LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, June 10, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Discipline and Assignment of Judges
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today on a matter of privilege.
This is a serious matter, and this is my first opportunity
to do so. The issue is regarding the
discipline and the assignment of judges, and the role of the chief provincial
court judge by statute, The Provincial Court Act.
The member for
Mr. Speaker, I had no involvement. This is entirely within the jurisdiction of
the chief judge. The chief judge deals
with the assignment of judges to courts.
The chief judge dealt with this matter and controls placements.
Mr. Speaker, the member for
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I was
somewhat surprised that the Attorney General, in attempting to establish a
matter of privilege, made virtually no reference to Beauchesne, and I suspect
there may be a reason for that because I believe the minister is essentially
engaging in debate.
I realize the minister was not present when the comments
were made, but if the minister would care to check in Hansard, the comments she
is alleging in her matter of privilege‑‑the member for St. Johns
(Mr. Mackintosh) was very clear in asking the question: "What role did the government play in
effectively disciplining the only judge who has spoken up against this
backlog?"
Mr. Speaker, that was a question, and I realize the
minister sometimes misunderstands the role of Question Period, but the role of Question
Period is for opposition members to ask questions of the government and,
indeed, we also expect, on occasion, that the government may even answer some
of those questions.
Mr. Speaker, how can an opposition member, our Justice
critic, who has spoken out repeatedly about our concerns about the handling of
the justice system by this minister‑‑how can it be considered a
matter of privilege when our member, who has risen on almost a daily basis to
raise questions about what is happening to our justice system in this province‑‑how
can that be a matter of privilege? Does
it satisfy any of the provisions in Beauchesne, Citations 24, 25, 26?
In fact, if the minister would care, or others on that side
who perhaps advised the minister on this ill‑fated matter of privilege‑‑I
would suggest that not only is the minister's matter of privilege not a matter
of privilege, it is not even close to a prima facie case. If the minister would care to read Beauchesne
about what a matter of privilege is, she will find that it is the privilege of
members, in fact it is the obligation of members to be asking the types of
questions that the member for
I will quote, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion on this so the
minister perhaps will take the time to read about what Parliamentary privilege
is. This is Citation 24: "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of
the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of
the High Court of Parliament, . . . . The privileges of Parliament are rights
which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'. They are enjoyed by individual Members,
because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services
of its Members, and by each House for the protection of its members and the
vindication of its own authority and dignity."
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the fundamental
privileges of this House is the right of any member to ask a question of a
government minister and get an answer, not this so‑called matter of
privilege.
* (1005)
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (
First of all, the important point has to be made that my
question was not addressed to the Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey). There was no personal charge, let alone a
charge. It was addressed to the
government. I said: What role did the government have in
effectively disciplining the only judge who spoke up against the backlogs in
A second point is, we have to look at the context within
which this question was raised.
Manitobans have been raising concerns with me on a daily basis about
Furthermore, we have seen how the application has been of
the Filmon Fridays to the courts. Even
more particular, we have seen Manitobans witness a back‑room deal with
judges on their retirement package between the cabinet and judges. There is such a thing as independence of the
judiciary from the government of Manitoba.
That question, which is a subject of the matter of privilege, was a
necessity in this province.
I have a role, and what this matter of privilege is, is a
sad attempt to stifle public debate and stifle the role of the opposition in
examining the administration of justice in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for trying to advise the Chair on this matter.
I will take this matter under advisement, and I will come back to the
House with a ruling.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF REPORTS
Mr. Speaker: I am tabling, in accordance with Section 42 of
The Ombudsman Act, and I am pleased to submit the 24th Annual Report of the
Ombudsman, covering the calendar year January 1, 1993, to December 31, 1993.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
morning in the Speaker's Gallery, eight visitors from the Women's Committee of
the MGEU, and they are under the direction of Ms. Myrna Phillips.
Also, from the R.B. Russell Vocational School, we have
twenty‑five Grade 12 students under the direction of Mr. Paul
Sutherland. This school is located in
the constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
From the Treherne Elementary School, we have twenty‑seven
Grade 7 students under the direction of Mr. Craig Spencer. This school is located in the constituency of
the Speaker.
Also, we have representatives of the ACCESS program in
Manitoba.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this morning.
* (1010)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have asked repeatedly about
the cutbacks, the 20 percent reduction in spending for the ACCESS program in
the province of Manitoba.
The ACCESS program, of course, has been very, very
successful over the years in training people for educational positions, for
social work positions, for doctors' positions, for engineering students and
graduates. It had a tremendous success,
and even when the former Lyon government looked at it in 1979, they came to the
same conclusion that many of us have come to, that we have a return on our
investment in terms of people being employed in the province of Manitoba in
careers that provide dignity and stature in our communities, Mr. Speaker.
In 1990, when we asked this question about the federal
government's reductions in the ACCESS program, the Premier of the province
said, and I quote: We have argued the
case for BUNTEP and ACCESS programs for these kinds of human resources within
our education and training system, that we believe are absolutely critical and
necessary for the future development of our aboriginal people and for many of
our disadvantaged people, and is a tremendous investment, Mr. Speaker.
That is what the government said in 1990. In 1994, they reduced that investment by some
20 percent.
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey): What impact and how many students will no
longer be able to return to the ACCESS program and return to their educational
programs as a result of the 20 percent reduction made by this government?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, this is the third occasion on which members opposite have asked
questions in the House dealing specifically with ACCESS. Many of the responses and answers that I give
will be those that have been on the record now since the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Stefanson) tabled the budget.
Last year within the ACCESS program, there were some 312
new intakes under that program. There
will be that same number this year, the new entry in 1994‑95. There will be no change in the impact on
intake with respect to the program.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter
from the University of Manitoba to the minister's own deputy minister,
indicating the administrative problems and human problems dealing with the
government's arbitrary change of a 20 percent reduction in this budget.
The minister talks about no change in intake. We have been listening to people who have
been directly affected. Here in
Manitoba, we have a $200‑million increase in the amount of money this
government is spending on social assistance, and it does not make any sense at
all to us to have governments cutting back on investing in education and
training when we see a massive increase in spending on the social assistance
side.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister: What does he say in terms of his previous
questions to six students in Lynn Lake who are in the BUNTEP program who no
longer will be able to stay in that BUNTEP program as a direct result of the
Conservative cutback of 20 percent funding for those students and for that
program of ACCESS?
* (1015)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the 20 percent reduction referenced
by the member, roughly 61 percent of that will be institutional costs. Most of the reductions will be at the
institutions themselves. The other 40
percent represents the direct benefit provided to students.
Mr. Speaker, I again point out that, whereas the average
nonrepayable student and academic support received by a student '93‑94
was approximately $11,800, that was for one year, nonrepayable. What we are doing for the sake of equity is
saying to all students, particularly those who have good opportunity for
employment at the end of graduation, certainly there is some incumbency upon
every person requiring support, that the first tranche of that support‑‑$165
a week‑‑should be required to be taken out by way of loan to be
fair across all of the roughly 35,000 post‑secondary students within the
province of Manitoba.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how this
government can talk about equity. Here
is a minister who, as a previous Minister of Finance, approved a $43.5‑million
loss projection coverage for the Winnipeg Jets and at the same time was cutting
back 20 percent from the ACCESS students of Manitoba. Here is a government that increases up to $12
million in the corporate training grants right across Manitoba while it cuts
the guts out of the ACCESS program here in Manitoba. I would ask the minister to start looking at
the human dimensions of his cutbacks.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the question about the six students at
Lynn Lake. What does the minister say in
terms of the human impact and the equity to Michelle, a single mother of three
children who has enrolled in this program, has completed three years of
university education and can no longer continue that education so she can have
the career in the area she is trained after the government has reduced their
commitment by some 20 percent to this good solid investment in the education
and training and the economy of Manitoba?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, we are asking some ACCESS students,
by way of loan, to pick up the cost of $165 a week. Every dollar beyond that required will be by
way of the public purse support, every dollar beyond $165 a week regardless of
the need, not asking one dollar of it to be paid back.
The Leader of the NDP party who has such an aversion to
debt, ergo the reference to the Winnipeg Jets, can maybe explain why it is he
has no problem with the province having a $300‑million or $400‑million
deficit. Maybe he can explain why it is
he has no principles with respect to these issues other than trying, indeed, to
play to an audience because of a policy change.
We made this change notwithstanding the fact that this
government stood in the breach of a federal government which withdrew funding
for a number of years. We have committed
millions of dollars, in some areas $10 million a year, and in some years $10
million a year, to this program.
Unfortunately, we cannot continue to make that contribution. We have asked some of the students to take on
some level of indebtedness with respect to their study.
