now saying that it is
improper to put the onus back on the tenant.
I agree, Mr. Speaker.
That is why we supported The Residential
Tenancies Act when it came forward some time ago. The unfortunate fact about this current bill,
Bill 47, is that I really believe that the debate on this bill has been limited
to just a very few sections in this bill.
If one goes through this bill, one will see that section after section
after section there are deletions in this bill affecting primarily tenants.
I
wonder what the genesis for this bill was.
I truly do, because the original Residential Tenancies was a large step
forward for this government and I think a difficult one. I applauded them at the time for taking that
step in the original Residential Tenancies Act.
Obviously it has come home to roost with them, and what we see is a bill
which starts that undercutting of the progress that was made in equalizing the
relationship between landlord and tenant.
Mr.
Speaker, I have highlighted as a reason, which stands on its own, to vote
against this bill. There are other
indications, but I believe that in the day‑to‑day life and the day‑to‑day
relationship between landlords and tenants in dealing with security deposits,
the reality is who has the onus of proving that the security deposit has to be
paid back or should be held. Who has the onus is in fact a very, very important
issue, and it will determine how much of the security deposit money actually
reaches back into the hands of the tenants.
That is the reality, and this bill takes a serious backward step in the
empowerment really of tenants in getting back money which belongs to them
unless proved otherwise. Thank you.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief. I think that our Leader (Mr. Doer) and the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) have indicated quite clearly what is wrong with
this piece of legislation. We are only
too happy that the Leader of the Second Opposition (Mr. Edwards), after
supporting the government in committee, after opposing amendments which would
have strengthened the bill and done some of what he is talking about now, has
changed his mind, has finally come to his senses and realized what we knew from
Day One that this was written by the landlords, for the landlords, introduced
by the minister on request.
This bill did not deserve to be supported by
any members of this House, and we are prepared to vote accordingly.
* (1820)
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 47, The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage
d'habitation).
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Reimer, Render,
Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer,
Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Lamoureux,
Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid, Storie, Wasylycia‑Leis,
Wowchuk.
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 26, Nays 21.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)
asked me to indicate to the House that they did not participate in this vote
because of their perceived conflict of interest as landlords.
THIRD
Bill 4‑The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping
(Temporary Amendments) Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill
4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act (Loi sur
l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? On
division.
Bill 10‑The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): I move, seconded by
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), 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), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 36‑The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call adjourned debate third reading Bill 36 (The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route), adjourned in the name of the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Speaker: The House has already allowed the honourable
member for Thompson to adjourn debate on Bill 36. Is there unanimous consent of the House to
revert back to Bill 36 at this time? (agreed)
Third reading Bill 36, The Highway Traffic
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I adjourned this on behalf of our Highways
critic, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise on Bill 36 on the third
reading. This bill is a piece of
legislation that we have always called the Bob Kozminski bill, Mr. Speaker, for
its very obvious intended benefactors of the legislation.
This bill will replace the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation and the Department of Highways and Transportation 25‑year
involvement in the public vehicle inspection program. So for 25 years, the public service in this
province has been performing the vehicle inspections, the safety inspections,
and that will be taken out of existence as a result of Bill 36.
On
average, there are some 25,000 vehicles that were inspected during the course
of 1993 and 1994. As a result of this
government's failure to put in place proper planning, there are only going to
be some 3,000 to 3,500 vehicles that are going to be safety inspected during
that course of time. Of course, it is
very difficult to understand how that is going to preserve and protect the safety
of the travelling public and the member and Manitobans, considering the
drastically reduced number of inspections.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
This private inspections system that is due to
start in January 1995‑‑the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) has
said that there is going to be a user fee of approximately $40 maximum for each
of the inspections. The minister does
not tell us during his comments that of all the vehicular accidents in the
So
it is not that there is a high number of accidents caused by defective
vehicles, but only the fact that this government wants to put in place a
program that will benefit their supporters.
Considering the amount of intensive lobbying that has taken place by the
industry over the course of the last seven or eight months, it is obvious who
this is going to benefit.
On
top of that, Mr. Acting Speaker, there was a study that was undertaken by the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, Project E‑400, that listed four
options that were available to the Crown corporation, MPIC, that would put in
place a much expanded and enhanced program for vehicle inspections. In fact, with the option 4, and I have gone
through that part on second reading of this bill, option 4 of that Project E‑400
for MPIC showed that over 98 percent of the vehicles in this province would be
inspected on a two‑year basis, so we would greatly improve the number of
inspections in the province and of course improve the safety of the vehicles at
the same time.
The
government has said time after time that we do not come forward with
constructive suggestions on how we could save the taxpayers of the province
money and at the same time improve the quality of service to the people of the
province. Mr. Acting Speaker, we put
forward the constructive suggestion that would take over $800,000 a year profit
out of the photo licensing program and turn that money to the MPIC for the
capitalization purchase of fixed‑place equipment in the MPIC centres
through the province that would pay down what I have been told is approximately
$9 million in capital purchase costs for the equipment.
We
could have MPIC continue to provide that service for the public and would
prevent the necessity of having to gouge the public the $40 user fee that this
government is going to put in place that will greatly profit the private
industry, the private inspection points that are going to now be doing this for
the government.
* (1830)
I
have said, and we have heard from others and, in particular, members of the
taxicab industry, that they are going to be hit by this because their vehicles
have to be inspected twice a year, so it is going to cost them an additional
$80 a year out of their earnings to have their vehicles inspected.
They said over and over again, Mr. Acting
Speaker, that they had little trust or confidence in the private inspections,
and they greatly trusted the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to provide a
fair and accurate evaluation of the condition of their vehicles. They wanted, as they told us over and over
again in committee, to have the inspections of the vehicles remain in the hands
of the Manitoba Public Insurance Coporation.
So
we provided options to this government that would allow that to remain in the
MPIC. The money is there; the government
is making a profit on the program. This
privatization of the service is going to put into the hands of the private
inspection points, the used car dealers of the province, some $84 million over
10 years, or $8.4 million per year, based on the number of vehicles that are
registered and change during the course of the year.
The
minister never makes any reference in his comments, either in the bill debate
or at committee stage, what is going to happen to the dealer or the police
referrals. There are over 225 of those a
year. There has never been any reference
made to that. The minister does not say
whether the private inspection points are going to do the environmental checks
of the vehicles to check the environmental equipment, the emission control
equipment, and on top of that, we have asked questions of the Minister
responsible for MPIC what is going to happen to the 23 jobs in the Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation for the employees that are currently doing that
work. The minister has not said to us
what is going to happen to those employees.
They are quite concerned about their jobs. They want to know whether they are going to
be redeployed or if they are going to be laid off because they want to plan for
their future.
So
I think that, Mr. Acting Speaker, pretty well outlines the impact that this
legislation is going to have on the public of
Thank you for the opportunity to add my
comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question?
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 36, The Highway Traffic
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de
la route).
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Carstairs, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey,
Driedger, Ducharme, Edwards, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer,
Gray, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh,
Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson,
Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake),
Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Hickes, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman,
Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 32, Nays 18.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I was paired on this vote with
the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), but had I had a vote, I would have
voted against this measure.
Bill 41‑The
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 41, standing in the name of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 41,
presently standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson? Leave? (agreed)
Mr. Speaker: Third reading, Bill 41, The Provincial Parks
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Thompson.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Our Natural Resources critic, the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), will be placing our position on this bill which we
oppose.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
rise again in the House to speak on Bill 41.
I have spoken before on this particular bill, and when I first spoke, I
made it very clear to the House here that we were not going to be in a position
to support the bill in the manner that it was drafted.
I
wanted to say again today, Mr. Speaker, right at the outset, that we are unable
to support the bill for many reasons. The bill is flawed, and we said at the
outset that it was too encompassing. I
am just going to mention the two or three reasons why, for example, we are not
able to support the bill.
* (1840)
I
believe the first one, which is quite important to us‑‑that is,
there were over 200 people who had registered to speak or to make presentation
at the hearings. Unfortunately, when we
suggested to the government that perhaps it would be appropriate for the
hearings to be moved up to The Pas, maybe at least for one day, we were not
able to do that. The government would
not listen to all of those people in The Pas who wrote in registering to speak
at the hearings. For example, people
like Mr. Ed Johanson, Margaret Reid, Mr. and Mrs. Atkins, Vallan and Irene
Melnick, Stewart Corbett; people like Elen Carpenter, Pete Mercer, Roy Vickery,
Frank Reimer‑‑all of these people had written in to speak at the
hearings, but unfortunately the government did not listen to our suggestions
that that be done. People like Carol Stevens, Cynthia Beadle, Charlie Watts had
all written to come in to Winnipeg to come and speak; Lawrence Ogrodnick, Doug
Fahlgren, Glen Ridings, just to name a few.
So
that is one of the reasons why we are not able to support the bill, Mr.
Speaker. Throughout the debate, and
judging from the correspondence and the phone calls that came in, not only to
our party but also to the government side, there were very few people who were,
in fact, in favour of the bill as it was written.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
The
other reason why we are not able to support this bill is the very undemocratic
scheme or vehicle that was suggested by the bill, meaning that those people who
were going to be paying the taxes, the fees, and so on, would not have any body
or group of people to be accountable to them.
In other words, they pay the fees and the taxes, but there will be no
accountability coming back from the government or to whichever body these fees
and taxes would have been paid to, Mr. Acting Speaker. So for us it was a very undemocratic process
that this bill was suggesting.
The
other reason why we are not able to support the bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, is
the taxes that are being imposed on those people who are living at the
cottages, people with title land and so on.
As well, for those people who have leases with the provincial
government, people who are maybe just casual users of the provincial parks,
they were not given any vehicle in order that they might appeal decisions that
are being made by government.
In
addition to that, Mr. Acting Speaker, the municipalities were totally left out
of the picture, particularly those municipalities that are situated close to
provincial parks where people have property within municipalities as well as
having cottages out at provincial parks.
We
also had suggested, my colleagues had repeatedly suggested through the hearings
process, some very worthwhile amendments, some workable amendments. Again, unfortunately, the government refused
to listen to those amendments. The
amendment that my colleagues had suggested, for example, on the 12 percent
protection, the government countered by coming back with another amendment
which virtually, for us, meant absolutely nothing, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Therefore, those are some of the reasons why
we are not able to support the bill. It
is badly flawed; the process that it is proposing to establish is very
undemocratic. Also, there were over 200
people who wanted to participate in the debate that were not allowed to do so,
and also, as I said, many phone calls, many letters came to government and also
to other parties such as ourselves, virtually all of them not showing any type
of support for the legislation. So, for
that reason, we are not able to support the bill. Thank you for giving me the time to say a few
words on the bill further.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is‑‑oh,
I am sorry.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I will make just a few comments in closing on Bill 41 on third
reading.
Mr.
Speaker, I genuinely wish to put on the record my appreciation for the fact
that, as the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has quite correctly indicated,
there were, indeed, a significant number of Manitobans that showed interest in
Bill 41 and registered their interest.
I
also want to put on the record that no government in the history of this
province, that includes 10, 20, 30 years of Liberal governments, at least 14 or
15 years of New Democratic Party governments, those of Mr. Ed Schreyer and Mr.
Howard Pawley, has ever made it a practice to do anything other than what was
followed with respect to Bill 41, that these kinds of committees are held here
in this Chamber.
As
I have said to my colleagues on that committee from time to time, that in
itself is a very unique thing to
I
remind the honourable member and, indeed, through him to his constituents in
The Pas, who for understandable reasons could not be here to make their
presentations known, their written presentations form part of the official
record of the hearings of that committee.
They are transcribed and their views were certainly taken into account
by those who were considering the bill.
Mr.
Speaker, we had, in fact, a very interesting discussion about parks
policy. I have to disagree with the
honourable member. I am, I suppose, a
little pleasantly surprised that we have had a good, hard, sober look at parks
legislation.
We
had representation that spoke very strongly in favour of the bill. We had people representing some very specific
concerns about the bill, about the historic way that parks were created in
We
do not remind ourselves often enough that had we changed‑‑you know,
it is for these reasons that 30, 40, 50 years ago when the parks systems were
built we had certain ground rules, multiple ground uses.
* (1850)
If
we wanted to take the kind of moved goal posts of what we now, or at least in
the minds of some people, call a park, we would not have many of the parks that
we have. We certainly would have never
established
It
is for that reason, I remind Manitobans, reasons that we in
The
only thing that is worthwhile calling a park is a park that has not been
touched by human hands. That is what Dr.
Rajotte told us in committee. The
Now
from that concept to the many, equally large number of Manitobans‑‑and
it is part of our heritage in
That is what is contained in Bill 41, and I
believe that is why we are seeing a much more moderate view being expressed by
members of the opposition. I regret they
are voting against it, but Bill 41 reflects the reality of parklands and how
they should be used in
I
am proud and pleased to have fathered it.
I am very pleased to recommend it to the House, and I, even at this late
date, recommend it to certain members, particularly the member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk), particularly the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), particularly
the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that they should consider seriously
whether or not they ought not to be supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 4l, The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
concernant les parcs provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: 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. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Yeas and Nays? A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Reimer, Render,
Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer,
Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
*
* *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call adjourned debate, third reading, Bill 32, standing in the name of the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Before you call that bill‑‑I was
in error‑‑would you call Bill 37, standing in the name of the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Bill 37‑The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: The House has already made a decision to
allow Bill 37 to stand in the name of the honourable member for Thompson. Is
there unanimous consent to revert to Bill 37 at this time? (agreed)
Third reading, Bill 37, The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Our critic, the member for Brandon East will
be outlining our position on this bill, which is one of supporting no‑fault
insurance for Manitobans.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, this is a bill we have been
waiting for a full five years to see implemented, not exactly this bill, but we
have been waiting for five years for a no‑fault system to be implemented.