ACCESS Programs
Student Loan Eligibility
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Since April I have tried to explain to the
Minister of Education what will be the impact of requiring ACCESS students to
go to the Canada Student Loan Program.
We have to remember that these students, many of them, are in 11‑month
programs where they cannot get the summer employment to repay the loans. They are not equal in that sense to other
students.
The Canada Student Loan Program has annual caps which are
too low for students with families to survive.
The Canada Student Loan Program has cumulative funding caps which do not
meet the specific needs of some ACCESS students. The Canada Student Loan Program does not even
meet the basic needs of some of the expensive programs in medicine, and the
Canada Student Loan Program has rigid asset requirements which do not meet the
needs of ACCESS students.
My question for the minister is: Will he determine exactly how many ACCESS
students cannot return to school next year as a result of his policy requiring
Canada Student Loans? Will he make a
commitment to enable all students in the program to complete their degree?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Wolseley knows better than any member of this House
with respect to the ACCESS programming and the lack of caps. These are all of the support policies in
place: basic student allowances; rental
subsidies; transportation allowances; day care expenses; medical; dental;
optical; other student travel; special support; tuition; books and supplies;
program books. All of those are paid for
beyond the Canada Student Loan caps.
They are all paid for until, if the student's household income exceeds the
Stats Canada low‑income cutoff, an equivalent amount is deducted.
Mr. Speaker, that cap for an ACCESS student: one‑person family, $16,000; three
persons, $25,000; six persons, $37,000.
Those are the caps that are in place, not the Canada Student Loans caps
to which the member refers. She has to
be honest.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the House
whether in those programs where there are practicums involved‑‑the
northern Bachelor of Social Work and the special premedical programs and other
medical programs‑‑whether those students will be eligible for
funding during the periods of placement?
Will he tell us how the one‑month break that most ACCESS students
have‑‑the one month, not the five months that other students have‑‑will
be handled under this program, and will he finally answer the question: How many students cannot return‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has already put her
question.
* (1020)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, $165 a week. That is what we are asking students to assume
by way of debt.
It is not that they will be short $165. For those students that justify the need, as
every other student within the province does under the criteria put into place
under the Canada Student Loan program, if the need is justified, the money will
be there. But what we are saying is,
those individuals who are virtually guaranteed a job upon graduation, there is
some incumbency that they be treated no differently from any other student in
the province and that they encourage some debt in support of their study.
Federal Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the issue is, under this program
they are not going to graduate, and that is what I am asking the minister. How many will‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
to meet directly and immediately with his federal counterparts to insist that
they reinstate their share of ACCESS funding and enable those existing students
to complete the program.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think there is a member in this House that does not
understand and accept how good this program has been in many dimensions. There is not a member in this House.
When it was first entered into, it was a shared program
between the federal and provincial governments.
Over the course of a number of years, the province now has been asked to
take on all of the funding. It is a very
rich program, but to the extent that we can no longer have it in place and
support it completely on our own ticket as we have in the past, there has had
to be some changes in the program. We
will try to maintain it, and, yes, every time we meet with the federal
government‑‑and it is pointed out to us by other provinces and
everybody that views it, it is a good program.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is, unless the federal Liberal
government comes forward and gives us more money, as used to be the case, we
will have to proceed with the changes within the program.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My question is for
the Minister of Education. I have
listened to the minister's comments in response to the questions of my friends
in the official opposition.
My question for the minister: He keeps saying, as a defence to these cuts,
that in fact it is not going to have a negative impact on enrollment in the
ACCESS program. That is what he says, and
that is one of his key defences of this 20 percent cut.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, the program was cut 11 percent, and
enrollment dropped 15 percent.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how can he stand today and say that with
a 20 percent cut, there will not be a cut in enrollment? The facts say differently. History proves differently.
Will the minister be open and honest with the members of
this Legislature and acknowledge that this is, in fact, going to deplete
enrollment in this critical program which he himself has just indicated is a
good program?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member does not have to call into question my openness and honesty
on this issue.
The fact is the changes made in '93‑94 did have impact
on intake, and again, that was a decision that had to be made after a number of
considerations.
Mr. Speaker, when we this year asked students, either
coming into the program or who are in the program, to undertake some of the
responsibility with respect to indebtedness, we still believe and we know that
there will be no impact on intake because there is a waiting list. There is a waiting list to come into this
program. Many of the students coming
into this program‑‑as indeed when the ACCESS evaluation and the
Hikel report is tabled, it will show a growing number of students did not need
the level of support provided.
So as they are called upon then to put up more of their own
resources, it will open and free the opportunities for others who are on the
waiting list. That is why the intakes
under this policy change will not be reduced, whereas last year they were
reduced somewhat.
* (1025)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that is simply ridiculous. The minister knows better, and those who will
continue to be able to access this program are those who will be able to afford
it and who have money. That was the
point of this program, was to provide for people who did not have those
resources but did want to educate themselves.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for the
minister: The Roblin commission report
was much heralded by this government and was brought down, and they have
consistently indicated, this minister has indicated his support for that
report. That report says, page 49, and
it studied this ACCESS program:
"Viewed in their totality, the Access programs have clearly been
successful in pioneering the integration of Aboriginal people into post‑secondary
education." Recommendation: "That the Access Fund be maintained and,
in years where the operating grant are increased, that the Fund be subject to a
similar increase."
How does this minister justify a 20 percent cut in this
program that the Roblin commission itself studied and decided was a good
program? There is not a word about cutting
that program in this Roblin commission report.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, you see, the Leader of the
Liberal Party fails to distinguish between the ACCESS programs and the ACCESS
fund. His Education critic should
probably have helped him on this.
Mr. Speaker, there are two different issues. The ACCESS fund is seed money that is given
by the Universities Grants Commission to the university to promote and foster a
new program area, and what Roblin was saying basically is: Maintain the fund, but make sure that the
university funding globally takes over the responsibility after two or three
years so that the fund then can move to a new focal area.
The reference to the programs and the fund are not related at
all, so the member does not even know the basis on which he asked his
question. He is wrong. He is dead wrong, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: I am sure the minister will peruse the record
and want to correct himself. Maybe he
should have read the report on page 49, which talked about the ACCESS programs
having been clearly successful in pioneering the integration of aboriginal
people into post‑secondary education.
The minister knows that Roblin supported those programs.
My final question for the minister: Today, the labour statistics came forward
from Statistics Canada and indicated that unemployment for women under the age
of 24 has gone up 3 percent in the last month and has gone up 5.4 percent in
the last year.
Mr. Speaker, women under the age of 24 are a target group
and represent a large user group of the ACCESS programs. Why is this minister cutting that program
when we already know that group is experiencing serious problems in finding
employment in our economy? Why is he
further worsening the problem for that particular group?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is because of that group
basically‑‑
An Honourable Member: You do not care . . . .
Mr. Manness: The member shoots across from his chair that
I do not care about them. What a
callous, foolish remark. It is because
there is such employment success for the graduates within that group that I
would ask the member, if he is really serious, that he makes an appeal, seeing
he is so close to Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Chretien, to ask the federal government
to re‑establish the federal funding in this area. To the extent that he is successful, I am
sure the Treasury Board of our government would reconsider and want to review
again the amount of funding so that not only would we maintain the level of
intake, we could probably increase it.
That is the challenge I put to the Leader of the Liberal
Party.
* (1030)
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the support
of the current Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards).
Regrettably, he was silent when the current federal government refused
to reinstate ACCESS funding in their budget earlier this year. He had the opportunity then.
My question is for the Minister of Education. Rather than just blame the federal
government, will he finally agree that the ACCESS program should be a higher
priority than wasting $43 million on the Jets owners, $4 million on Connie
Curran and $600,000 on political advertising by the Lotteries Foundation?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, nobody has to tell me or refer or ask me to give this program
priority. I was the chair of Treasury
Board for many years where year after year after year, as we went through the
difficult decisions around developing yet another budget, that ACCESS continued
to come forward, again, as one of the very rich programs of support within
government, but yet one of the very laudable programs.
Mr. Speaker, this government did everything possible
through those years. I can remember when
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism supported by the Minister of
Education of the day, made at least one if not two trips down to Ottawa to try
and make the plea that their level of support be maintained. We understand the value of this program. We have always, as a government, given it a
very extremely high priority, I would say the highest priority with respect to
education outside of regular instruction in the K to 12 setting. We have shown and demonstrated our priority
with respect to this program over the years.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of a 1979
study done by the previous Conservative government that found that in terms of
transfer payments saved and taxes paid, program graduates pay back in seven
years not only the cost of their own education, but the cost of dropouts as
well?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of that. That is why, to make this a program which is
fairer and which can reach out to a larger cross‑section of people, we
are asking those people who become part of it to assume some indebtedness, $165
a week. Every dollar required after
that, every dollar up to in some cases a family of three people, up to $25,000
will be paid for by the public purse. We
agree.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, will the House have to censure
this minister a second time before he gets the message that cutting ACCESS
funding was not just wrong morally? It
is a stupid decision that will increase costs to the taxpayers of this
province. Is he aware of that?