We
have some concerns with the bill. We
think it could be made a lot better. We
tried, but nevertheless, the no‑fault system has been something we have
been asking for for a long time. The
minister has steadfastly opposed it for years, and I guess at the very last
moment, the government changed its mind.
It
changed its mind because of circumstances, Mr. Speaker, because Autopac
premiums were going to the moon, more or less. The fact is bodily injury claims
were escalating rapidly, and there was no way they could keep a handle on
Autopac premiums. So the reality of it is the government was forced to go into
this, and as Judge Kopstein outlined in his report‑‑I would like to
quote from position paper No. 2 of Judge Kopstein: Considering both costs and
benefits, a pure no‑fault plan would bring a substantial improvement to
bodily injury insurance protection in Manitoba with the greatest potential for
significant savings.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill, this no‑fault system, does answer a lot of
deficiencies in the tort system. The
tort system is costly. The tort system
brings about unnecessary delays, which can be devastating to the people who are
injured. The tort system gives
inadequate protection to innocent victims who happen to be involved in an
accident with people who do not have enough insurance, and, certainly, the tort
system is inadequate because it does not give sufficient protection to the at‑fault
victim, who in many instances is at fault simply because of a momentary loss of
concentration.
Mr.
Speaker, this concept of no fault, eliminating the chart system, is really
advocated by Mr. Justice Dickson as well in one of the Supreme Court of
Canada's cryology decisions. I quote
from Justice Dickson: The subject of damages
for personal injury is an area of the law which cries out for legislative
reform. The expenditure of time and money in the determination of fault and of
damage is prodigal. The disparity
resulting from the lack of provision for victims who cannot establish fault
must be disturbing.
That, I said, is from Justice Dickson of the
Supreme Court.
I
am satisfied that this bill goes a long way to enhancing protection for
Manitobans, and it covers anyone who is a resident of Manitoba whether or not
they have an Autopac policy. We tried to
get some improvements. We brought in
well over 35 amendments. We fought for
them. We had a vote on every one of
them. We felt that there should have
been improvements in some of the benefits, particularly for death benefits we
think are totally inadequate. We thought
there could have been a better deal for the senior citizens. We thought that other benefits should have
been approved.
* (1910)
We also
thought that the appeal process could be strengthened from what is
outlined. We believe that there should
have been reference to the court for matters of fact as well as for law. We put
those in the amendments. We tried our
best; we were not successful. I can say
this, that a future NDP government would do its best to strengthen this no‑fault
system that we are beginning with this bill.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we did get some
amendments, and I am very pleased that we got some of them. I will not take the time to go over them, but
I am particularly pleased that we got a commitment from the government. It is in the bill for a three‑year
mandatory review, including public representations, so we will have a public
discussion, a public review of this.
Mr.
Speaker, we basically support the bill.
It could be a lot better. We
tried to make it better. We will work at
it, but at least it is a beginning. It
is a new approach that abandons the tort system, and it brings in a fairer
system, in my opinion. It enhances
social security for the people of
I
know the Liberals are opposed to it.
They say, somehow or other, in some kind of perverted logic, that this
is going to undermine MPIC, and they do not understand it. Well, I do not understand their opposition to
the bill because, as far as I am concerned, it strengthens the Manitoba Public
Insurance system that we have in this province.
It makes MPIC even more important than ever before.
As
I said, we got the amendment in for a three‑year review, a mandatory
review. We are very pleased about that,
and it will be a public process.
So
next spring, Mr. Speaker, when people get their Autopac renewal policies and
they see that their premiums have not gone up or, better still, perhaps even
been reduced, it will not be because of the Liberals in this House, it will not
be because of the Liberals. It will be
in spite of the Liberals that Autopac premiums are going to be kept down in
this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I have lots more I would have liked to have said on this bill, but we
have had an opportunity in committee, and we have made our views known. We have tried our best to get over 35
amendments. We think it could be
improved, but it is a good start, and therefore, we are pleased to support this
bill.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
When we make legislation in this House, I
think we should make legislation and to regard it as to whether the legislation
is in the best interests of our children and our grandchildren to come.
I
have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the case of my children, this bill is
woefully inadequate, not because their present income levels are so high. Their income levels are well below, well
below. One of them is not employed at
all. She is still a student, but she is
a student who has just graduated, who has had an equestrian career, who, I
think, will make a significant contribution to
The
other one works for the Bronfman Foundation and, again, is what I hope will
make a significant contribution to
They,
like most young people, if they were to go out on their own and purchase their
own insurance, would accept what MPIC said.
They would not go out and buy additional insurance because they would
think that they had a public insurance corporation which would adequately cover
them, because that is their belief in what this system was all about from its
inception, that it would provide them with reasonable and necessary coverage.
Well, it will no longer provide them with
reasonable and necessary coverage. If
they were driving in the province of Manitoba, I can assure you that we would
be purchasing for them additional insurance, just as we do for Jennie in the
province of Ontario, and just as we do for Cathi in the province of Quebec,
because neither of those insurance programs meets the needs of these two young
people.
What if either one of them, and what if any
one of your children, became a quadriplegic?
The benefits in this act are woefully inadequate. It is a no‑benefit bill. That is the tragedy. The tragedy is that the very people who will
need additional coverage will be the very people who will not purchase that
additional coverage.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Those of us who have the fiscal and financial
resources to buy additional coverage will do so. I can assure you that there will be big ads
come next February from every private insurance company in this province
saying: You do not have enough coverage
under MPIC insurance. Make sure you have
adequate coverage. Come and buy from us.
The
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) says: How do we think this is going to undermine
MPIC? Well, exactly the way his former colleague
told him it was going to undermine MPIC. Vic Schroeder put it very well. He knows it is going to undermine the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
The
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) knows that he and his colleagues that sell
automobile insurance will be making a heyday come February of next year when
they are out there selling additional insurance, because MPIC is not going to
be adequate to meet the needs of the people of this province.
When I go into the committee room and I see
Howard Pawley in his painting holding the MPIC bill in his hand, something
which he is so very proud of, and I think of what the NDP have done to his
legislation, I could cry. We had the
best insurance program in this country.
We used to have it; as of tonight, we will no longer have it. I blame it primarily on the NDP who sold out.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
(interjection) Order, please.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would only like to
put a couple of words on the record to close debate.
Quite frankly, this bill will provide the kind
of stability the people of this province are looking for in their automobile
insurance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me make it very
clear, the point that was just made by the Liberal member about a young person
who might be dramatically injured in the early stages of their life, the
benefits that they will receive in a life expectancy of 70 years will exceed
most of the excess payments that are being envisaged today. They will exceed them because their
protection is ensured under this bill.
Pain and suffering will not be covered, but those who are dramatically
injured will be taken care of, and the people of this province will look around
and they will see other jurisdictions begin to follow this example very
quickly, because the cost of bodily injury claims and pain and suffering have
become unconscionable in terms of our ability to control those costs.
I
recommend this bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 37. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: 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.
* (1920)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Yeas and
Nays, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Evans
(Interlake), Evans (Brandon East), Filmon, Findlay, Friesen, Gilleshammer,
Helwer, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Maloway, Manness, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae,
McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Plohman, Reid, Reimer, Render, Rose,
Santos, Stefanson, Storie, Sveinson, Vodrey, Wasylycia‑Leis, Wowchuk.
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs, Edwards, Gaudry, Gray, Lamoureux.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 44, Nays 6.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I have been paired with the
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Had I not been paired, I would have voted in support of this bill.
THIRD
Bill 16‑The Public Schools Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 16, The Public
Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques), be now
read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: On division?
An Honourable Member: No, I am speaking on this one.
* (1930)
Mr. Speaker: I have already put the question to the House.
Order, please. Members cannot hear what
is happening here.
It
has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Education and Training, that Bill 16, The Public Schools
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, be now read a
third time and passed.
Do
you want to speak?
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not hearing your
words with regard to that motion at that particular time due to the air‑conditioning
unit and other distractions in the House.
Bill 16 represents, in our opinion, on this
side of the House, one of the most ill‑conceived and heavy‑handed
actions by this Tory government. In this
particular session, and this session is fraught with such heavy‑handed
actions by this government, this bill typifies more than any other this
government's attitude towards anyone who happens to get in their way toward
consultation, toward partnership and toward co‑operation. It exemplifies this Minister of Education's
(Mrs. Vodrey) and this government's utter and complete failure in education
policy in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, it not only attacks the locally elected officials, the very essence of
local decision making in this province and a total disdain towards the work
that school trustees are elected to do, to administer education in this
province at the local level, but it is also a thinly veiled attack on the
teachers of Manitoba. Coupled with Bill
22, the motives of this government towards the professionals who care for our
children in our schools is crystal clear.
Simply put, this government is saying, we must have money from your
pockets, your fat cats. We are going to
get both from you come hell or high water, and we are getting both of those
from this government lately.
But
what does the government say? They say
that they are concerned about rising property taxes. Can you believe that? This is their official
line. This is complete and utter
nonsense, that they are concerned about rising property taxes when their
budget, you can contrast that statement alongside of their budget, which shows
a $75 increase for every property owner in this province, a poll tax for every
property owner in the province, an increase in addition to that for many of
$250 for property taxes due to the minimum property tax that they have imposed
in this province, to say nothing of the elimination for many senior citizens of
the $175 pensioner school tax assistance that is in place in this province and
the delay, for all of the rest who are going to receive it, by nearly a year.
So
let them not say, Mr. Speaker, in justifying this bill, that they care about
property taxes. Concern about property
taxes, that is simply unbelievable, unsaleable.
It will not sell. It has not
sold, and it will not sell to the people of
During the committee, Mr. Speaker, we heard
from presenters who said that this bill was not necessary to accomplish the
government's objectives for this particular year, because this particular
policy of a 2 percent cap on the local requirements has already been met for
this year. It has already been adhered
to. The bill is not required for this
particular year. The objectives of the
government have been met. So the
government persists with this legislation, we can only assume, to apply even
more heavy‑handed tactics next year.
The signs are ominous. We do not
know what kinds of cuts are coming next year, but we know they will be deeper
and tougher and harder.
Mr.
Speaker, they do not need this bill for next year. We were told during the committee that they
should negotiate with the partners in education, and there is a willingness to
co‑operate. They should withdraw
this bill. We moved in committee that
any references to years '94 and '95 be completely removed from this bill, but
this government in the committee with their majority persisted in going forward
with this particular bad legislation. I
say to them, to this government, you still have a chance. You have an opportunity. You can sacrifice your minister and withdraw
this bill at this particular time.
This minister, Mr. Speaker, can be sacrificed
because she should resign in any event, whether this bill is maintained or
whether it is withdrawn. She has lost
all credibility with the people of
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les ecoles publiques, to be now read a third time and passed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: 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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 16, The Public Schools
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques. All those in favour of the motion will please
rise.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Reimer, Render,
Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Clerk of Committees
(Bonnie Greschuk): Yeas 26, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I have been paired with the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). Had I not been
paired, I would have voted against this bill.
* (1940)
Bill 22‑The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and
Compensation Management Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), 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), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, this bill is described as the
reduced workweek program. That is a
misnomer. This bill is an attack on the
collective bargaining process. It is a
government‑implemented lockout. It
is a betrayal of the trust of this government, which has shown that its word
means nothing with 100,000 public servants in this province.
We
have fought this bill from the beginning, and I want to say, our opposition is
because collective bargaining is at the root of social progress. Any government, in particular this government,
which once again, as they did two years ago on Bill 70, is attacking the
collective bargaining process, is moving in a regressive way.
Mr.
Speaker, the budget deficit we have is not the fault of our public employees,
and this government ought not to take out on the backs of the public servants
of this province, 100,000 Manitobans, at their expense, the problems brought
about by the deficit of this Finance minister.
We
oppose Bill 22.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I just have a few words on Bill
22.
It
is a regressive piece of legislation that singles out and unfairly attacks the
public sector in the
We
listened, Mr. Speaker, to the dozens upon dozens of presenters on Bill 22 that
came forward, many of them out of fear of losing their jobs, and told this
government that they were opposed to this government coming forward with Bill
22, in fact telling this government that it was going to have a serious and
drastic impact upon the families of this province, of the public sector workers
in the province and that it was unfair for this government to single out the
public service in our province to place the debt of this province and the
failures of this government to manage the economy of this province onto the
backs of the civil servants of this province.
This government said that this 10 days, and
they have called it a vacation or long weekends‑‑those are the
terms of reference that they use for these employees of this province‑‑and
said that it would not be necessary to roll back salaries in this way if they
had any other course of action.
Well, I hope that this government does not
take further draconian steps in this province by laying off civil service
workers in this province. We are going
to hold them to that, that they will not lay off further civil service workers
in this province over the course of the next two years when this legislation is
in effect, and we are going to be watching very closely that takes place.
As
far as Part 3 of this legislation is concerned, we thought it was fair that
MLAs, if the government chose to roll back any salaries and benefits, would
fill that role. Never mind transferring
the debt of this province onto the backs of the civil service workers, Mr.
Speaker.
The
Part 3 of this legislation we support; I support that section. We will be voting against this legislation.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
responsible governments have to make responsible decisions. In bringing forward this bill, 500 positions,
500 jobs were saved because this government, therefore, did not have to take
strong decisions with respect to that number equivalent of people.