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, the House will do what the
House wants to do with me. I am
sorry. I am one of 57 people.
The point is, Mr. Speaker, during these times of incredible
fiscal and revenue shortfall to governments everywhere, difficult decisions
have to be made. Whereas over six
budgets this government has been able to continue to maintain the level of
support for the ACCESS program, we have changed the program so as to maintain
the intake and yet call upon some greater responsibility for the individual
student by way of indebtedness over the period of time.
Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely convinced, given the success
of the program, that those graduates will have an opportunity to pay back a
first level of student loan, and indeed, they will feel better. Ultimately in the end run, I believe students
will feel better in the fact that they have made a contribution, a direct
contribution, to their own education.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there are many people in our
society who continue to face many barriers, and this is no more true than for
aboriginal people in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency in which many
communities do not have roads, do not have sewer and water, do not have
complete schooling, and the ACCESS program has worked to bring those people,
northern aboriginal people, into the mainstream of our society.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education, who talks
about this being a richly funded program and talks about contributions, when
will the Minister of Education recognize that this program is not dealing with
students living in Tuxedo in half‑million dollar houses, that it is
targeted towards the disadvantaged in the core area of Winnipeg and northern
Manitoba, and that it is absolutely unacceptable that a government, a
provincial government, would cut this program more than any other program in
this provincial budget?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot say this in a categorical sense, although I am pretty sure I
am on solid ground. We are the only
province in Canada that has this program to the level of support offered.
That tells me, Mr. Speaker, that obviously, given the fact
that we have a program at the levels of support that we have, it is a rich
program. The member can try and draw in
the class warfare and the struggles. He
can try and make reference to Tuxedo. He
can try again to talk and draw in for his own political purposes‑‑[interjection]
Well, they tell me to table the report.
It is doing things differently by the Roblin commission. This is a public document and the Leader of
the NDP should know that. He has read it
at least five times.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the minister has quoted
from the Hikel report repeatedly in this House.
He has never tabled that report in this House. The rights of members in this House, I think,
are to have full access, full information that the government has commissioned
with taxpayers' money. What is the
government hiding?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education and
Training, to finish with his response.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the Leader is losing his cool
over there. I have a document, and he
assumes it is the one that I have not tabled as yet.
Mr. Speaker, my response to the member's question is no
different from the many I have given previously. I suppose I can embellish my response
somewhat by saying‑‑and I say this in response more to the Leader
of the Liberal Party, who gets kind of slippery with respect to remarks,
because this is what page 49 said of the Roblin report, and I quote: Viewed in their totality, the ACCESS programs
have clearly been successful in pioneering the integration of aboriginal people
into post‑secondary education. We
note, however, that in important respects, the programs represent temporary
solutions to larger‑ and longer‑term manners.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the member refused to read that into the
record, did he not? So the point‑‑the
smooth member, of course, from St. James, slides off the path‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Manness: My responses hold, that I have made several
times.
Mr. Ashton: One of the most unfair aspects of this
government's policy, Mr. Speaker, is that it has in midstream cut off students
who have been taken into the program under the original criteria.
There is nothing more unfair than this, and I would like to
ask the minister‑‑and if he wants the opportunity to find out the
impact this is having, he can talk to many of the people who are here today in
this building who are part of the ACCESS program.
Will he now do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, and at least,
at a bare minimum, immediately reinstate all the existing students under the
same criteria as when they entered the program?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I assume and I would believe our
government would reconsider if the federal government will help us in this
program and re‑establish some of the level of support they used to
provide. Under those conditions, I am
sure our government would want to look at this funding issue in a new context.
Mr. Ashton: I have one final question, Mr. Speaker. We have heard a lot about the Winnipeg Jets
the last few days, and one thing the people always say is that professional
sports players provide a role model in our society. Well, I am wondering if the Minister of
Education might consider that the real role models in our society, particularly
in northern Manitoba, are the many people who have completed the ACCESS program
and do the right thing, not spend $43 million on professional sports players,
but at least reinstate the money to the ACCESS programs to provide the real
role models for northern people.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I know if the First Minister
(Mr. Filmon) were here, he would insist on answering that question.
Mr. Speaker, there was a time in Estimates, and the record
will show, when the NDP Leader indicated their party did not want to make the
Jets a political issue, and the member opposite, the Leader, said that as part
of the record.
So, Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Leader of the NDP, his word
is not worth very much, because he said that on the record.
* (1040)
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the
Minister of Education are clearly unparliamentary. In the context of us asking him to live up to
his commitments to the ACCESS students, that he made in this House, I would ask
him to withdraw that and live up to his own word on the ACCESS program.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order, but, indeed, again, for the watching public‑‑you know,
there are many up here in the gallery, indeed there are many watching on this
TV, I would caution all honourable members, pick and choose your words very,
very carefully.
MTS Yellow Pages
Adult Video Advertisements
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): I
took as notice on Tuesday a question from the member for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett) on coupon books that MTS had distributed.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that MTS certainly
has very stringent guidelines on the Yellow Pages and the kind of advertising
in the Yellow Pages, but this is a coupon book we are talking about. I can tell the member that MTS has indicated
to me that they will be more diligent in the future in terms of those
guidelines, in terms of moral responsibility and the kind of copy that is used
in advertising in any fashion.
ACCESS Programs
Funding Reduction
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I
remind honourable members who continue the debate that the federal government,
six weeks ago, increased the student loan limit for the first time in eight
years from $3,600 to $5,400. This
government clawed it back. I also remind
honourable members opposite that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), in
January of this year, had nothing but praise for the federal government's
approach to transfer payments and indicated it was a refreshing start of a new
era with the five‑year planning on transfer payments.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness), his colleague, has
just said and put on the record, and I believe I have the quote correctly: There are incredible fiscal and revenue
shortfalls, and as a result, difficult decisions have to be made. That was his statement.
My question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Downey) is, will he make one of those difficult decisions in this time of
incredible revenue shortfall and go to the committee governing the Winnipeg
Jets and ask them to find ways to cut back from the $43.5 million speculated
loss on the Jets and find $2 million, one‑twentieth of that amount, to
put back into the ACCESS program to help the people in this province who want
to become educated and work in our society?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as we
totally expected when we tabled that information on the projected losses of the
Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club, certain members are taking advantage in trying to
score political points by pointing to the long‑term, worst‑case
scenario as opposed to what has realistically happened to date in terms of the
actual costs under that agreement.
I think if they look at that agreement, which I am sure
they will, they will know what the costs to date are, in fact, and that to
date, to the end of March 1994, there has been a cost to the province of some
$2.4 million. During that same time
frame, we have received direct taxation revenues to the three levels of
government of some $35 million.
Really, in answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party's
question, I think we are all waiting for the Burns committee report. That is a report that is mandated to deal
with the long‑term viability of the Jets, the need for a facility in
Manitoba, the ability to address a facility in Manitoba. So all of that can have an impact on these
longer‑term projections of what these losses might ultimately be as it
relates to the Winnipeg Jets.
I do want to correct the Leader of the Liberal Party on one
particular issue. He talks about the
enhancing of the Canada Student Loans Program by the new federal Liberal
government. My understanding is‑‑and
certainly the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) can provide much more
information on this‑‑in effect what they have done under that
decision, Mr. Speaker, is to offload more of a cost onto provincial governments
because now the provincial governments are in from dollar one under student
loan assistance‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Edwards: My further question is for either the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) or the Minister of
Education.
The minister has made much of the $11,000 per year per
student that is government grant. The
average player's salary of the Winnipeg Jets is $440,000. So let us talk about the‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member is trying to put his
question.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question for either
of those ministers is, will this government now acknowledge that the $11,000
per year that goes to those students, supporting them going through school, is
very quickly recovered, given the success rate these students have in getting
employment. In fact, on average, in two
years of employment they recover that $11,000.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, what do we say to the rest of the students in the province, many who
have, upon graduation, without much of a guarantee of work, total student loan
and debt to pay off anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000? What do we say to them in the name of equity
and fairness when there is not anywhere close to a guarantee of employment?
We have made this move with great deliberation. We have done it in the name of equity.