Mr.
Speaker, I would think that members opposite would be supporting this bill to
protect the jobs.
Let
me say as a final comment, I have had literally dozens of members of the civil
service tell me that it was by far the fairest approach to take. I dare say that in balance,
Thank you.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill with the
exception of the section dealing with MLAs' salaries.
This bill has three purposes. Its goal is to reduce in the short term the
government and the public sector payroll, it is to reduce the power of labour
and its role in our community, and it is to diminish the role of the public
sector.
It
resulted in a loss of service in hospitals, schools, colleges, universities,
municipalities right across this province.
It resulted in a loss of productivity in a country which can ill afford
that. It resulted in a loss of
disposable income to people who found that their houses and their mortgages
were in jeopardy. It resulted in a loss,
and it will mean a loss in tax revenues for a government which is crying out
for them.
It
created inequalities in a province which can ill afford to create any more
inequalities. The deputy ministers'
salaries increased, the political pensions of their political appointees
increased. But the clerks, the cleaners
and the nurses aides had no choice.
Those with power got more; those without power got a kick in the teeth
from this government.
We
must be clear that this is not just a short‑term saving on wages, but it
is part of a longer‑term attack on unions and labour. When you fire 1,800 people in the public
service, when you end FOS legislation, when you bring in wide‑open Sunday
shopping, when you have no consultation with labour, then in fact that is part
of a much longer‑term agenda for this government.
We
should be aware that the origin of this bill lies also in its opposition to
trade unionism itself. This government
recognizes, as do others, that the expansion in the trade union movement since
the 1960s has been in the public sector.
When you attack those public sector trade unions, which is what they are
doing, you are out to undermine the growing sector of the movement itself, in
the long term to bring us to the level of the
We
should be aware of this government's hostility to the public sector
itself. "Government cannot do
everything" is their cry, the appeal of neo‑Conservative
fundamentalism, but they do not mean that, Mr. Speaker. What they mean is the government should do
little. What they want is small, weak
governments because that enhances the power of those who do not exercise it in
the ballot box but in the marketplace.
Mr.
Speaker, those who spoke to the bill at committee reminded us that there is a
political context to this bill, that this is not just a rollback in wages, but
it uses the power of the state against the worker and the union, that it
transfers the power to the employer to unilaterally set wages and conditions of
work.
There were alternatives.
* (1950)
They reminded us that these same people have
seen their taxes increase at the hands of this government. They have seen their daycare costs double at
the hands of this government. They have
seen their seniors', their grandparents' costs increase and double and triple
at the hands of this government. They
have seen their children having to bear the burden of those large student loans
that this government has introduced. The
economic conditions of the context of this bill must be remembered.
Mr.
Speaker, we heard from those people who spoke of Bill 22 that many in our
society are losing hope, that the state, the government has turned its back on
the people. We oppose this bill, but it
will pass. Indeed, such is the disdain
of this government for the legislative process that, in fact, it is already in
place, and the wages have been deducted.
Mr.
Speaker, there will be a greater test for this bill. There will be an
election. After five years of this
government, people will be asking themselves in
When they answer that, Bill 22 will be one of
those factors that they will consider; Bill 22 which made a mockery of the
collective bargaining; Bill 22 which undermined the gains that were won by
groups such as the Nurses' Union; Bill 22 which made no distinction between
people who earned $10,000 and those who earned $50,000; Bill 22 which disrupted
services which affected the economy of small towns and cities across Manitoba;
and Bill 22 which made the government of the people, the secular state which
binds us, less of a collective tool for common action, but the very means by
which the power of the few could grow at the expense of the many.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of 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). Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members, please.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Reimer, Render,
Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 26, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I have been paired with the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). Had I not been
paired, I would have voted against this bill.
Bill 23‑The Retail Businesses
and Payment of Wages Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), 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), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I will only be taking a few
minutes to put again on the record our opposition to this bill.
There is perhaps no better way to end the
session. I believe this is the second
last bill that is before this Chamber this session, and perhaps it is
instructive that this is the bill that will sort of end the session, because it
is indicative of the kind of year this government has had.
We
passed earlier today, on division, Bill 4, which was the predecessor to Bill
23. Bill 4 stands as a monument to the
incompetence of the government. It
stands as a monument to the failure of this government to understand the simple
economic fact that the City of
Mr.
Speaker, it underscores the fact that this government has refused to consult
with the very people that were affected.
When it got time to reintroduce this issue, the government chose Bill 23
as that vehicle. Despite urgings from
councils and community leaders from across
We
had the mayor of Carman, we had rural representatives from across the province
invite the government to come to their community to debate the issue of Sunday
shopping. Mr. Speaker, the government
was afraid to. Why was the government
afraid to debate this issue in rural
The
government's own front bench was divided on this issue. In 1987, Mr. Speaker,
the member for Pembina said in an unequivocal way that the idea of Sunday
shopping was obviously detrimental to rural
Nothing changed from 1987 to 1993 except for
the integrity of members opposite who represent rural
The
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, (Mr. Stefanson) is listening to the
few again, as my colleague from Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) said, and not the many
who are going to be affected by this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a mistake.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
* (2000)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, like many of the things that this government is doing, it is
going to undermine the economy of rural
First it is going to be one customer of the
meat shop in Morris. Then it is going to
be a small customer of a hardware in Teulon, and then it is going to be a small
customer of another specialty shop in Beausejour. As those individual retailers lose customers
to the large retailers, the multinationals, like the Costcos and the
Superstores in
This bill will exacerbate a trend which has
been occurring in rural
But
we will see whether that intestinal fortitude carries over into the
Legislature, because they have an opportunity to show their constituents that
they are standing up for their interests today, because Sunday shopping is
going to mean, and make no mistake about it, over the long run the demise of
some of our businesses and, ultimately, some of our communities in rural
Manitoba and northern Manitoba. That is
lamentable, and that is why we will be voting against this bill.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I
had indicated to the government at that time, at least in the second reading at
that time, that I would be inclined to support the idea of Sunday
shopping. I was very disappointed when
the government brought in a piece of legislation that gave the responsibility
of Sunday shopping to each and every municipality, as opposed to making a
decision from within inside the Chamber.
I
think that poses a great number of problems depending on the community in which
you live in. You are pitting community
at community, and I do not find that is proper.
The whole question of Sunday shopping‑‑I would have much
preferred to have gone on Bill 4, and I would have felt a lot more comfortable
debating that particular bill myself personally. With respect to Bill 23, I cannot support
Bill 23 for the reasons that I had pointed out to you. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): I had no chance to speak on this bill, but I
think nothing can be politically correct if it is morally wrong. Conversely, if anything is morally wrong, it
cannot be politically correct. How do we
know if anything is morally wrong or morally correct? By referring Bill 23, The Retail Businesses
Holiday Closing Act, otherwise known as the Sunday shopping law, to some moral
code of law.
What is the greatest moral code there is in
our Judeo‑Christian tradition?
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soul
and with all thy mind. This is the greatest
of all commandments.
The
second one like unto it: Thou shalt love
thy neighbour as thyself.
That is simply the summary of the great moral
code that was given to Moses, and this law violates the Fourth Commandment that
was written by the very finger of God.
The
Fourth Commandment: Remember the Sabbath
Day. Thus, six days thou shalt labour,
but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
For
the Lord had created Heaven and Earth, the sea and all that is therein, but on
the seventh day he rested. Therefore,
the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. Hallowed Sabbath is a commandment to all
Judeo‑Christian people, and even government should not violate this moral
code because their authority, the legitimacy of all government derives from the
source of all authority, the source of all justice, that is, the Almighty
One. If this law violates that moral
code of rule, we will vote against it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 23. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt this bill? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): All those in favour of the bill, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): All those opposed, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Call in the members.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 23, The
Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, The Employment Standards
Amendment, and The 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).
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger,
Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau,
Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli,
Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake),
Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 26, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I have been paired with the
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Had I not been paired, I would have voted against this bill.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 32‑The Social Allowances Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call adjourned debate, third reading, Bill 32, standing in the name of the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Mr. Speaker: The House has already made a decision on Bill
32 to allow it to stand in the name of the honourable member for Burrows. Is there unanimous consent at this time to
revert to Bill 32? Leave? (agreed)
Third reading, Bill 32, The Social Allowances
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Burrows.
* (2010)
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, this bill has been nicknamed the
"Premier kicks students out of school and onto welfare" bill. This has been called the stupidest bill on
the entire Order Paper.
These comments are well deserved because the
original intent of this bill would have seen 1,100 students out of school and
onto city welfare. This government put
up a terrible and weak defence of this.
They would not admit the real reason that they did this.
Part of their defence was it was the only
province in
Why
did they do it? They said that these
students have other options. Some of
those students had other options. Most
of them did not. Most of those students
would have ended up on social assistance.
They would not be able to continue school. They could only take a maximum of two courses
at a time.
What did the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) say? He said let them get
a job. How many people are unemployed in
the city of
An Honourable Member: How many?
Mr. Martindale: Fifty‑five thousand people. And this Minister of Family Services tells
them get a job.
How
many of these students would be able to work full time and attend school full
time? Not very many. What this bill's original intent would have
done would have been to deprive students of their hope of finishing an
education. As their own throne speech
said, education is the key to the economic future and prosperity of all
Manitobans but particularly of young people.
So
what is the real reason that this government did this? The real reason was to
offload the expense to the taxpayers of the city of
What this government is doing is creating a
permanent underclass of people on social assistance. Their caseload in the City of
Now
yesterday, at the eleventh hour, the Minister of Family Services repented, and
I am always pleased when I see someone repent.
This minister repented at the eleventh hour. What did he say? He said, well, we are going to change the
policy guidelines. I think Councillor
Glen Murray will be pleased. He said if
students want to go to school full time, at least if you are not going to have
a provincial program, let the City of Winnipeg pay for them and let them go to
school full time.
In
conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we can only hope, we can only hope that all 1,100 of
those students will be enrolled in school in September. Right now they are very worried, they are
very concerned, they are still phoning our office, but we can only hope that
all of them will be in school in September.
How
are we going to vote on this bill? We
are going to vote against it, because the minister should not have done it in
the first place.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I
wanted to rise to speak on this bill again.
I have spoken on it in the past in this House both in Question Period
and other occasions, and I feel it is important to rise on this bill because,
as I said at the committee, in the years that I have been in this House, and I
do not claim to have been here a long time, but in the years that I have been
in this House I have always, and I say this with all honesty, understood the
motive, the rationale behind the bills that have come before the House. I have
not agreed with them, but I have always understood some basis in some reasoning
as to why this bill was coming forward, some philosophical underpinning.
This one is unique. I have never in my experience thus far seen a
bill that had less to recommend it, that had less justification than this bill. It is absolutely unique, I believe, and I
said that at the committee.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe all members are honourable members, and so while we have
disagreements with people in other parties, the fact is, I respect the
electoral process; I would respect that they have come forward with the motives
of serving the people of this province in the best way they see fit.
I
have always striven to see that in every bill.
This one, I had a hard time finding a motive that was pure, because
there was nothing to recommend this bill.
There was no study, no assessment which would back up any of the
allegations of the government as to the reasoning of it.
They made all kinds of claims, and it was a
moving target. The rationale for this bill got weaker and weaker and weaker as
it changed on a daily basis. First they
say, no other province has this program.
Wrong. They had that proven
wrong. Then they said, well, people are
leaving home in droves just to get onto welfare to go on this program. Absolute garbage. We heard the experts come before the
committee. The people who deal with
these people absolutely refuted that.
There was no study, there was absolutely no evidence that that was
true. Then they say that people are
abusing this program, that they could be at home, they should go back home so
that they do not have to take the taxpayers' dollars.
They made these allegations, Mr. Speaker. There was never a scintilla of evidence to
support any of the rationale put forward by the government for this bill, and
the unique factor about this bill I believe is, they knew that. They knew there was nothing to recommend this
bill. They knew there was absolutely no
logic to this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, I would find it hard to believe that thinking people who really
believe that the best social program was a job, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
said and as I agreed with him on many occasions, any thinking person who
believed that would say, it is in the interest of society to take people, young
people who are on welfare, and tell them they cannot go to school and make it
harder for them to go to school.
The
only chance, it is the only chance they have for meaningful employment in our
economy and we are going to tell them we are going to make it harder for them
to go to school. That is unbelievable, and the truth is that the minister knew
that. He somehow, I believe, got talked
into this by his colleagues as some kind of a cost‑saving measure to
throw things off to the City of
* (2020)
He
knew it was an absolutely ill‑planned, ill‑thought‑out bill,
and he tried to save face. It was too
little, too late. Now, it is better than nothing, that is for sure, that he has
now agreed that it is okay, a person can be on municipal welfare and still go
to school, but it is still a half‑hearted measure. The reality is, if this program really was
not working, where was the evidence?
Where was anybody to come before our committee to tell us why the
existing program did not work, because I, for one, would have been willing to
listen to that.
If
there had been any evidence that it could have been improved, that it was not
working as well as it could be, let us talk about that. But they did not do that. They deleted the program. This minister says day in, day out about his
various programs in his department, there is a real dynamic. It is dynamic.
What does that mean? He is cutting all of these programs and he
keeps saying, just wait, it is dynamic.
The Child Protection Centre, the Student Social Allowances Program, it
is a dynamic department.
"Dynamic" means things are getting cut. There are no replacements. There is no thinking about what is going to
fill that void.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a bill which I think, more clearly than any piece of
legislation I have seen in all of this government's years, proves that there is
a social agenda at work, not just a fiscal agenda. Fundamentally, that social agenda is driven
by a philosophy of elitism. It is one
which would have us work out our fiscal problems, the fiscal agenda of the
government‑‑which I frankly agree with, that we do have to worry
about the fiscal agenda‑‑but it would have us work that out on the
least able to pay, the most vulnerable people in our society.
This bill, more clearly than any piece of
legislation I have seen in all the years of this government, shows that this,
indeed, is the undercurrent of what this government is doing. I believe that Manitobans reject that. They accept the need to be fiscally
responsible. They accept that. That is correct. The way to do it is not to go after the
people who can least defend themselves, least stand up for themselves and have
the least ability to succeed in our society.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill deserves to hit the garbage heap tonight, and there is still
an opportunity. The minister still has
an opportunity to go the full mile. He
made a decision that he did not want to do this. He made that decision. There is still time for him to go the full
mile and to not put this bill into place, to stick with the program he has
had. If there are improvements to this
program, let us see it.
But
there is still time, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that having obviously come to the
decision that he has made a mistake, he will have the courage to go the full
mile and allow this legislation to be taken off this table, tonight.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House, third reading
of Bill 32, The Social Allowances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'aide sociale.
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in
the members.
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 32, The Social Allowances
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale. All those in favour of the motion will please
rise.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey,
Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer,
Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner,
Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli,
Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East),
Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale,
Plohman, Reid,
Deputy Clerk (Ms. Bev
Bosiak): Yeas 26, Nays 24.
* (2030)
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the member for
Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), and had I voted I would have voted no.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, can we
have unanimous consent of the House to revert to presenting reports from
committees?
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert to
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees? Is there unanimous consent? (agreed)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): I beg to present the Sixteenth Report of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your committee met on Tuesday, July 27, 1993,
at 2:30 p.m., Room 255 of the
Your committee has considered:
Bill 212‑‑The Dauphin Memorial
Community Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du
Centre commemoratif de Dauphin.
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 La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Report Stage, Bill
212, Mr. Speaker.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 212‑The Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board
Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 212‑‑unanimous
consent of the House. Leave? (agreed)
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I move, by leave, seconded by
the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial
Community Centre Board Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du
Centre commemoratif de Dauphin), reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with
leave of the House, would you call Bill 212 for third reading?
THIRD
Bill 212‑The Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Repeal
Act
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to bring forward
Bill 212 at this time? Leave? (agreed)
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I move, by leave, seconded by
the member for
Motion agreed to.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 9‑Dr.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to call one private member's resolution, that being No. 9, standing in
name of member for
Mr. Speaker: Resolution 9, Dr. Charlotte Whitehead Ross,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), who has
12 minutes remaining.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I at this time have concluded
all my remarks regarding the resolution.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? (agreed)
* * *
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into a committee to consider the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Supply–Capital Supply
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order? This section of the Committee of Supply is
continuing to deal with the motion of concurrence.
Is
the committee ready for the question?
The question before the committee is the Supply resolutions relating to
the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, which
have been adopted at this session by the two sections of the Committee of
Supply, sitting separately, and by the full committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Chairperson: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition
House Leader): I request a recorded vote.
Madam Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested.
Order, please.
The motion before the committee is that the Committee of Supply concur
in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, which have been adopted at this session by
the two sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full
committee.
A
COUNTED VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows: Yeas 26, Nays 24.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Madam Chair, I have been paired with the
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Had I not been paired, I would have voted with our side.
Madam Chairperson: Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has adopted a resolution regarding concurrence in Supply
resolutions passed, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that this House concur in the
report of the Committee of Supply respecting concurrence in all Supply
resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1994.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
*
* *
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into Committee of Ways and Means for raising of Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into Committee of Ways and Means to consider of the Supply to be granted
to Her Majesty with the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS
Supply–Capital Supply
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): The Committee of Ways and Means will come to
order. We have before us for
consideration the resolution respecting the Capital Supply bill.
I
would remind the members that as the 240 hours allowed for consideration of
Supply, and Ways and Means resolutions has expired, pursuant to Rule 64.1(1),
these resolutions are not debatable.
The
resolution for Capital Supply reads as follows:
RESOLVED that towards making good certain sums
of money for Capital purposes, the sum of $293,145,000 be granted out of the
Consolidated Fund.
Is
it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the resolution?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Chairperson: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division.
* (2050)
Madam Chairperson: On division.
The motion is accordingly carried.
Supply‑Main Supply
Madam Chairperson: We also have before us for our consideration
the resolution respecting the Main Supply bill.
I once again remind all honourable members that as the 240 hours allowed
for consideration of Supply, and Ways and Means resolutions has expired,
pursuant to Rule 64.1(1), these resolutions are not debatable.
The
resolution for Main Supply reads as follows:
RESOLVED that towards making good certain sums
of money granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994, the sum of $4,933,836,900 be
granted out of the Consolidated Fund.
Is
it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the resolution? (agreed)
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted a resolution regarding
Capital Supply and a resolution regarding Main Supply, directs me to report
same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 57‑The Appropriation Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that leave be given to
introduce Bill 57, The Appropriation Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 portant affectation
de credits), and that the same be now received, read a first time and be
ordered for second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 57‑The Appropriation Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), (by leave) that Bill 57, The Appropriation
Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 portant affectation de credits), be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 56‑The Loan Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that leave be given to
introduce Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993 (Loi d'emprunt de 1993), and that the
same be now received, read a first time and be ordered for second reading
immediately.
Motion agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 56‑The Loan Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, with
leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae),
(by leave) that Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993; Loi d'emprunt de 1993, be now read
a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report of Bill 48, The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite); Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993
(Loi d'emprunt de 1993); and Bill 57, The Appropriation Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993
portant affectation de credits), for third reading.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report on Bills 48, 56 and
Bill 57, with the member for
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of the Whole please come to order. The Committee of the Whole will be
considering Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993 (Loi de
1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite),
Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993 (Loi d'emprunt de 1993), and Bill 57, The
Appropriation Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 portant affectation de credits).
Is
it the will of the committee to deal with Bill 48 first? (agreed)
Bill 48‑The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Madam Chairperson: Does the honourable minister wish to make an
opening statement?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): No, I do not, Madam
Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic of the official opposition
wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): No.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the second opposition
party‑‑no? Okay. We shall proceed to consider Bill 48 clause
by clause.
Is
it the will of the committee to block the clauses? (agreed)
Clauses 1 through 16‑‑pass;
Clauses 17 through 33‑‑pass.
* (2100)
Mr. Leonard Evans: We do not wish to hold up the Legislature,
Madam Chairperson, but we cannot help but note that on Bill 48 what we are
doing is levying a massive increase in taxes on the people of
In
addition to that, there is another $7 million or $8 million for gasoline and
fuel taxes, and in the process, Madam Chairperson, what we are doing is levying
this tax, regrettably, on those who can least afford to pay it. We are taking property tax credits that are
hitting those people on the lowest income scale, including the senior citizens. Then we are extending the sales tax to be
more in line to be harmonized more or less with the GST. We are levying a tax on baby supplies. We are levying a tax on the sick, on medical
supplies, and we are levying a tax on children who now go to McDonald's and
have to pay a tax for the Big Mac. They
have to pay a tax for a bag of chips or french fries. So let it be on the record that this Bill 48
does levy a heavy tax load on the people of
Madam Chairperson: Clauses 34 and 35‑‑pass; Clause
36‑‑pass.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, I propose three
amendments. They are all wording changes, and I will explain the wording
changes. They are in Sections 37(1),
37(2) and 38(6). The first amendment, I
move (seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings))
THAT the proposed subsection 4(12.1), as set
out in subsection 37(1) of the Bill, be amended
(a)
by striking out "each qualified dependent" and by substituting
"each dependent who at any time in the year was a qualified
dependent"; and
(b)
by striking out "paragraph 118(1)(b)" and substituting
"paragraph 118(1)(b) or (d)".
(French version)
Il est propose que le paragraphe 4(12.1),
enonce au paragraphe 37(1) du projet de loi, soit amende:
a) par substitution, a
"chaque personne a charge admissible", de "chaque personne a
charge qui, a un moment quelconque de l'annee, etait une personne a charge
admissible";
b) par substitution, a
"118(1)b)", de "118(1)b) ou d)".
Motion presented.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the amendment pass? Pass; Clause 37‑‑pass.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, I move
THAT the proposed subsection 4(13.2), as set
out in subsection 37(2) of the Bill, be amended
(a)
by striking out "each qualified dependent" and substituting "each
dependent who at any time in the year was a qualified dependent"; and
(b)
by striking out "paragraph 118(1)(b)" and substituting
"paragraph 118(1)(b) or (d)".
(French version)
Il est propose que le paragraphe 4(13.2),
enonce au paragraphe 37(2) du projet de loi, soit amende:
a) par substitution, a
"chaque personne a charge admissible", de "chaque personne a
charge qui, a un moment quelconque de l'annee, etait une personne a charge
admissible";
b) par substitution, a
"118(1)b), de "118(1)b) ou d)".
Motion presented.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the amendment pass? Pass.
Clause 37 as amended‑‑pass.
Mr. Manness: Clause 38, I move
THAT the proposed subsection 5(5.1), as set
out in subsection 38(6) of the Bill, be amended
(a)
by striking out "each qualified dependent" and substituting
"each dependent who at any time in the year was a qualified
dependent"; and
(b)
by striking "paragraph 118(1)(b)" and substituting "paragraph
118(1)(b) or (d)".
(French version)
Il est propose que le paragraphe 5(5.1),
enonce au paragraphe 38(6) du projet de loi, soit amende:
a) par substitution, a
"chaque personne a charge admissible", de "chaque personne a
charge qui, a un moment quelconque de l'annee, etait une personne a charge
admissible";
b) par substitution, a
"118(1)b)", de "118(1)b) ou d)".
Motion presented.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, I gather from the
documents we have seen that what we are dealing with is strictly technical
change in order to bring it in line with federal legislation and the federal
Income Tax Act.
So
I just wanted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to confirm that.
Mr. Manness: That is correct. I have sent the member my briefing note which
explains as best I can exactly what is being requested here today.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the amendment pass? Pass.
Clause 38 as amended‑‑pass;
Clauses 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47‑‑pass; Clauses 49
through 62‑‑pass; Clauses 63 through 65‑‑pass; Clauses
66 through 81‑‑pass; Clauses 82 through 84‑‑pass;
Clauses 85 through 92‑‑pass; Clauses 93 through 102‑‑pass;
Clause 1‑‑pass; Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass.
Is
it the will of the committee that I report the bill as amended? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Chairperson: No?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): We request a
recorded vote.
Madam Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The
question before the committee, is it the will of the committee that I report
Bill 48?
A
COUNTED VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows: Yeas 26, Nays 24.
The bill will accordingly be reported.
* (2110)
Bill 56‑The Loan Act, 1993
Madam Chairperson: The committee will now consider Bill 56, The
Loan Act, 1993 (Loi d'emprunt de 1993).
Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) wish to make an
opening statement? Does the critic for
the official opposition wish to make an opening statement? Does the critic for the second opposition
party wish to make an opening statement?
Clauses 1 through 13‑‑pass;
Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass.
Is
it the will of the committee that I report the bill? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Chairperson: No?
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Chairperson: On division.
Bill 57‑The Appropriation Act, 1993
Madam Chairperson: We shall proceed to consider Bill 57, The
Appropriation Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 portant affectation de credits), clause by
clause. Does the Minister of Finance
wish to make an opening statement? Does
the critic for the official opposition? No.
Does the critic for the second opposition party? No.
Clauses 1 through 13‑‑pass;
Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass.
Is
it the will of the committee that I report the bill? (agreed)
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 48, The Statute Law
Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993; Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993, as amended; and
Bill 57, The Appropriation Act, 1993, and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the Committee of the Whole be received.
Motion agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 48‑The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I do
not have a motion for him, but with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives
en matiere de fiscalite), as reported from the Committee of the Whole, be
concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 56‑The Loan Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, with leave of the House,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 56, The Loan Act,
1993 (Loi d'emprunt de 1993), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be
concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) have leave for Bill 56? Leave?
(agreed)
Motion agreed to.
Bill 57‑The Appropriation Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that
Bill 57, The Appropriation Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 portant affectation de
credits), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) have leave for Bill 57? Agreed?
(agreed)
Motion agreed to.
THIRD
Bill 48‑The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with
leave, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 48,
The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a third time
and passed.
* (2120)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) have leave for Bill 48?
Leave? It is agreed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: 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.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 56‑The Loan Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance:) Mr. Speaker, with
leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae),
that Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993 (Loi d'emprunt de 1993), be now read a third
time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) have leave for Bill 56? Leave?
(agreed).
Motion agreed to.
Bill 57‑The Appropriation Act, 1993
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 57, The Appropriation
Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 portant affectation de credits), be now read a third
time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) have leave for Bill 57? (agreed).
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
No.
* * *
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the
House, if I might have a few moments to say a few good‑byes and a few
thank you's at this‑‑(interjection) Although you may wonder, given
my occasional difficulty with keeping my questions short and to the point how I
will get seven years into a few minutes.
I
want to say at the outset that it has been a very emotional day with many
reminders of what I will be leaving, and in fact I have realized over the
course of today that I will miss this place very much. I will even miss the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard).
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I did not say like him, I said miss him.
Let
the record show for the first time in all of my dealings with the Minister of
Health that he is speechless.