Mr. Edwards: It is clear that by these cuts there is now a
guarantee of unemployment.
My final question for the minister: The minister appears to put all students into
the same basket and suggest that they should all be treated equally and the
same, and it would be unfair to the other students.
Is he questioning the principle that those who qualify for
this program are indeed different and that they go through two panels and a two‑day
workshop in testing to even qualify for this program? Is he questioning the principle that we
should have special treatment for those who come into the system with
disadvantages, which means that they never will get a decent education‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: The Leader of the Liberal Party is at a
slight disadvantage because he does not have before him the ACCESS review that
was done. I am making every effort to
try and have that made available to the House before we rise. But that would point out that the preamble,
indeed, the rationale that he uses with respect to his question is not correct.
There are a growing number of individuals who are in that
program, probably none that are in the gallery today, but certainly‑‑in
spite of the two‑day criteria that the member talks about, the judgment
by way of those criteria‑‑there are a growing number of individuals
in the program who do not merit the level of support, the $12,000 per
year. So that is a dimension to this
decision also.
ACCESS Programs
Federal Funding
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education and
Training has, for the first time, said in this House that the government of Manitoba
would reconsider cuts if the federal Liberals lived up to their election
commitments from last fall.
My question to the minister: Would he agree to immediately propose such a
cost‑shared arrangement with the federal government to ensure the ongoing
future of ACCESS?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): This is
a very high priority, and this program will continue. There is no way this program will not
continue because it is a very high priority to us. But I am prepared to consider making an offer
under some of the strategic initiatives put forward by Mr. Axworthy within his
$600‑million or $700‑million envelope that is supposed to reach out
to all programming across the land and ask him to accept it as a new strategic
initiative, although in all honesty, it is not new. It has been in existence for a number of
years.
I do not want to create false hopes for anybody, Mr.
Speaker, but I have no difficulty in trying to present to the federal
government for consideration the ACCESS program under the strategic initiatives
that they are providing.
St. Boniface Hospital
Reorganization
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we are informed this morning
that yet another plan for St. Boniface Hospital is going to be announced with
respect to management changes.
Will the minister table these changes to management that
have been announced at St. Boniface Hospital?
Will he for once table the plans so the public and the patients can have
access to this prior to it occurring?
* (1050)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): I believe the honourable member is responding
to radio reports this morning. I have
nothing that I can table for the honourable member. It might be wise for the honourable member to
let the administration and staff at St. Boniface Hospital look after the matter
which is going to be the subject of discussion at the hospital next week. I have no further information than the
honourable member does.
Health Care System Reform
Co‑ordination
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary: We had the $4‑million Connie Curran
fiasco. We have provincial
reorganization. We have yet another plan
at St. Boniface.
Will the minister finally admit that there is chaos and
lack of co‑ordination in the whole health care system? Will he advise the House what this lack of co‑ordination
and chaos‑‑what effect this will have on patient care?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): The honourable member seems to have chaos on
his mind every day. Maybe it is left
over from when Michael Decter sat around the table with the honourable member's
colleagues when they were in government here in Manitoba, because Michael
Decter was the chief public servant here in Manitoba when the New Democrats
were in office. When they were thrown
out of office in Manitoba, Mr. Decter went to Ontario to preside over the chaos
there. Mr. Decter with his $140,000
salary in Ontario made sure that 5,000 hospital beds were closed with no regard
whatsoever for its effects.
Here in Manitoba, we will take a phased approach to health
care reform dealing with the needs of the patients first and with due regard to
the sensitivities with regard to the labour issues, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. [interjection]
Order, please.
Hansard is picking up some sort of conversation in the back of the
Chamber here. It appears it might be the
words being spoken by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard). I am not quite sure here now.
On June 8, 1994, I took under advisement language used by
the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) during Question Period. The minister was responding to a question
from the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) who had commented that
the minister had provided half an answer.
The honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) stated: "it was only a half‑asked
question, too, . . . ."
The minister, when I indicated that I was going to review
Hansard, indicated his hope that Hansard correctly set out precisely what he
had said, noting that the word he used had the letter "k" in it.
I took the opportunity to review Hansard and found that
indeed the word used was "half‑asked" rather than a similar
sounding word that, of course, no honourable member would use in this
House. Therefore, there was no point of
order.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
1994 Social Work Gold Medalist
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to
the 1994 gold medalist in Social Work at the University of Manitoba, Ms. Adele
Kupp, who achieved a 3.95 grade point average.
Adele is a very bright individual who has been an
exceptional A‑plus student. She is
to be commended for this remarkable achievement since, in addition to studies,
she has the responsibility of raising three children on her own. On top of this, she has been a foster parent
of special needs teenagers from Child and Family Services and currently has two
boys in her care. She remarked that she
could have used a good wife to help her with all these responsibilities.
It has been my pleasure to meet Adele at the Winnipeg
Education Centre. I wish her well in her
new career as a social worker, and I hope that all honourable members will join
me in congratulating Adele Kupp.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, first,
a matter of House business.
On the Notice Paper is a notice for the Standing Committee
on Public Utilities and Natural Resources to consider the report of the Workers
Compensation Board on June 14. I would
like to cancel that meeting. One of the
critics is unavailable.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, will
you call Second Readings as listed on the Order Paper.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 15‑‑The Law Society Amendment
Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson),
that Bill 15, The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
Société du Barreau, now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to move second reading
of Bill 15, The Law Society Amendment Act.
As honourable members know, the Law Society of Manitoba is a self‑governing
profession whose powers and duties are set out in The Law Society Act.
From time to time, the society requests that changes be made
to The Law Society Act. The act was last
amended in 1992.
Mr. Speaker, the changes that are proposed in this bill
have been proposed by the Law Society, primarily to improve its discipline
process. Members will note the several
changes contained here in that respect.
The changes are designed to improve the society's ability to investigate
complaints about lawyers and generally to clarify the complaints
processed. The changes have been the
subject of discussion in the profession, as the Law Society consults its
membership through a process of publication of proposed changes before
approaching the Minister of Justice to request amendments to this act.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a number of changes in the
bill that I would like to bring to the attention of all honourable
members. First, the bill gives the
society broader powers to obtain the files of a lawyer who is the subject of an
investigation by the society and more clearly sets out the rights of a lawyer
and the clients of a lawyer in a circumstance where the lawyer's practice is
taken over. As well, the bill permits
the society to release information to the public as to whether a matter is
under investigation by the society.
Because the act now provides that the proceedings of the
society are confidential, the society has not been able to comment publicly on
whether a complaint has been received or a matter is under investigation. This bill will clarify its right to do
so. The bill also adds a new provision
to require the society to disclose information to law enforcement authorities
about possible criminal activity when that kind of information is uncovered
during an investigation of a lawyer under the act. This is an exception to the current provision
that requires the proceedings of the society to be confidential.
Two other matters addressed by this bill; first, it
provides for the operation of prepaid legal services plans in Manitoba by
clarifying that such arrangements are not the unauthorized practice of
law. Secondly, Mr. Acting Speaker, the
bill adds a new section to permit a lawyer from another country to provide
legal advice in Manitoba concerning the laws of the other country while giving
the Law Society some control over the lawyer's practice in this province. The Law Society will ensure that the lawyer
is licensed to practice in his or her jurisdiction. Therefore, it gives some protection to Manitobans
who consult such a lawyer.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe that these changes to The Law
Society Act will result in better service to the people of Manitoba by the Law
Society as the governing body of persons providing legal services to the people
of the province. I will be pleased to
discuss the provisions of the bill in more detail at the committee stage on the
bill, and I will defer any further comment about the bill until that time.
* (1100)
Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 16‑‑The Provincial Court
Amendment Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services
(Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 16, The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Cour provinciale, be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to move to second reading of
Bill 16, The Provincial Court Amendment Act, which amends the procedures of The
Provincial Court Act dealing with the handling of complaints of judicial
misconduct.
These amendments are based on and largely follow a 1989
report of the Law Reform Commission of Manitoba dealing with the independence
of provincial judges. In preparing these
amendments, my department sought comments from judges of the provincial courts
and other courts in Manitoba, as well as the Law Society of Manitoba, the Manitoba
branch of the Canadian Bar Association and other interested groups representing
women, aboriginal people and the disabled.
In introducing this topic, the Manitoba Law Reform
Commission said, and I quote: The basic
reason for any type of judicial discipline is to maintain public confidence in
the judiciary by assuring the public that judges will abide by the duties of
their office and that they will be brought to account if they do not. A legal system can function only if the
public accepts and abides by decisions rendered by the courts. Anything that tends to weaken the public
conviction that judges are fair and impartial must be avoided.