Looking back over the past seven years, it has
certainly been seven long hard years with many ups and downs and highs and
lows, but looking back, I realize how lucky I have been, how fortunate to have
experienced so many facets of the Manitoba legislative process. I had the privilege of serving, albeit short,
for two years under Premier Howard Pawley in his cabinet, as Minister
responsible for Culture, Heritage and Recreation, responsible for Lotteries and
Status of Women. That was a short‑lived
time in office but very rich and personally fulfilling.
I
had the opportunity of being part of the third opposition party during our
minority government, between '88 and '90, being a part of the dynamic dozen,
some would say the dirty dozen‑‑I think we were very dynamic‑‑and
serving as critic responsible for Family Services and Status of Women and, in
that time, had the opportunity to witness some of those rare moments that
happen more often under minority government of co‑operative,
collaborative, consensual‑type politics.
Most recently, of course, I have had the privilege of being a part of
the official opposition for the last three years, working with our Leader and a
great caucus and doing my best to serve as deputy leader and for most of that
time to keep careful scrutiny of developments in the health care field.
Mr.
Speaker, one of my major preoccupations in my seven years in this Chamber has
been to strive daily toward greater equality between women and men, and I am
very pleased to say tonight that I have seen some changes in those seven
years. We have gone from a handful of
women in this Chamber to, I believe, about 20 percent representation, and that
to me is a major achievement in a short period of time.
I
have also seen some positive changes in attitude that give me positive feelings
about this place. I compare 1986, when I
had a playpen in my office and my first son was then only two years old, and
the former member for
However, just a few short years later, in
1988, after my second son was born, Joseph Harry, I at that time breast‑fed
Joseph in one of our legislative committees, and I want to point out and note
that not a word was said. However, I
have to point out that there were a lot of‑‑it was hard to figure
out who was actually having conversations with me, because anybody who came up
to me to talk to me was either looking up or down below or to the side and not
daring to look at me directly. So we
have made some changes, and we still have a few more to make.
As
I said at the outset, there have been highs and lows and ups and downs, and I
think the downs have to do with the sacrifice that one makes in terms of time
with family, with friends, and time for oneself. The downs also for me have to do with still
the combative macho style of politics in this Legislature.
We
have often been described as a neighbourhood sandbox, but lately it seems to be
more like a military zone. I guess if I
have any regrets about this place and anything I would like to change, it is
the personal attacks, and I regret if I have ever engaged in any such attacks
myself, Mr. Speaker, and I will apologize if I have ever done that.
Equally of concern, Mr. Speaker, to me is what
I would call the gotcha syndrome in this Chamber, and the fact that a measure
of a politician's worth is in who can throw the best zinger or who can put down
someone the best or embarrass someone the most.
It
seems that we are all nice people out there and something happens, we walk into
this Chamber and we become new and different personalities.
Somehow, if I have any wish, it would be to
create a place where differences of opinions are respected and welcomed in this
Chamber, and I think we have to change that because, surely, nothing is more
important and more urgent than the restoration of faith in our democratic
institutions.
There have been many highs, and I want to say,
Mr. Speaker, there have been, for me, wonderful moments of consensus,
collaboration and co‑operative action.
I think most specifically of the developments around the antisniff
legislation. No matter what the history
and how it ended, we did still end up with something that may improve the
situation, and it only happened because of co‑operation and collaboration
in this House.
I
think also more recently of the way in which the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) listened to all those members of the taxi
industry and responded accordingly by agreeing to give some time, some
breathing space to allow those concerns to be addressed and to be heard.
Mr.
Speaker, on the question of highs, for me it is a lot of little things. It is the satisfaction of helping a
constituent through the maze of bureaucracy, of getting a four‑way stop
in a busy intersection, of being a voice for a good idea, of giving recognition
to someone's achievements.
All
in all, for me it is an enormous privilege to be in political life, and that to
me is translating one's personal values, one's political philosophy, into
action.
To
speak up for the voiceless, to fight for the powerless, to ensure the most
vulnerable in our society are represented and a more just and equitable society
has been the history and tradition of the NDP.
That is why I choose the NDP and why I take the risks I do today.
Political involvement, Mr. Speaker, I am sure
for all of us comes out of a whole series of emotions. For me it is the emotions of anger, hatred,
love, among others.
It
is anger at seeing poverty and homelessness in our midst. It is hatred at the
sign of any kind of injustice or inequality or racism in our society, and it is
love for the dream of peace in our homes, on our streets and on earth.
It
is the translation of those emotions, the feeling of those emotions, the expressing
of those emotions and the action around those emotions that is why I am in
politics and why I am doing what I am doing.
For
me, what has been a constant in my political life has been the philosophy that
if we do not challenge the idea that might is right, that competition is the
only way to live, that poverty and food banks are here to stay, that a certain
level of unemployment is acceptable, then there is not much point to our
struggle at all.
* (2130)
That has been a constant for me and I am more
resolved than ever to continue the struggle, particularly these days when many
of us feel the disappointment at seeing some of the gains and achievements of
those who came before us being lost, dismantled, taken apart.
I
think very much of people who came before us, like Tommy Douglas on medicare,
but I think more recently of people like Myrna Phillips and Muriel Smith on
daycare. I want to express, in these few
closing remarks, my regret at seeing some of those hard‑fought gains
being torn apart today, programs like home care and daycare and medicare that
are prized social programs, are valued by everyone and they are being torn
apart. So for me, I am more resolved
than ever to carry on the struggle and I feel more of an obligation than ever
to preserve what those who came before us fought so hard to achieve.
It
is those feelings and that obligation that makes me embark upon a major change
in my life, in my political career, and takes me to federal politics, because I
believe that the roots of our current malaise and the economic uncertainty and
the fear about the future, those roots are at the federal level.
I
feel very strongly that the devastation we believe is happening from free
trade, the imminent demise of medicare, the lost potential caused by inaction
on the economic and employment fronts‑‑all of those are
critical. I believe that we are at a
watershed, at a turning point in our history, at a critical juncture where we
must choose between either social chaos or social justice.
I
make this decision and this imminent departure knowing that I leave a caucus
strong, effective and ready to form government. I would not be making this
decision if I felt that I was hurting the ability of our caucus and our party
to further our agenda and ensure that Manitobans have a very serious option in
the next provincial election. I believe
that we have a strong talented caucus under very strong and able leadership,
prepared to take on that challenge.
I
also make this decision knowing I leave
I
could not have done what I have done for the past seven years without the help
and support of many. I first want to, at
the top of my list, pay thanks to the people of my constituency, the residents
of
I
want to thank, of course, the St. Johns NDP association, who has helped me
through all the ups and downs over the seven years, my constituency assistant
Judy Burns, who has been with me all this time, and I want to thank all of the
members in my caucus and in this Chamber for their guidance and help and advice
over the years.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank you for your patience in dealing with my sometimes
long‑winded questions‑‑occasionally that being the case‑‑and
for your guidance in this Chamber.
Mr.
Speaker, there are many people associated with this Chamber whom I want to
thank. I hope I do not miss anyone. I want to thank, of course, the Clerk of the
Assembly, the table officers, the Hansard staff, the Sergeant‑at‑Arms,
the Deputy Sergeant‑at‑Arms, the Pages, the interns, the cleaning
staff, the cafeteria staff, the staff in members' allowances, the security
staff and, of course, the staff in my own caucus and anyone else I might have
forgotten, and my apologies if I have forgotten. I want to pay tribute to all those
individuals because they make it possible for us to do our jobs on a day‑to‑day
basis.
Mr.
Speaker, of course, I would not want to miss the media. I want to thank the
media for their careful scrutiny of developments and happenings in this place,
in ensuring that those who are not able to directly access the proceedings of
this Chamber are able to keep on top of the latest developments and issues.
Mr.
Speaker, finally, I have to pay tribute and a special thank you to of course my
family, who, of course, without their support I would not be doing what I am
doing today, and the past seven years would not have been possible. They have put up with my absences, my mood
swings, the invasion of family time and have always been there to support
me. My husband, Ron, and my two sons,
Nick and Joe, are wonderful supporters of mine, and they will be there with me
wherever I go, wherever the future takes me.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say thank
you to you and to everyone for these past seven years, and let me close by
inviting you all to visit me in
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I think it was about five years
ago today that I stood up in the Legislature and I posed a question to the
Minister of Finance about a tax change that he had brought in or he had not
brought in, and I told him that he was completely wrong, because I had spoken
to people in New Brunswick, and they had told me that he could do it. I remember, as I ended my question, I said,
get that right, and if you want, I will show you how to fix the rest of
it. Of course, I was absolutely
wrong. I had completely misunderstood
what was going on, and I left the Chamber a much chastened, much humbled
individual. In a sense, if I have any
feeling coming out of here, it is that.
Mr.
Speaker, when I entered the Chamber, I was about 120 pounds lighter than I am
today. My bank balance was largely in
the black. I was single and I was
without children. I will give the House
credit for changing the first two, but I will take credit for changing the
latter.
In
reflecting on what I wanted to say tonight, I certainly echo some of the
comments of the member for
I
have also said things in the Chamber that I feel bad about.
An Honourable Member: You should.
Mr. Alcock: Well, no, as a matter of fact, those were not
the things that I was thinking about. I
have reflected on how we get away from this, because I do believe that every
member enters this Chamber intending to do good. I think the people of this province are
incredibly well served by everybody in this House.
* (2140)
I
think everybody enters this House wanting to be honourable, and is. I think we should take pride in that. I am honoured; I mean, I feel this incredible
sense of honour that the people of Osborne chose me. I am really proud of that. I am really proud to be a politician; I
really like that.
It
makes me feel good about who I am and what I do. I think we should be more proud of what we
do. I think we contribute to the sort of
the malaise or the ill will in the community. Frankly, I mean, I have not got a
solution. I do not know how we change
the debate in here, but I certainly support the member of
There is a lot of good that goes on, and a lot
of personal good. I have had people‑‑when
I have done the stupid things that leave me kind of hanging my head in the
corner‑‑from all parties come to me and say, it is okay, and offer
some support.
There is one little thing, I do want to
apologize to one person in this House. I
want to apologize to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey). I want to do it publicly; I have done it
privately. But I said something about
her that I have always regretted. I am
not going to repeat it, but publicly I want to say that I am sorry.
Beyond that, I just want to thank
everybody. I want to thank all of you; I
want to thank the press. You know, I am
going to miss the daily Question Period‑‑not. But I want to thank all of the staff in this
building. I want to thank the security
staff who have been so good to me when I am here at midnight or three in the
morning, trying to do some work. I want
to thank the people in the cafeteria who still put up with me, and Gus, who makes
me special little things, and Leoni, who takes care of me. I want to thank the
Pages, everybody in this Chamber and who support this Chamber; they have just
been so good to work with.
There are so many people in my constituency
that have worked so well with me over the years, and have done so much to
honour me. I will thank them personally,
again. But I want to thank them on the
record here, too.
So
best of luck, everybody. I hope
everything works out for you. I will
come and sit in the loge and heckle quietly and watch what you are doing.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House, Bill 57, The
Appropriation Act 1993; Loi de 1993 portant affectation de credits.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to use this occasion to
make the customary closing remarks on behalf of the opposition and the members
of our party at this pending session end or adjournment of this present
session.
I
want to start my remarks, obviously, by saying good luck, good health and best
wishes to my colleague and friend the member for
I
am very, very confident that she will overcome the odds in Winnipeg North and
be a tremendous representative for all Manitobans who believe in a universal
health care system and fairness in our province.
I also
want to say a fond adieu to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) and thank him
for his comments here this evening. I
have known the member for Osborne for a long period of time. We went to
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Doer: Never apologize for a good school.
Mr.
Speaker, I certainly know his experience in the public service as a person who
has worked in private agencies and government agencies on behalf of
children. I know that he has been a
strong representative for his community of Osborne. We wish him good health, good happiness and a
fair election campaign in the constituency he is seeking.
I
guess this is somewhat reminiscent of (interjection) Well, you can never write off
anything, Paul, so you cannot say that. I guess this is reminiscent‑‑I
was not here in 1979, but I understand a number of very good people left the
Chamber from different parties, former Premier Schreyer, former minister, a
then, I guess, ministers Spivak and Lloyd Axworthy left this Chamber, all
together into the federal election, all very, very capable people, all from
three different parties, tremendous talent, skill, intelligence in articulation
of the issues. We see again today that
there is a changing of some members of our Chamber into potentially the House
of Commons.
I
think that is good for our Chamber. I
think it is good for
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is also good for us to have members in the caucuses of the
opposition parties that will be raising those issues and will understand the
very real decisions we have to make in this Chamber on behalf of the people of
Manitoba and will not be removed from those relations, will not think that the
provincial government is some foreign object, but rather an intricate part of
the communities and constituencies that they represent.
So
I welcome the fact that we are having two members go on to the House of
Commons, and I say that we almost had three.
I know that we all participate in democratic nominations, but that too
would have been a good choice in terms of somebody that understood very well
the people of
It
is interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note that we have lost five people in 12 months
from this Chamber. Potentially, we could
have lost six. That is very, very high
turnover rate by any private sector standard or public sector standard. Five members of this Legislature have
departed since we had the speeches from last year, and even then, there were
two other members that had departed just before that, the former member for
Crescentwood and the member for
I
wish them all well. I paid tribute to
the former member for Crescentwood last year and the member for
An Honourable Member: I had not noticed.
Mr. Doer: I often joked that he was the unguided
missile from
An Honourable Member: Well, he still supported you.
Mr. Doer: Certainly from this side we appreciated the
fact that he was opposed to the Assiniboine diversion, the fact that he wanted
to build a mountain in front of Portage to stop all the water is another thing,
but far be it from me to be critical of the former member for Portage. It is interesting to note that he is still
very involved in public affairs.
The
member for
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): He is an unguided missile then, too.
Mr. Doer: Well, we have never been in the Conservative
caucus room, but we know the Premier knows.
I
want to wish Elijah Harper well personally.
We obviously are going to be competing against him for a seat in the
Churchill riding but on a personal level we all learned a lot from Elijah
Harper, and we will do everything we can to maintain that seat in our own
political party but on a personal level I do wish him well.
I
also want to state that I wish Gulzar Cheema well in
We
also wish Harold Neufeld well.
An Honourable Member: Saw him the other day.
* (2150)
Mr. Doer: Yes, well, I have not seen him. I usually see him walking in the northeast
area of
An Honourable Member: To the Norvilla.
Mr. Doer: Oh, the Norvilla, it has gone a little northeast
but we wish Harold well, the former member for Rossmere, and I am sure‑‑
An Honourable Member: He is as critical of the government as we
are.
Mr. Doer: Yes, as the member mentions but that is a
very interesting reality, that we have in fact lost five members in this
Chamber. Maybe it speaks to‑‑the
turnover rate I think says something about this Legislature and perhaps the
culture under which we develop our debates.
I
know today is not a time for self‑serving political comments in a closing
statement. (interjection) Oh boy, it is so really tough to get at it with the
Premier, it is really tempting to get at it but, of course, we had our chance
in Question Period. It is just
unfortunate that he did not have his chance to get back to us in Question
Period today, but I will save all my comments to the Premier‑‑
An Honourable Member: Do not say he was not there.
Mr. Doer: I know he was here in spirit. I understand he was watching it on
television, but we kind of missed him today.
It kind of leaves us with an unfulfilled feeling not to have the Premier
here on the potentially last day of Question Period, and we want him to know
that he was missed today.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to say, today, if you want a person who knows all the answers
from the Deputy Premier before he gives them, just ask the member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin) who knows his responses long before he gives them.
Mr.
Speaker, today, with the weather‑‑usually in the summer when we are
closing, we are talking about all the Manitobans that are normal and not
sitting in this Legislature, that are normal and going and visiting their
family and friends in Manitoba and enjoying the tremendous advantages we have
of our summer. But today, we must
acknowledge that many Manitobans are facing extremely difficult weather
conditions in our province.
We
know that agricultural producers are extremely concerned about the status of
their crops and the ability to get their crops off this year with the high
degree of moisture and lack of sunshine for this period of July. We know that other members of communities in
the Swan River area and the Duck Mountain area have gone through floods and are
worried about going through more floods and more devastation of personal
property and public property in that area.
We
know that people upstream from this river, and people on creeks in this city
are worried about their homes being flooded. We know that tens of thousands of
other Winnipeggers and Manitobans are fighting a battle to keep their basements
and other property dry. So if we can be
of any assistance to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) in dealing with the few human levers we have to deal with
acts of nature, we will offer that support and offer that to the Premier.
Manitobans have always co‑operated in
difficult times like this, and we know that that is where most Manitobans are
thinking right now. They are not
thinking about this legislative session and all the debates that are going on
here. They are thinking about their more
immediate situation.
I
want to thank all of the staff. I want
to start by you, the Speaker of this Chamber who has always been very
fair. I want to say to you that we are
bit concerned about your lifestyle and your health, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker talks to us about being co‑operative,
warm and fuzzy. I think last year he
said all 57 members should pull together like a team of horses.
While we want to say to you, Sir, that
skidding along a road at 150 kilometres per hour off a motorcycle is, in all
seriousness, is not going to allow you to‑‑105 kilometres, I do not
want you to be breaking the law. But,
Mr. Speaker, that will not allow you to stay in that Chair much longer. I am pleased that you are not hurt, but I
would encourage you to keep your physical activity to, perhaps, a walk down
Broadway with the member from Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). We need you in the Chair, and your wisdom in
the Chair, not in a hospital bed. We
know the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will also share that concern for you.
We
want, as I say, to thank the staff, the Clerks, the Pages, the Committees and
Journals staff, the interns for all the caucuses. We want to thank all of the Legislative Counsel
and all of the other people. I want to
thank our own caucus and our own caucus staff.
We have tried to be a constructive opposition. I know the government thinks that because
they are in this Chamber answering about 110 days worth of Question Period that
we are always on the negative.
But
I think the record will show that there were pieces of legislation that we
opposed, that we opposed on the basis of substance and principle. There were pieces of legislation which we
voted for‑‑in fact I think the majority of pieces of legislation we
voted for. There were pieces of
legislation that we truly tried to improve by amending the pieces of
legislation, by suggesting changes to that legislation, by recommending implementation
strategies.
Mr.
Speaker, there are some ministers across the way who were very receptive to
changes. We mention the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Driedger), who was very receptive to changes. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
went some distance for aboriginal fishing communities. We thank him for that.
We
want to thank the minister responsible for the Liquor Commission for some
acknowledgement of the labels for people.
We want to thank the government for coming forward with the anti‑
sniffing bill. It was not in the way in
which we would prefer it, but we still think that it is positive.
So
I think there were some changes made in legislation. As the member for
I
did go through the minority period of time, and I think that people were better
served. I think of ministers, like the
Minister of Highways, who have listened to the public, listened to the people,
and made changes. The purpose of
committees, the purpose of public presentations, the purpose of the opposition
is to improve the situation for Manitobans.
It is not to have 30 people voting yes and 27 people voting no. It is to get a piece of legislation that is
good for all Manitobans. Sometimes it
worked in this session, and sometimes it did not work. I would like to thank members of our caucus
for trying to work on improving legislation and improving the situation in this
Chamber.
Mr.
Speaker, we have miles to go before we sleep, to obviously use a term that has
been used a number of times. We have a
situation now in this province where 57,000 people are unemployed. We have a situation now, where tens of
thousands of people are on social assistance.
We have a situation now where out‑migration is continuing to rise
in terms of our in‑migration rate and a real population challenge. We have a situation where we have food bank
increases. We have the highest child
poverty rate in
We
also know that many of our communities are facing extremely difficult times,
and one community, of course, which I think I should pay tribute to today, is
the community of Churchill. It is the
50th anniversary of the Hudson Bay Route Association, Mr. Speaker, and tomorrow
when the Premier meets the Prime Minister, I want to wish him well. I want to wish him well on behalf of the
people of
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to say, in this the United Nations International Year of
Indigenous People, that we have tremendous work to perform on behalf of the
people and with our aboriginal people in
* (2200)
I
want to say that we, and I am sure all members of this Legislature, are
committed not to just pass resolutions and hand out plaques across Manitoba but
for real political and economic and social action. Anything short of that is to pay lip service
to the United Nations resolution, and I want us to commit ourselves and
recommit ourselves to action, not words, in terms of aboriginal people.
I
want to say that we remain committed to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. We had the debate in the Chamber, I am not
going to repeat it, under the Justice department with the member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin). We are committed to the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. It spent
three years reviewing the conditions of social and economic justice and the
aboriginal justice system.
I
was with an elder at the Sagkeeng community just last week, and he said, how
can the government call it an aboriginal justice system? There is no justice for aboriginal
people. It should have been called the
aboriginal legal system. He as an elder
of that community, again called for the government to enact the partnership and
commission which was recommended No. 1 in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
Mr.
Speaker, we must work to be fair in this province. Many of the most vulnerable people in our
province, we believe, took the largest amount of cuts in the last year, and
whether it is the anti‑poverty groups, the Indian and Metis Friendship
Centres, the foster parents, the people on social assistance, the students and
Student Social Allowance, and on and on and on, we feel‑‑and this
is where we disagree with the government; they have stated their case day in
and day out and we have stated ours‑‑that the people that are the
most vulnerable have received the greatest share of cuts and reductions in
support from the provincial government.
So
in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish each and every one of the members
of this Chamber well. I would like to
wish each and every one of us an opportunity to get out of this building and
spend time with real people in real communities and real farms and real
workplaces across the province. It is a
wonderful opportunity for us, but let us remember that it is our job to have a
province that provides hope for people, not a province that provides despair
for the population. We believe that
We
have a co‑operative province of people that work together and meet
challenges together. We had and we must
continue to have one of the greatest health care systems in the world, and we
must reform it without cutting it back and taking away the very essence of this
health care system.
We
must have an education system that provides a basic education for our
children. We must have an education
system that provides for our young people to have the opportunities, the social
and economic opportunities, that are absolutely essential for Manitobans to
raise their family in this province and to have the economic and job situations
that they need to stay in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, we believe that education and health are not only social advantages
for our province but they are economic advantages for our province, and we
believe that they are twinned together, and that is why we believe reforming
the health care system with integrity and investing in our education system is
essential for the long‑term economic viability of the great province of
Manitoba and the great people that we represent in this Legislature.
Thank you very much.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable Leader of
the Second Opposition (Mr. Edwards), is it the will of the House that the
Speaker do not see the clock until such time as we get through the business of
the day?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, that is not agreed. Then the hour being 10 p.m., this House is
now‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that we would be prepared to sit until 10:45 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Until 10:45.
Order, please. On House business
here then.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unreasonable
about this, okay, but the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)‑‑and
I enjoyed every word that she spoke‑‑spoke about 20 minutes; the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) spoke for about 20 minutes, 25 minutes; the
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) spoke 10 minutes; the Leader of Liberal Party
(Mr. Edwards) is going to be speaking for some period of time.
I
would ask not to be constrained. I will
not be unreasonable, but I have not abused my speaking privileges this session
and I do ask for the consideration.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House that the Speaker
do not see the clock until such time as we are finished with the business that
is presently before us? I have no other
option at this point in time, because the hours have been clearly set out that
the House would now adjourn at ten o'clock.
So what is the will of the House?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed, that Mr. Speaker do not see
the clock until such time as we are finished with the business that is
presently before us? (agreed)
* * *
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, let me
just indicate on that point that there were arrangements made and there were
commitments made. I recognize that
things could not be completely predictable, but we do hope that the Premier
(Mr. Filmon)‑‑I will certainly undertake to keep my comments
brief. I hope the Premier will do the
same. I know he will.
We
want to, at this point, make some comments which need to be made at the end of
the session. I want to start, Mr.
Speaker, by thanking you for your very, very helpful guidance in this Chamber,
on behalf of us, on behalf of all Manitobans, in helping us to do our work. You have given us not just the benefit of
your wisdom, but also the benefit of your friendship to all of us, I believe,
in this Chamber. I thank you very much
for that.
I
note that our friend the depute de St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) will be going off
to
Mr.
Speaker, as well, I want to recognize the work of the Deputy Speaker (Mrs.
Dacquay) in this Chamber because I know she has put in many long hours and I
want to thank her for her work in this Chamber.
I think often we look past that.
We do not recognize the Deputy Speaker.
I know that she has served you well, Sir, in her role as your deputy,
and she has served us well. I want to
put that on the record as well.
I
also want to thank the many long hours that the committee Chairs have put in in
this Chamber. We have sat through many,
many long evenings, and they do put in long hours as Chairs of the various
committees in this House. I want to
thank them.
I
also want to express gratitude to the legislative staff and the security
personnel, the Hansard people and the table staff here in the Chamber, as well
as our political office staff in this Chamber.
In addition to the civil servants, our offices are staffed with people
who also live the political life, in many ways, in terms of the hours and
putting up with the give and take of life in political office.
* (2210)
Mr.
Speaker, as well, I want to particularly thank the Pages this session for their
long work in this Chamber. They are, I
believe, the unsung heroes of the procedures both in the committee rooms as
well as in this Chamber. I want to
specifically name them and thank them for their service: Mr. Matthew Jenkins, Mr. Gaetane Manaigre,
Jeffrey Peters, Trevor Rudge, Tina Sontag and Karen Tymofichuk. We thank you for your work in this House and
your very fine job that you have done over the course of this session.
Mr.
Speaker, this has been a very interesting session for our party and for me
personally, of course, because midway through it we had a change of leadership. So when some asked what the most significant
event in this session for me has been, it has not necessarily been something
that has come up in this Chamber, but rather in my political life and in the
political life of our party. It has been
the change of leadership; so that poses new challenges for me.
I
am looking forward to them, and I took them on fully understanding the
political life and the ups and downs that it brings. The member for
I
understand that there are difficulties we face in the community in terms of
credibility, in terms of our being seen as worthwhile participants in this
system, but, Mr. Speaker, as we here are dedicating the best years of our lives
to this, we look back at the legacy of others who have served in this Chamber,
who have led this province from all political stripes, who have led this
country and given us as a society the things we enjoy today. It is important work.
Mr.
Speaker, if we are not attracting the best and the brightest of this Chamber,
if we are not able to go out into the community and call people to this
vocation as an honourable one, we will be lost.
We need to be able to do that. It
is up to us to join hands as a common group regardless of partisanship to send
that message that this is good honest work.
It is important work for the future of our province. We not only control $5.5 billion of taxpayers'
money, we are legislatively responsible for laws which affect the citizens of
this province in almost every moment of their lives. They are coming face to face with the laws
that we set and the policies that we strike in this Chamber.