We believe that these amendments accomplish that goal. The major innovation in these amendments,
again following the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, is the
severing of the investigative prosecutorial function from the adjudicative
function of the Judicial Council.
Under this act, complaints will first go to the chief judge
of the provincial court who can resolve a complaint only if both parties
agree. The chief judge may also advise a
complainant that there is a more appropriate avenue to follow such as an appeal
or refer the matter to the next stage of the proceedings which is an
independent board of investigation.
If the chief judge dismisses a complaint or advises the
complainant that there is a more appropriate avenue to follow, a complainant
may ask the judicial inquiry board to review that finding. That board, composed of three persons, has
the function of investigating and, if appropriate, formulating a charge of
judicial misconduct and prosecuting that charge.
A separate body, the Judicial Council, composed of three
out‑of‑province provincial court judges, a representative of the
Law Society of Manitoba and two lay persons will hear charges laid by the
judicial inquiry board. The composition
of this Judicial Council is a major innovation in its use of out‑of‑province
provincial judges.
We believe this to be a step forward, as it will remove any
public perception of bias and will not put Manitoba provincial court judges in
the position of having to judge the conduct of their colleagues.
Although the council will contain three judges and three
nonjudges, the chair of the council must be a judge and will have a casting
vote. This procedure will meet the
requirements of judicial independence that a majority of the votes be those of
judges. In addition, the council is of a
manageable size as our advice was that a council larger than this would become
difficult to convene. The range of
dispositions available to the council is much broader than those available at
present.
Mr. Acting Speaker, these amendments will allow costs to be
ordered in favour of or against a judge and will also provide for possible
order of cost against a judge after resignation. The amendments also allow for a hearing to
continue following resignation in a broader context if the council feels that
it can make recommendations that would aid in the administration of justice.
These amendments open the process up to the public. Once a charge is laid, that charge will be
public. Hearings will be public, unless
there is a good reason to have in‑camera hearings, and the decisions of
the council will be public. The amendments
require that information about the process for filing a complaint be available
in courthouses throughout the province, and that persons who have difficulty be
given assistance in preparing a complaint.
Finally, an annual report will be tabled summarizing information about
the complaints to further enhance accountability.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I will be pleased to go into greater
detail on all of these amendments at committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 17‑‑The City of Winnipeg
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that
Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et apportant des modifications
corrélatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to introduce
for second reading Bill 17 to amend The City of Winnipeg Act.
The bill has several components. The most significant components of the bill
are amendments dealing with civic elections, property tax credits for home
renovations, the collection of taxes and public convenience, and welfare. The other amendments in the bill correct
minor typographical errors and other similar housekeeping changes, moving
things from one section to another section that is deemed to be more
appropriate for that category.
Some of the substantive amendments I will describe. We have amendments, as I indicated, to the
civic elections procedures. During the
1992 Winnipeg civic election, concerns were raised by voters and candidates
about existing election procedures under provincial legislation.
Following the election, the former Minister of Urban
Affairs initiated a review of the election procedures prescribed for Winnipeg
under The City of Winnipeg Act and The Local Authorities Election Act. In support of this initiative, Winnipeg City
Council was requested to identify changes they considered necessary in order to
make the election process more efficient and more accessible to the citizens of
Winnipeg. We have dealt with a number of
those requests from city councillors and from candidates in the previous
election in the hopes of making the whole process more efficient and more
accessible.
Winnipeg City Council established an ad hoc committee to
prepare a report on required election‑related amendments. The committee's report was the subject of a
public meeting on July 15, 1993, and the final report was adopted by council
and forwarded to my department in October of 1993.
Based on the department's review of civic elections
legislation affecting Winnipeg and the City Council's request for changes and
discussion with decision makers, the bill will contain the following
amendments. One is changing the
nomination requirements for mayoralty candidates by requiring mayoralty
candidates to obtain the signatures from at least 250 electors and to make a
deposit of $150 which will be repayable to the candidate if the candidate
receives 5 percent of the votes on election day.
* (1110)
The existing legislation, as members know, only requires
mayoralty candidates to obtain 25 signatures from 25 electors in order to be
nominated and the result of that is, Mr. Acting Speaker, during the 1992 civic election,
there were a record number of 17 mayoralty candidates and only four of those
received 97 percent of the votes.
So those who were involved in the election and those of us
who are witnessing the kinds of things that happen during an election with that
number of candidates who really do not have the support of the electorate in
terms of the balance of the vote, this amendment was proposed to strike a
balance between attempting to defer frivolous candidates, but keeping the
candidacy open to persons who have serious intentions and the support of the
public, obviously.
The signatures for councillors will remain at 25. They do not need to get more than 25
signatures in order to be able to run.
Of course, the $150 deposit for the mayoralty candidates is fully
returnable if they get 5 percent of the vote.
We have also put in the provision for more advanced
polling. That was a concern that was
raised and expressed, is that there was not enough advanced polling. So we are going to be providing more opportunities
for advanced polling by requiring the city to permit electors to vote at City
Hall every day between the closing day for withdrawal of nominations and the
day before election day.
Another change is to move the closing for nominations back
one week from the first Wednesday in October to the last Wednesday in
September. That provides more
opportunity for the full electorate to be able to exercise their franchise.
The city will also be given the authority to establish
additional polling places in central locations any time it chooses to after the
closing date for nomination‑‑after the closing date, pardon me, for
withdrawal of nominations. As well, Mr.
Acting Speaker, the period during which electors can mail in their ballots will
begin after the closing of nomination withdrawals occurs.
We are going to be increasing the time period during which
candidates can raise funds and spend monies on their campaign. I noticed with interest in the paper this
morning some comments from one councillor who obviously did not realize what
the legislation said, because it was very badly interpreted and reported as if
the incorrect interpretation was fact when it was not, because we are extending
the opportunity for all candidates to raise money.
We are doing it in two ways; one, the mayoralty candidate
having, of course, to campaign across the entire city will be given more time
up front. Mayoralty candidates will be
able to begin raising funds and spending them on May 1 of an election year and
conclude raising funds on March 31 of the following year.
The present period of time during which mayoralty
candidates can raise and spend money on their campaign starts 120 days before
election day until January 31 following the election. With respect to candidates who are running as
councillors, the period for raising and spending funds will begin as currently
specified in the act, 120 days before the election, but will be extended after
the election from January 31 to March 31, giving councillor candidates a considerable
length of time beyond which they currently have to raise funds to cover their
campaign costs.
The article was wrong in the Winnipeg Free Press. The councillor who spoke of it and said that
nothing in this bill would allow them extra time was wrong. The reporter who covered it was reporting
wrong information.
We will also be giving the city the opportunity to speed up
the process of ballot counting by permitting the use of automated voting. That is a technological change. We see a lot of changes coming into
legislation in all areas of government, not just here but across the country,
that will reflect the technological age and the ability to do things with
computers and with automated means.
In order to permit the use of automated voting, council
will be able to pass a by‑law prescribing the form of the ballot, the
procedure for voting and the counting of ballots and other related matters
associated with electronic voting devices.
This automated voting, Mr. Acting Speaker, is relatively new in Canada,
and because it is, the bill includes a provision which would enable the
Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council to pass regulations pertaining
to automated voting, should it become necessary to do so.
We will at the same time and in light of the moves towards
technology permit the city to keep the voters lists on computer and to make
that list available on diskette for a fee in electronic form. They will still, of course, have to provide
candidates with two printed copies of the voters list free of charge, and they
will be permitted to charge a small fee for a diskette if the list is preferred
in an electronic form.
We also, Mr. Acting Speaker, are going to clarify the
requirements. The requirement to fill in
an audited statement of election expenses and contributions applies not only to
elected and defeated candidates, but also to registered candidates who are not
nominated or who withdrew their nomination previously. Those people, we are not filing audited statements. We are saying they were registered candidates
and if they have any expenses, those must be put forward.
Those civic election changes I have described are ones that
have City Council's support, and collectively these amendments are designed to
modernize election procedures to increase voter participation in civic
elections by expanding the opportunity for advanced polling.
We also have amendments, Mr. Acting Speaker, as I
indicated, dealing with property tax credits for home renovations. I am very surprised that Councillor Murray
says there is nothing in this act that he likes, because this was one that he
personally spoke to me about and said they very much wanted, but perhaps he has
not read it all and does not know what is in it.
Notwithstanding, Winnipeg City Council has indicated they
would like to establish a property tax credit program. I have not heard them tell me that they have
now changed their minds on it contrary to their original intentions, but if
they have changed their mind I suppose they could let us know at
committee. They seemed to have indicated
to the Free Press they do not like this anymore, which surprises me. Bill 17 does contain an incentive for
homeowners to undertake renovations and provide an economic stimulus in
creating jobs for various trades.