So
I want to also indicate and thank specifically, having come to this new
position in this Chamber, the member for
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to
specifically mention the member for
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, she served our party well. I think she served the Legislature well in
her role as the Leader of the Opposition, then the Leader of the second
opposition party. I want to thank her
for her assistance in the transition in this Chamber, the transition in our offices.
I
also want to pay special tribute, obviously, to the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) who was elected, as I was, in 1988, is now choosing to move into the
federal field. I have benefited
enormously from his advice and greatly from his friendship. I want to wish him well, obviously, on a
partisan level, because I share his beliefs and I share his hope that he wins
the election he is moving towards. But I
also want to wish him well regardless of the outcome of that. I want to wish him well in moving beyond this
Chamber into other things in his life.
So I want to specifically acknowledge the great asset he has been, not
only to our caucus, but I believe to this Chamber.
We
also, in the course of this session, in our party, saw the departure of the
member for The Maples, Dr. Cheema, as he went to the
It
was a sad day for me, because Gulzar had become a very close friend of mine,
and he had introduced a certain aspect, a perspective, a background into this
Chamber which heretofore had not been here.
For that, I think, I certainly, and I believe all members owe him a debt
of gratitude. He brought into this
Chamber a perspective, as a member of the Sikh community, as a visible minority
in this Chamber, which was unique and which will be missed. On a personal level, of course, as well, I
wish him well, but I am going to miss him greatly. I have already, so I want to as well indicate
his loss as a member of this Chamber‑‑I acknowledge the high
turnover that we have had in recent times‑‑that, to me, is a very
significant one, in terms of my personal loss of a friend from this Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we had the great
advantage and the great joy in our caucus of welcoming the new member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). It was a great
loss, of course, to lose the old one to the fifth estate, but he still gives us
the benefit of his opinions from time to time, without the same‑‑as
I heard mentioned, I believe, reported at the time when he went, the adage that
editorial writers are like the ones who stand at the top of the valley and
watch the battle and then go down to shoot the wounded.
That is the advantage of his position in the
fifth estate is that he is now writing pearls of wisdom for us to take
advantage of but, Madam Deputy Speaker, I still see the former member for
Crescentwood, obviously, on a personal basis from time to time. So I can assure
you that he maintains a keen interest in this Chamber and he is, of course,
challenged and happy in his new position.
But
he was a loss to the Chamber, which we were very pleased to see replaced by the
former member for Ellice, now the member for Crescentwood. She has joined us again in this Chamber, and
it has been a very important addition to our caucus and we were very pleased to
see her return to this Chamber.
I,
of course, want to as well indicate that the member for St. Johns, the former
member for Rossmere, and, as well, the former member for Rupertsland are all
leaving us or have left us. I think that
it is important to indicate that all three of those individuals, none of whom
were in the same political party certainly as I was, I really believe that I
developed a friendship with, and throughout all three parties we developed
friendships with those individuals.
The
former member for Rupertsland has made a change, for the better I would say,
but he has made a change. Things like
this happen. As the member for Concordia
said, he remains a very strong advocate for his people. Regardless of what political party he
chooses, the former member for Rupertsland stood up for his people first and
foremost. I think we all understand
that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and of course miss him from this House.
I
do want to keep my comments very short, but I do want to say in closing, I do
not intend to embark on some kind of a diatribe. We have had many, many months of political
sparring in this Chamber. I do not
intend to get into that tonight.
But
I do also want to say that back in June 1992, when the First Minister made
closing comments at the end of that session, he said some interesting things
and it was the best closing speech I had heard from him in the five years.
* (2220)
He
recounted some of the experiences of his trip down to
I
call him back to his statements when he said on June 24, 1992: I think there is an even greater, I will say
threat, because it is a threat that if we do not bridge the gap between the
wealthy nations of this world and the poor nations of this world, it will
explode upon us some time in this decade.
He
goes on to say that they still have access to all of the public information,
that there are television sets in the smallest, most impoverished villages and
they know how the rest of the world lives.
Eventually their desires for greater economic status, for greater
opportunity, for better living conditions‑‑because where we were in
Brazil, the average life expectancy in that interior region is 35 years of age.
He
goes on to indicate in that same speech that the key, and we get back to
education he says, is what are all those people going to be doing who are
displaced from employment in areas in which they had skills and no longer have
marketable skills. That is going to be
retraining and retraining in a whole series of venues, whether it be in our
colleges and universities, whether it be industry based, that we help sponsor
innovatively through so many other means.
Those are going to be the major shifts of the future.
Those are the themes he set out. Education and bridging the gaps between the
wealthy and the poor. I do not see that
reflected in this current legislative agenda, Madam Deputy Speaker.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Those were themes that he put before us,
visions. It is not just the rich and the
poor nations, it is the rich and the poor in our communities. It is education for all members of our
society which is going to be the key to the future. As he has said, the best social program will
be a job. There will be no jobs, there
will be no future for these people without education. We must bridge the gap between the wealthy
and the poor, between the enfranchised and the disenfranchised.
We
must be prepared to do that, because the whole approach, the whole Conservative
ideology which says that we should live in a free marketplace with less
government restraints, it all breaks down if there is not equality of
opportunity. That is the start. There is no morality to laissez‑faire
free marketplace unless there is equality of opportunity. You cannot justify saying, I made it, so why
cannot you, unless we started from the same position. Equality of opportunity is not charity; it is
part of the commitment to equality.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I want to call the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to his vision of a year
ago when he talked about bridging the gaps, and he talked about education as
the key to unlocking the future for our less fortunate people, for our young
people in this province. Without
ensuring the equality of opportunity of all people in our society, we will not
achieve that moral society. We will not be able to justify the differences
between wealth and education amongst the various ranks of our society. We must provide equality of opportunity to
all people, and cutting things like the Student Social Allowances Program is
not the way to get there.
Mr.
Speaker, the new attitude and the new thinking that are going to be required to
deal with the new reality will require a commitment to fiscal responsibility
and a whole new approach to financing of government programs and spending and
to service the many people that we do in the so many ways that we do. We must be prepared to find creative
solutions to that to get into the 21st Century with any hope of control of our
future.
So
I share their resentment of the $600 million spent to finance the debt; I share
that. I do not accept that the answer is
to continue to run up the deficit; but, at the same time, I want to conclude by
calling the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), again, not to turn his back in this
Chamber on those who need our help the most.
We cannot solve the fiscal problems of this government of this province
on the backs of the poor, the disillusioned and the disenfranchised. That is not the way to do it. We must be prepared to respect and honour the
principle of equality, and that includes equality of opportunity.
Mr.
Speaker, with those comments, I want to wish all members a restful time in the
coming weeks. We can hope that we will
have some good weather. People can get
back to their homes and perhaps mop out their basements, but I want to wish all
members, of what is left of the summer, a restful summer.
I
also want to say that I acknowledge the extra and additional difficulty that
rural members have. I am very fortunate,
and I am not sure I would be able to do this job, if I could not get home as
often as I do because I happen to live in the city of
So
I want to conclude again by wishing all members, and you, in particular, Mr.
Speaker, a restful season. I hope you,
Mr. Speaker, in particular, have an uneventful time between now and the next
session. As much as possible, stay off
the two‑wheeled vehicle which I know you love so much.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I might say at the outset that I
will, indeed, attempt to be as brief as possible, which certainly does mean
briefer than I have been in previous session ending speeches, much to the
disappointment of my caucus, I might say.
But
I do wish to put a few closing remarks on the record and acknowledge the words
that have been spoken by many during the course of this session. I might say that though I disagree vehemently
with what has been said by opposition members, I certainly strongly support
their right to say the things that they believe in. I choose to disagree in many instances. We will have that opportunity to attempt to
persuade the public as to who has the best plan and who has the best answers
for the major problems that we face.
Mr.
Speaker, in beginning my remarks, I certainly want to thank you for your
continued contributions to the House and wish you continued good health and,
certainly, safety in all that you undertake.
I hope that just because we are bringing in no‑fault insurance you
have not thrown your cares to the wind, that you will, indeed, take better care
of the difficult conditions on the roadside.
I
certainly want to thank the staff of the Chamber, the table staff, the Hansard
people, the Pages, the support staff in every way throughout the building for
their continued efforts on our behalf.
When you go through as long and arduous a session as we have gone
through, there is no question that the toll that it takes on the energy of the
57 people sitting around this Chamber is not the only toll that it takes. It takes, certainly, a great, great toll on
the many who come here to work in support of us, who rarely are given the kind
of recognition that they deserve for the long hours they put in and the tremendous
commitment that they make. I certainly
want them all to know that we appreciate their efforts.
I
want to, as well, because I see that the gallery has become filled with‑‑
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Mr. Filmon: Well, I might say that Terry is here from his
Shakespearean debut, and so is Sherry and so are so many of the others. They are nonpolitical hacks, indeed. Sorry, they are of all political face, the
hacks that have gathered around for this closing ceremony.
Mr.
Speaker, I will also comment on some of those who are departed, or are about to
be departed, in no particular order, but only because she is smiling so sweetly
at me across the way, the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) who
rarely smiles at me in this Chamber. But
I must admit that true to the form that she has attracted in terms of
commentary tonight, she has invariably been exceedingly friendly and an
exceedingly fine companion outside the Chamber, wherever we have met on social
occasions.
* (2230)
I
can think of a time when I was Leader of the Opposition and she was the
Minister of the Culture, Heritage and Recreation portfolio that she spoke of
earlier, and she came out to Beef and Barley days in Russell. The member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr.
Derkach) will remember, it was indeed a cultural event. She gave a small cheque to the opening of an
expansion to the library in conjunction with that, and we had an opportunity to
visit over two days of the weekend.
Janice and I were there. She and
Ron were there with Nicholas, I believe, at the time. I think this may have been prior to Joseph
Harry.
We
always have had many interesting discussions about some of the mutual family
challenges that we have had over the course of the years, and despite, as I say
very openly, very severe differences in policy views that we have in
philosophies, we certainly have, I think, similar views about the importance of
our families and the communities that we serve and the people that we come in
contact with throughout the course of our responsibilities. I might say that I wish her family and her
well in all her future endeavours and, politics aside, I hope that life goes
well for the member for
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to recognize the service of the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock), and‑‑
An Honourable Member: Show your appreciation in the federal
election.
An Honourable Member: Are you going to vote for Dorothy Dobbie?
Mr. Filmon: I wish you had not asked that. Indeed, I am.
The member for Osborne has the
Although from time to time he has gotten under
my skin and perhaps even the skin of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), I
know, again, that he is sincere in his beliefs and in his desires to serve the
people of his constituency and the province.
So, again, I wish him well in his continuing endeavours, Mr. Speaker.
I
will too miss the former member for The Maples, Dr. Cheema. This is an interesting thing. It flashed back to me as people mentioned Dr.
Cheema. The first time that I had any
recognition of him‑‑and it shows you how wrong first impressions
can be. The first impression that I
think most of the public got was that picture on the front page of the Free
Press of his nomination meeting. I do
not need to tell anybody here all of the overtones that were in the article
about stacking of meetings and all of those things. I do not think that the people of The Maples
could have asked for a more sincere or dedicated representative than he proved
to be in this Chamber.
My
regret is that I was away from the Legislature the day that he did hand in his
resignation, and I could not say it to him personally because he was away from
the building by the time I returned. I
hope that somebody will send him Hansard and my fondest regards for him for his
service, for the time that we spent, the discussions that we had from time to
time, and for I think the very responsible attitude that he took in this
Chamber to the very serious issues that he dealt with when he brought them to
this Chamber.
I
wish he and his family well in
I
will also say that I have had the opportunity to speak at a retirement dinner
for the member for Rossmere and said many things about his fine qualities and
his many contributions‑‑(interjection) Well, yes I spoke about his
impulsiveness. I spoke about his very
strong will on just about anything that he was asked an opinion on or a
position on, but I will say that I am very happy to continue to maintain his
friendship.
He
now, unfortunately, is a much better golfer than I am, and when I see him
occasionally on the golf course, I no longer put any side bets on the game with
him because he is spending much too much time at that. But he was a person who came with a very
generous background of experience and very much contributed to some of the
serious decisions that we had to make when he was in cabinet, and they were
difficult decisions. We can think about
Lynn Lake, and we can think about the HBM&S expansion, and we can think
about a number of issues that he had a great deal of input to. In general policy terms, in terms of finance,
in terms of many of the negotiations, difficult that they may be with business
entities, he always had a very strong experienced perspective to offer.
As
I said at his retirement dinner, we certainly will miss his contributions, and
we certainly wish he and Verdeen well in all of their future endeavours.
Mr.
Speaker, the former member for Rupertsland did indeed make his contribution,
which was nationally renowned in this Chamber, and he has chosen other
challenges and other opportunities to pursue, and we certainly will also in
this Chamber miss the things that he contributed to, and the issues that he
tackled, and the perspectives that he brought.
I wish he and his family well in their future endeavours.
This has been a busy session and I expect that
I am probably not likely to hear again from the Leader of the Opposition or any
others that this is a do‑nothing government.
Mr.
Speaker, having looked at‑‑
An Honourable Member: This is a do‑everything government.
* (2240)
Mr. Filmon: Well, having looked at the list of very
significant pieces of legislation that we dealt with, and I know that many of
them were very controversial, one only needed to sit in for the closing debates
and the many, many recorded votes that took place today. I would venture to say that I do not recall a
legislative session in my 14 years in the Legislature in which as many substantive
issues were taken on by the government of the day.
There is a great deal of need, there is a
great deal of substance in these initiatives.
It is not just the ones that were pieces of legislation but indeed the
establishment of the Boundaries Commission by the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), you know, various reviews going on in The Municipal Act and other
major challenges that have been announced during a period of time. This has been a significant session in terms
of substance and, understandably, it engendered a great deal of debate because
opposition parties, obviously, see as their primary role to oppose and
therefore much of what went on in this session ended up being the result of
some pretty bitter divisions across the House.
Mr.
Speaker, like every other government in
Mr.
Speaker, it came to that. It has come to
that, of course, for virtually every other government in
There was an editorial about 10 days ago, a
week ago in the Globe and Mail that was entitled "A social policy
election?" It talks about setting
up to oversee the reform of our income security programs in key social areas of
the country. Its concluding statement
is, on this as on so many issues the political divide is not between left and
right anymore; in fact, there is a huge amount of consensus on what needs to be
done. The real divide is between those who are willing to do it and those who
are not.
Mr.
Speaker, that says it all, as far as I am concerned about the New Democratic
opposition in this Legislature. They
are, indeed, people who are unwilling to face the difficult questions or the
difficult challenges. Never once have
they offered us, other than fatuous responses about things that may be worth a
million here and a million there in response to $100 million challenges, never
once have they been willing to offer us serious alternatives to the challenges
that we face.
Mr.
Speaker, because I want to be gentle on my New Democratic friends in
opposition, I want to quote, in terms of the statements that I think they might
be interested in from their own party people.
I am sure that they would not accept these statements if they were taken
from me, personally, but I will begin with the favourite saying of Tommy
Douglas, who I think is known to most members opposite, and it is, quote: "The trouble with socialists is that
they let their bleeding hearts go to their bloody heads."
This article, called "So Long,
Solidarity" in Maclean's magazine, has quotes from a cross section of
people. (interjection) Yes, I will table it later for the member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman). I have underlined and
highlighted so that he can find it easier when he reads it, Mr. Speaker.
It
talks about, firstly, an activist who ran for the New Democrats in
Those are the ones who the New Democrats put
up during election time to go and dog the Leaders of the other parties and
harass them and make it look as though this all magically happened by somebody
who was just an average person, just sort of a citizen out of the blue. We saw a lot of that on the steps of our
Legislature during the past couple of months, Mr. Speaker.
But
now that euphoria has turned to disgust over what Cassidy calls Rae's corporate
right‑wing agenda. Well, I have
news for you, it is not a corporate right‑wing agenda. It is the people's agenda today because all
of the same things that are challenging governments in society, these economic
challenges are challenging people in their homes, on their farms, in their
small businesses and wherever they work.
Everybody is dealing with a situation in which
there is not enough money to go around to do all of the things that need to be
done. There is not enough money‑‑(interjection)
Yes, he is. Becky, his net worth is probably 10 percent of what it was before
the recession. You may think that that
is nothing, but you do not understand anything that is going on.
Mr.
Speaker, there is a quote from Colin Gabelmann, Attorney General of British
Columbia and a New Democratic MLA first elected in 1972, quote, during the
glory days, the approach was to throw money at problems. Now we are all trying to find social
democratic responses to an era of limited resources.
The
problem is that there are no rational social democratic responses to any of
these things, Mr. Speaker. The problem
is there is only common sense and realism and that is something that this New
Democratic opposition knows nothing about.
Gabelmann goes on to say‑‑and the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) would be interested in this comment because
she attributed it to me just earlier tonight‑‑historically, in the
party, there was a glib negative reaction to the role of the market, says
Gabelmann. There is now a recognition
that government is not the solution to every problem.
The
member for Wolseley said that was my response to everything. That is a New Democratic response, but that
is a responsible New Democrat who is in office having to make decisions and
that is the difference, Mr. Speaker.
Here is a quote from former NDP MLA Barry
Pashak, who lost his seat in Calgary Forest Lawn to the Tories. He says:
If we formed government and tried to implement all our policy
directives, we would bankrupt the government overnight, says Pashak. Many of our policies are completely
unreal. They reflect special interest
groups. Now that is a New Democrat
talking about New Democratic policies.
I
know that this upsets the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) very, very much, but
it is from his own people that these comments come. They are not my comments.
What he talks about is them being the captives
of special interest groups and, of course, we saw that in spades this
session. We saw it particularly when we
saw the New Democrats willing to resort to a scorched‑earth policy to
destroy anything that is happening in this province in order to further their
own economic interest.
* (2250)
We
saw it in spades from the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who grouped
together the animal rights coalition, the environmentalists, the women's
activist feminist organization in an effort to destroy over a thousand jobs
that Ayerst attributes to this province.
That is the kind of thing.
(Mr. Marcel Laureandeau, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
We
see it when the member for Concordia tries to denigrate Repap, tries to
denigrate MacLeod‑Stedman that are now back up over 200 jobs here in
Manitoba, and tries to bad mouth them, Mr. Acting Speaker, in an effort to
enhance his own electoral fortunes. That
is not responsible opposition. That is
not responsible New Democrats.
Let
us look one further, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that is what Premier Bob Rae said
in this article in Maclean's: There has
to be a recognition that we are facing a serious problem with the debt. Traditionally, there has been this denial
within large parts of society that there was a connection between what happens
in the economy and what happens in government.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we have a lot of people in the New Democrat opposition here
trying to deny the reality of the debt in this province and the long‑term
implications and ramifications of it.
I
will say just one final comment from Premier Bob Rae that I think was addressed
directly to his New Democratic colleagues here in
And
that is exactly what we get every day of the session in this Legislature from
our New Democratic friends in opposition, Mr. Acting Speaker.
I
just want to say that for my colleague the Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards), I just
want to leave him with one comment, Mr. Acting Speaker. I will not embarrass him by reading the
entire letter, but he received a letter, I believe it was today, from Antoine
Guertin, Senior, chairman of the board of Guertin Brothers Coatings and
Sealants, that I think says it all. It
talks about the misleading statements he put on the record in Question Period
here about a fine, upstanding company in this province that employs many people,
statements that are proven in this letter to be totally inaccurate. I would hope that he will apologize to the
Guertins for utilizing this Chamber as a means of furthering his political
views at the expense of a fine, upstanding company in this province.
The
fact of the matter is that that is not the way to go, and I would hope that
this is just the effect of his first session as Leader of the Liberal Party,
and he will take a more responsible attitude towards dealing with the lives and
the enterprises and the employment opportunities of people in this province.
The
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) asked me to address the comments that I made
with respect to the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations of the
world which he has, I think, logically taken to extend to the gap between the
rich and poor in this country and elsewhere.
I will just say that in our budget, and we have certainly heard from
people on both sides of the House who have pointed out to us time and time and
time again, that everybody in this province obviously had some economic effect
from that budget. We could not do all of
the things that we were attempting to do and get the deficit down from a
structural level in a range of $760 million down to $367 million without
raising taxes and without increase in transfer payments from Ottawa without
having some effect on the people of the province.
Obviously, we have to share the pain, and we
have to share it as equally and evenly as we can. That is precisely the point of the whole
exercise, that everybody in this province, no matter what their circumstances,
did contribute their share towards getting the deficit down and towards keeping
the taxes of our province down, and that is indeed what we were doing to keep
that gap as narrow as possible.
The
second aspect that he attacked is the aspect of education. I will say to him that if he only believes
that the only way to improve the quality of education in this province is by
paying more to those who work in education, then he will never solve the
problems and the challenges of education in this province, not he, not the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), not anybody else who takes that viewpoint
that the only way you can improve the quality of education is to pay more money
to the people who work in education.
That is wrong, dead wrong.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I might say just in conclusion, I will say one thing about
Habitat for Humanity, an experience that many of us in this Chamber
participated in. (interjection) The member for
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Habitat for Humanity was one of the most
uplifting and exhilarating experiences I think that many of us have felt for a
long, long time. I know that the member
for Concordia (Mr. Doer) worked there, I know that the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) worked there, the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and many
others. I was struck by the strong human
spirit that flowed through in all of these endeavours that were taking place
and the tremendous community response to the leadership of one Jimmy Carter.
Having been with him both here in the
building, when we honoured him with the Order of the Buffalo Hunt and at the
fundraising dinner that followed, I was struck by the immense modesty of a
person who, in his time, was the most powerful person in the world and the
very, very impressive personal enrichment that he has to offer in anything that
he does, as I say, having come from being perhaps the most powerful person in
the world, and still being able to relate to people of all stations, of all
circumstances. I think that that is
something that is very powerful and very exhilarating and very inspiring and
something that I think can be an example for all of us in public life.
* (2300)
I
will say this, that as I was on the site, one of the things that was said to me
about the particular project and the challenges and the achievements of Habitat
for Humanity has struck me as being right on, and that is Habitat for Humanity
is a hand up and not a handout.
What I find all too often from members
opposite in this Chamber is that they are constantly arguing for a handout for
people and not often enough for a hand up, Mr. Speaker.
I
would hope that they will spend more of their time looking at projects that
contribute to people by allowing them to contribute to themselves.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will thank the members
for their indulgence and their patience and wish all of them a very enjoyable
break period as long as that may be, so they can recharge their batteries and
come back raring to go with very positive ideas to contribute to the future of
Manitoba.
I
certainly thank all of my caucus members and all of the staff who work so very,
very hard in the course of each and every year to ensure that we are able to do
the work that we are able to do in this Chamber. Many people have contributed immensely to the
work that has resulted from this very long and arduous session, and I thank
them all for their contributions.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question to the House, I
will take this opportunity to thank each and every one of the 53 members that
are presently before me who have served in the fourth session of the 35th
Legislature.
On
behalf of the Clerks at the table, indeed the support staff, indeed Shirley
Strutt and her staff from Legislative Counsel, the Sergeant‑at‑Arms
and the Chamber branch staff, the Hansard staff, it has been our privilege to
serve each and every one of you.
Members have jokingly talked about my accident
on Sunday. I sincerely want to tell each
and every one of you now that is the closest to death that I ever want to come
until death does come. What does happen, and that old cliche that your life
flashes before your eyes, believe you, me, that is true.
One
of the things that did go through my mind at that time was the fact that I
would have missed each and every one of you. That I speak from the bottom of my
heart. That did go through my mind.
Saying that, I want to wish each and every one
of you a safe holiday and I just cannot wait to see each and every one of you
back here for the new session.
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: It was moved by the honourable Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 57, The Appropriation Act, 1993; Loi de 1993 portant
affectation de credits, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that when the House adjourns
today, it shall stand adjourned until time fixed by Mr. Speaker upon the
request of the government.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: All rise for His Honour.
ROYAL ASSENT
Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr.
Dennis Gray): His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor.
His Honour W. Yvon Dumont, Lieutenant‑Governor
of the
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour:
The
Legislative Assembly, at its present session, passed bills, which in the name of
the Assembly, I present to Your Honour and to which bills I respectfully
request Your Honour's Assent:
Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition
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
Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping
(Temporary Amendments) Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces de detail les
jours feries‑‑modifications temporaires
Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord
Bill 6, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels
Bill 7, The Builders' Liens Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur le privilege du constructeur
Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les assurances
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
Bill 11, The Regional Waste Management
Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la Loi sur
les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur
les fiducies internationales
Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment Act; Loi Modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le
Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
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
Bill 15, The Boxing and Wrestling Commission
Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte
Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques
Bill 17, The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales
Bill 18, The Corporations Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les corporations
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
Bill 20, The Social Allowances Regulation
Validation Act; Loi validant un reglement d'application de la Loi sur l'aide
sociale
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
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
Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et apportant
des modifications correlatives a une autre loi
Bill 25, The Public Schools Amendment Act (4);
Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques
Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation
Bill 27, The Environment Amendment Act (2);
Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement
Bill 28, The Manitoba Intercultural Council
Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil interculturel du
Bill 29, The Minors Intoxicating Substances
Control Act; Loi sur le controle des substances intoxicantes et les mineurs
* (2310)
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
Bill 31, The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie
Bill 32, The Social Allowances Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale
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
Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises)
Bill 35, The Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la peche
Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant le Code de la route
Bill 37, The
Bill 39, The Provincial Court Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale
Bill 40, The Legal Aid Services Society of
Manitoba Amendment and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
la Societe d'aide juridique du Manitoba et la Loi sur les procureurs de la
Couronne
Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 42, The Liquor Control Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des
alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 43, The
Bill 44, The Alcoholism Foundation Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation
manitobaine de lutte contre l'alcoolisme et apportant des modifications
correlatives a une autre loi.
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
Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes
criminels
Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation
Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation)
Act, 1993; Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere
de fiscalite
Bill 49, The Summary Convictions Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires
et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi
Bill 50, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993;
Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives
Bill 51, The Municipal Amendment Act (2); Loi
no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les municipalities
Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act; Loi sur
la Fondation du Manitoba
Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'actes
criminels
Bill 54, The Municipal Assessment Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale
Bill 55, The Legislative Assembly Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblee
legislative et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi
Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial Community
Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre
commemoratif de Dauphin
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the
Lieutenant‑Governor doth assent to these bills.
Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour:
We,
Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful subjects, the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of
unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government, and beg
for Your Honour the acceptance of these bills:
Bill 56, The Loan Act, 1993; Loi d'emprunt de
1993
Bill 57, The Appropriation Act, 1993; Loi de
1993 portant affectation de credits.
Mr. Clerk: His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor doth
thank Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and
assents to these bills in Her Majesty's name.
(His Honour was then pleased to retire.)
(God save the Queen was sung)
Mr. Speaker: This House is now adjourned and stands
adjourned until a time fixed by Mr. Speaker upon the request of the government.