Bill 17 contains legislation which will permit council to
issue tax credits for home renovations and to determine by by‑law the
amount of credit, eligible renovations and eligible property types. The tax credit legislation will be in effect
for five years, and during the fifth year the city will be required to review
the impacts of the program and decide whether to approve continuation of the
program.
Given that one of the key proponents of this program has
now said there is nothing in this bill that he likes, they may not bring it in
in the first instance, but still we will pass the enabling legislation that
would permit them to make that decision.
If they do not wish to proceed with it, of course, they do not need to.
Amendments dealing with the collection of taxes are
contained in Bill 17, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The City of Winnipeg, as you know, has procedures relating to collection
of taxes, partly under The City of Winnipeg Act and partly under The Municipal
Act. The City of Winnipeg requested that
we amend The City of Winnipeg Act to consolidate into one statute all the tax
collection procedures pertaining to Winnipeg.
Just to give you one example of the kind of patchwork on
legislation on tax collection: Winnipeg
is authorized under The City of Winnipeg Act to charge a penalty‑‑interest‑‑for
late payment of taxes and is authorized under The Municipal Act to compound
penalties and add them to taxes at the end of the year if the taxes remain
unpaid. So what we have done with these
in a similar situation is simply just to combine the legislation and place it
all under The City of Winnipeg Act for convenience.
The City of Winnipeg also requested an amendment to a
provision which currently prohibits the city from charging a fee for the cost
of preparing a statement of taxes or arrears.
Currently The City of Winnipeg Act allows a fee to be
charged for tax certificates which will be binding on the city in the sense
that if after issuing a tax certificate the city discovers an error was made
and there are arrears, the city cannot recover those taxes.
* (1120)
The city has pointed out, in relation to all these
procedures, that there has been a great increase in demand for tax statements
which takes staff time to prepare in the same way the tax certificates do. So the amendment in this bill permits the
city to charge a fee for preparing a tax statement requested by any person
other than the owner of the property.
In other words, the fee will apply to third parties only
who do not have the request being made on behalf of the property owner. So the property owner will still get it for
free. The property owner can still send
a person on his or her behalf to get it for free, but if a third party who does
not have permission of the property owner wishes it, there will be a cost
recovery or partial cost recovery fee permitted, should the city so desire.
The provisions on tax collections will also be amended to
include two provisions‑‑[interjection] Mr. Acting Speaker, I shall
not laugh when the members opposite mutter funny little things under their
breath, which incidentally is contrary to the rules of our House because they
are interrupting, which we know is not allowed and we never, never do in this
Chamber. [interjection] Back on track quick, says my colleague. Indeed.
We will have other provisions in here which will assist the
city in clarifying issues around tax collection. We have, for example, the provision which will
prohibit the removal of a building, moving a building off a lot, if there are
still tax arrears, without permission of the tax collector. If the tax collector wishes to allow that to
be moved, they can do that.
There is another change that is being done that we feel
will help the City of Winnipeg and the clarification of taxes. Right now we have classifications changing
mid‑year but no ability to make adjustments to the tax rolls at the
time. We are going to be introducing a
section which will permit the city, should they desire, to be able to act upon
tax classification changes as they occur rather than having to wait until the
following year.
For the most part, the rest will be modernizing the
language, being less prescriptive, trying to get rid of redundancies and
inconsistencies, and reorganize the provisions in order to put things in proper
place and follow logically as a unit in the act.
We are shifting, for example, parts of the act into Part 12
because they relate to Public Convenience and Welfare. Such legislation as for mosquito control and
Dutch elm disease will come under Part 12, because they fit there more
appropriately than they do under Buildings, Works and Services. They are not Buildings, Works and Services;
they are essentially Public Convenience and Welfare.
Along with that, there is one change being made to Part 12
which is considered under Public Convenience and Welfare. It is a change that regards‑‑and
is mentioned again I noticed in the paper as well today, although the full
rationale was not presented with it. We
have, as you know, for many years had regulations empowering the city, if they
desire, to prohibit and regulate against litter, untidy premises, noise,
removal or pruning of trees which interfere with utility poles, pipes and
sewers and that type of thing.
There has been a concern expressed that grass, after it
grows to a certain length, can harbour mosquitoes and things of that
nature. Aside from just a cosmetic
thing, there can be a nuisance value created by the proliferation of things
like mosquitoes and ticks and so on in long grass. Where there is a nuisance being created
because of the growth that is occurring on vacant lots or households where the
vegetation has not been contained, if there is a nuisance problem created by
items such as I have identified, the city would have the power to go and cut
the grass and charge the owner for the cutting of the grass if there are
concerns of that nature. This would not
be purely just a cosmetic thing.
Mr. Acting Speaker, those are some of the changes in the
bill. We hope we will be helping to
assist the City of Winnipeg in improving its operations and methods of
procedure. I look forward to debate on
this bill, and I thank you very much for giving me the time to put these
comments at second reading on the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18‑‑The Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), that Bill 18, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les assurances, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to speak
today to Bill 18 and to provide members with some of the underlying principles behind
the suggested amendments to The Insurance Act.
Under this act, the uninvested funds of an insurer, that
is, the day‑to‑day operating funds, are presently required to be
kept on deposit in the name of the insurer in a bank. We have received a request from one
provincial insurance company to be allowed to maintain these uninvested funds
in a credit union.
As you are aware, Mr. Acting Speaker, the uninvested funds
of an insurance company are those funds that are received from day to day in
the form of premiums, et cetera, and must be maintained in a financial
institution while the insurer is determining the type of longer‑term
instrument the money should be invested in.
As well, the insurer requires liquid funds to pay claims and other
operating expenses as they arise. These
uninvested funds make up a very small portion of the assets of an insurance
company.
In order to facilitate insurance companies in their banking
procedures, we are submitting an amendment to The Insurance Act to expand the
type of banking facilities to include trust companies, credit unions and caisse
populaires in cases where insurance companies desire to make deposits to those
institutions. This will increase the
options available to insurance companies in regard to their uninvested funds.
It is common practice for people who have claims under
their personal insurance policies to contact their agent to report a
claim. The Insurance Act presently
prohibits the superintendent of insurance from issuing a licence to an insurance
agent to act as an adjustor. In many
instances, it is inefficient for insurance agents to simply receive the report
of a claim and pass the details on to the insurance company and then for the
insurance company to either carry out the adjustment procedure or hire a
licensed adjustor to carry out some minor investigation prior to settling the
claim.
In order to facilitate the settlement of small claims and
provide generally quicker, more efficient service to the public, we are
proposing to allow insurance agents to adjust claims without requiring an
insurance adjustor's licence to facilitate quickly the settlement of these
small claims. The amendment will allow
licensed general insurance agents to adjust the claim of a policyholder where
the value of the claim is $2,500 or less, the policy has been sold by that
agent or the agency of which the agent is a member and where specific
authorization has been granted by the insurance company. We believe, Mr. Acting Speaker, this will
allow insurance companies to adjust these small claims in a most efficient
manner.
* (1130)
It is very important, however, for members to understand
the conditions under which this amendment applies. It does not allow for an agent to become a
public adjustor, but rather to adjust claims up to $2,500 where the policy has
been sold by the agent and where authorization has been granted by the
insurance company.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I have consulted widely within the
industry, with brokers, with insurance companies, with insurance adjustors, and
it is my understanding there is general agreement for this change amongst all
parties. I believe these amendments are
in the interest of the public, will facilitate a more effective insurance
marketplace, and I look forward to the comments of members opposite in the
debate on this bill.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 19‑‑The Mental Health Amendment
Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 19, The Mental Health
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé mentale), be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: I am very pleased today to introduce Bill 19
for second reading. In addition to a few
housekeeping amendments, this bill will amend The Mental Health Act in two
specific areas. The first significant area
has to do with the operation and functioning of the Mental Health Review
Board. As you no doubt are aware, the
review board is charged with the responsibility of hearing appeals from
patients regarding any aspect of their admission and treatment in a psychiatric
facility.
In the past, in order to inform itself fully of the facts
of the case, the review board has typically spoken to the patient, as well as
to his or her treatment team members. On
November 5, 1992, however, the Court of Queen's Bench ruled that the review
board could not compel a patient to speak at his or her hearing, even though he
or she had initiated the application in the first place.
While this lower court decision has already been appealed,
and we are awaiting a decision from the Appeal Court, the review board has now
found itself in the uncomfortable position of oftentimes having to reach a
decision without being able to access all the necessary information. In the interim, therefore, in order to at
least partially compensate for this inability to speak to the patient directly,
the first major amendment of this bill would permit the review board to seek a
second psychiatric opinion, should they feel it is necessary in order to reach
a decision regarding the matter under review.
The second specific area that this bill addresses is the
broadening of the access provisions to permit the sharing of clinical
information with some of our external agencies.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Acting Speaker, one of the central
thrusts of our mental health reform in Manitoba is the provision of funding to
a variety of agencies to permit them to deliver some of the necessary mental
health services in the community. Thus,
for example, the Grey Nuns and the Salvation Army are both operating crisis
stabilization units in Winnipeg which have significantly reduced our previous
overreliance on acute‑care beds.
Currently, The Mental Health Act provides that the
psychiatric facility may share confidential clinical record information only
with consent or in a limited number of exceptional circumstances. While our funded agencies can typically
function within these current access provisions of The Mental Health Act, the
possibility exists that situations could arise where access to a psychiatric facility's
clinical information is required and consent has been denied.
In order to ensure that this information can be shared, the
second major amendment adds another clause to the exceptions to disclose
provisions of The Mental Health Act.
This amendment would permit the sharing of information from a clinical
record of a psychiatric facility to an external agency if the following
conditions are met: First, the agency
receives some funds from government; second, the agency is providing direct
care to the patient and; third, there exists an emergency situation which
precludes the obtaining of consent.
Naturally, in order to ensure that these agencies who are
in receipt of such information treat the material in a confidential manner, yet
another amendment is suggested that will make it an offence comparable to that
which already exists for others for the agency to disclose the information.
With these brief remarks, Mr. Acting Speaker, I commend
this bill to the serious contemplation and support of all honourable members of
this House.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 21‑‑The Manitoba Medical
Association Dues Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 21, The Manitoba
Medical Association Dues Act (Loi sur la cotisation de l'Association médicale
du Manitoba), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker, today I am introducing
Bill 21 for second reading.
The Manitoba Medical Association is an organization representing
physicians in the province of Manitoba.
This legislation will provide for the statutory payment of dues to the
association by physicians. This
legislation reflects a commitment originating from the new agreement with the
MMA. The bill is substantially the same
as the former MMA dues act.
The recent signing of the five‑year agreement between
the Province of Manitoba and the Manitoba Medical Association signals what I
envision to be a new beginning to a co‑operative relationship between the
two parties. The agreement recognizes
that the association's various activities extend beyond the role of bargaining
agency and that those activities are of direct benefit to all physicians in
Manitoba.
Manitoba is adopting a number of broad and innovative
approaches in co‑operation with the MMA in the management of the publicly
funded insured medical services program.
It is my hope and expectation that this relationship will be
characterized by mutual respect and trust as the parties work to a common goal,
the preservation of a fiscally sound universal health care system for
Manitobans.
This legislation will provide the association with the
security necessary to undertake the additional responsibilities contemplated by
the new agreement. These new initiatives
include the formation of the Manitoba Medical Services Council to ensure co‑operation
and management of the insured medical services program. The Physician Resource Committee will develop
a physician resource plan to meet requirements for the province of Manitoba.
These initiatives represent a unique opportunity for
Manitobans to work co‑operatively to ensure a fiscally sound insured
medical services program. This
legislation is an integral part of the government's commitment to a co‑operative
relationship with the MMA.
With these brief comments, I recommend the bill for second
reading. Thank you.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Acting Speaker, I wonder if I might have
leave to ask the minister a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave for the honourable member for
Kildonan to ask the minister a question? [agreed]
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister indicated
that this bill is similar to the former act that was repealed. I wonder if the minister might outline for me
when that former act, that former bill, was repealed.
Mr. McCrae: The precise date I will have to make
available to the honourable member.
Perhaps we can do that in committee.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I was wondering if I also might have leave to
ask a question, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave for the honourable member for
Thompson to ask a question of the minister? [agreed]
* (1140)
Mr. Ashton: It is interesting that this bill comes in
under the 50th anniversary of the Rand Formula, which is the compulsory payment
of dues by many labour organizations. I
would like to ask, and for clarification again, not in debate, whether the
minister can indicate whether this bill proposes provisions similar to the Rand
Formula‑‑in other words, whether it will bring in the MMA in very
much the same situation as many unions in this province.
Mr. McCrae: Unaccustomed as I am to all of the procedures
and machinations of the union movement, I will reserve my answer to that
question to the time when we get to the bill before the committee.
The honourable member is asking me to, I think, maybe go
beyond answering his question to get into a little debate today. I do not think that this is the appropriate
time to do that. I feel that this
particular measure is something that I think Manitoba Medical Association needs
to help put all of the various initiatives in the new package‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Solidarity forever, solidarity forever.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members who want
to carry on a conversation or a song to do it in the halls?
Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 23‑‑The Manitoba Historical
Society Property Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns),
that Bill 23, The Manitoba Historical Society Property Act; Loi sur les biens
de la Société historique du Manitoba, be now read a second time and be referred
to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Acting Speaker, Bill 23, The Manitoba
Historical Society Property Act, is before the House for the purpose of
transferring property back to the Manitoba Historical Society. This property was vested in Her Majesty in
right of the Province of Manitoba on November 14, 1990, as the result of the
appeal of an act to incorporate the historical and scientific society of
Manitoba. That private act was repealed
on the assumption it was no longer required.
As it transpired, the act was required, and the result of the repeal was
to leave the society without corporate status, thereby resulting in the vesting
of its property in the name of the Crown.
It is important, therefore, that we remedy this situation
which has arisen purely as a result of inadvertence. The effect of Bill 23 is to reinstate the property
in the society and to ensure that the corporate decision making with respect to
the property in the intervening years is validated.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this bill comes into force on the same
day Bill 302 comes into force. As honourable
members know, Bill 302 is the private bill currently before us, the purpose of
which is to re‑establish the corporate status of the Manitoba Historical
Society.
I will be pleased to provide any other information that
members may require at committee stage on this bill, and I thank you, Sir, for
your attention.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): I move, seconded by the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker,
I wonder if you would canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent to
consider on Monday next, for Estimates in the Chamber, to set aside all other
Estimates consideration in favour of considering the Estimates of the
Department of Highways and Transportation in the afternoon and the Department
of Industry, Trade and Tourism in the evening.
That will necessitate a switch from committee room to Chamber as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there unanimous consent of the House to do
what the minister has requested? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Let us be clear as to what we propose to
do. Currently, the Department of Justice
is in the Chamber dealing with their Estimates.
We propose to set aside that, and any other set‑asides that are
required, in order to accommodate the consideration of the Estimates of the
Department of Highways in the afternoon and the Estimates of the Department of
Industry, Trade and Tourism in the evening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there unanimous consent of the House to
set aside all other business in the Chamber and go to the Department of
Highways and Transportation in the Chamber in the afternoon, and then Industry,
Trade and Tourism in the Chamber at night? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: I wonder if you would see if there is
unanimous consent of the House to set aside the consideration of the Estimates
of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism in the committee room in
favour of the Department of Environment Estimates for both Monday afternoon and
Monday evening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there unanimous consent of the House to
set aside Industry, Trade and Tourism in the committee Room 255 and consider
Environment, both in the afternoon and the evening? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Debate on Second Readings, Mr. Acting
Speaker, would you call Bill 9, followed by Bill 4, followed by Bill 3,
followed by all the other bills as listed in the Order Paper in the order in
which they are listed.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 9‑‑The Convention Centre
Corporation Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), The Convention Centre Corporation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Corporation du Centre des congrès,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy
and Mines (Mr. Orchard), Bill 4, The Energy and Consequential Amendments Act‑‑
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Acting Speaker, Bill 9.
Do I need leave?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave to revert to Bill 9? [agreed]
* (1150)
Mr. Martindale: It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this
amendment and all 11 clauses, although I know that I cannot refer to clauses
because this is second reading. I would
not do that as deputy House leader. I
know what the rules are. So I will keep
my remarks very general, extremely general.
I think it is important in speaking on this bill to talk
about the significance of convention centres and, in particular, this
convention centre, particularly to the economy of Winnipeg. We know that people come from all over the
country and all over the world and, indeed, from other parts of Manitoba to use
the facilities of the Convention Centre, and that is to the benefit of Winnipeg
and Manitoba, but particularly to businesses in Winnipeg because this brings
considerable revenue to hotels and to restaurants and to the Convention Centre
itself when people are attending conventions.
It is not just the individuals who are attending a
convention, but quite often they bring spouses and family members with them and
frequently conventions arrange for events for the spouses and family members. The individuals themselves attending a
convention often have free time at which time they take advantage of local
amenities and things to see and do in our fine city.
There are many things to see and do. We have excellent restaurants, many of them located
close to the Convention Centre, and this benefits the provincial coffers and
the City of Winnipeg and the employees who work there. This money circulates and recirculates, and
benefits continue to accrue in terms of creating employment and tax revenue to
various levels of government. Not only
restaurants, but people take in movies; they take in many different kinds of
entertainment. We have many excellent
theatre facilities here; for example, the Warehouse Theatre; Prairie Theatre
Exchange, which my wife and I have subscription tickets to; MTC, another
excellent theatre; the IMAX, which I think is the only one in Canada or maybe
the only one in western Canada.
An Honourable Member: Edmonton has one.
Mr. Martindale: Edmonton has one. The only one in Manitoba. Anyway, it is quite an experience to go to
the IMAX and take in a movie there. It
is the only one I have seen, and, of course, ours is the best.
There is the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, which is world
famous. I hope all honourable members here
will have taken in ballet at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. I hope all honourable members have heard of
some of the principal dancers with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. Evelyn Hart, for example, is one of the
principal dancers; this is an individual whom I met many years ago in
Peterborough, Ontario.
In fact, I have a little quiz for honourable members. Which manse produced two nationally famous
individuals who grew up in the manse at George Street United Church in
Peterborough? Well, the first famous Canadian
is the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson who was a resident of the manse
there. His father was a Methodist
preacher.
The second one is Evelyn Hart, whose father was a United
Church minister. I knew him and I used
to visit with the family at their home in Peterborough. I just saw Evelyn at a rally in front of the
Legislature about a year ago, and I reintroduced myself to her and had a good
chat with her. I have had occasion to
see her dance as well.
In fact, not only do they dance at the Concert Hall, but
they have Ballet in the Park at Assiniboine Park. My wife and I have taken that in, for
example. I hope all honourable members
will have a chance to take in the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, Ballet in the
Park. I think this year they are moving from
Assiniboine Park to Rainbow Stage, which is very convenient for me since we
live in the north end and convenient to our constituents in the north end. We will not have as far to go. They do have a roof there which is handy in
case it rains, although the roof leaks quite a bit. They have had some problems there. You almost need to take an umbrella when you
go to Rainbow Stage. [interjection]
I think the honourable minister missed the connections I
was trying to make here with the Convention Centre, the point being that when
people are attending conventions, they take in many other functions in the city
of Winnipeg. They spend their money in
the city of Winnipeg which is to the benefit of employees and business owners
and the coffers of the provincial government, the city government and the
federal government which‑‑
An Honourable Member: Is this sort of like the Jets, Doug?
Mr. Martindale: The honourable minister would like me to talk
about the Jets. There are similarities
in that there is the Winnipeg Enterprises board and it has city councillors on
it. The Convention Centre Corporation
Amendment Act talks about the number of councillors: four members of the council of the City of
Winnipeg appointed by the council of the city and also seven persons from the
city of Winnipeg appointed by the council.
I am sure the honourable minister knows much more about
this, having been a member of a particular caucus at City Hall, about which
appointments are considered good‑‑[interjection]‑‑some
people would say he was a member of the gang, yes, indeed‑‑which
appointments are better appointments than others at City Hall.
We know that quite often they have a caucus in secret or in
camera, and they decide which councillors are going to go on which committee. In fact, our Acting Speaker today would have
some familiarity with that, having been a former city councillor, so some day I
should talk to him and find out what those secret meetings are really like when
they divvy up, when they decide which councillors are going to go on which
committee, because city councillors may sit on 10 or 15 different
committees. In fact, they probably sit
on more now that there are only 15 councillors as opposed to the previous 29,
so their workload has probably doubled.
I think we‑‑[interjection] Well, I am told that it may have
quadrupled, but at least doubled.
It is actually quite an onerous responsibility to be on
these committees. Some committees are
more onerous than others. Some
committees require more time. Some
committees meet more often. Of course,
some committees have more prestige than other committees, because some require
that the councillors handle millions of dollars, and that is why the government
House leader raised the Winnipeg Jets.
These are very important decisions to the taxpayers of
Winnipeg, the taxpayers of Manitoba, because sometimes we know that councillors
and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) sign agreements which have implications of
multimillion dollars of public expenditure, particularly if things do not go
the optimal way, if they go the other way.
We know, for example, that the Jets deal could cost the taxpayers of
Winnipeg and Manitoba $43 million, something that we did not know until the
Auditor, fortunately, on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba and Winnipeg,
ferreted out this information which had been withheld from the Legislature and
from the taxpayers.
It is very interesting to talk to people about whether they
think the taxpayers should subsidize the millionaire owners of the Jets and
multimillion‑dollar hockey players, not just on their operating losses,
but on building a new arena. I would say
that, as time has gone on since this deal was signed, the level of public
support has declined, declined significantly, and now I do not talk to anybody
who supports either subsidizing the Jets on an ongoing basis or using public
subsidy to build a new arena.
Just yesterday I had a discussion with a gentleman at the
North YMCA. We were in the locker room
there, and we got talking about the Jets deal since they got so much publicity,
and this individual was going to run against me as the Tory candidate in
Burrows constituency. In fact, I have
been encouraging him to do that for the last four years. But, regrettably, the Conservative Party
nominated the doorman at the Manitoba Club‑‑or so I have been told‑‑as
my opposition candidate.
I think I could have a lot of fun running against the
doorman at the Manitoba Club and talk about this elitist club for rich
individuals. Since I represent many,
many poor people in Burrows constituency, I think they would like to hear about
the Manitoba Club. I was hoping that the
Conservative Party would put up a good candidate, somebody who lived in
Burrows, as this business person and friend who worships at the same church
that I do does. He lives in Burrows
constituency. We need a good strong
Conservative candidate in Burrows
constituency, but the Conservative Party disappointed me and they nominated the
doorman at the Manitoba Club.
We do not know who the Liberal Party has nominated yet, but
we are waiting. [interjection] Well, that is what I am told. That is what I am told. [interjection] Well,
maybe it suggests that the Conservatives have written off Burrows
constituency. If they have, I am
disappointed. Historically, the
Conservatives finished second in Burrows over the last 25 years until 1988, and
now, of course, the Liberal Party has replaced the Conservatives as the opposition
to run against in Burrows.
An Honourable Member: One day we will win Burrows.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the honourable minister says one day we
will win Burrows. I think what you need to
do is start by nominating a candidate who lives in the constituency and you‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. This is not a time for debate on that
issue. I think I would ask the
honourable member to remember that he is dealing with The Convention Centre
Corporation Amendment Act. If we could
just be a little bit more relevant, I would appreciate it.
* (1200)
Mr. Martindale: Thank you for that reminder. I did get off my list here of things that
people see when they attend conventions at the Convention Centre.
Of course, there is the Museum of Man and Nature. They were involved in some controversy a few
years ago about having a sexist name.
There was an attempt made to change the name, but that has not happened
yet. Anyway, it is an excellent
museum. I hope that all honourable
members have been there and that you will go and see it. Of course, the St. Boniface Museum is a very
interesting museum. I have been there,
and it is housed in one of the oldest buildings in western Canada that is still
in use.
Then there is The Forks and the Children's Museum. We have one of the best, maybe the best
children's museum in Canada and children just love going to the Children's
Museum and so do adults. I have been
there many times when the adults are helping the children on the computers and
the kids move on to some other area and the adults are all stuck on the
computers having a good time.
Of course, there are many things to do at The Forks besides
the Children's Museum. There are the
walkways. We can walk now from the
Legislature to The Forks and from The Forks north along the river. It is a very pleasant walk and a good thing
to do for people attending the Convention Centre events.
I think I have just about outlined all the things that
somebody might do while they are attending a convention at the Winnipeg
Convention Centre. I even managed to
talk about council appointments to the Convention Centre Board. It would be interesting to know whether this
is one of the higher priorities or higher status appointments by City Council
or whether it ranks down there at the bottom.
In any case, I think it is one of the more important ones because they
do have a multimillion‑dollar budget that they are responsible for, so we
hope that the best possible councillors and the best citizens from the city of
Winnipeg are appointed to this board.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): I am also rising to speak in this debate,
particularly following on the scintillating and interesting discourse entered
into by my honourable friend from Burrows (Mr. Martindale), and I rise to speak
on this bill, The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act.
The member for Burrows has covered a wide range of topics with
respect to some of the advantages and some of the purposes of the Convention
Centre, and I am going to use my discussion to focus on some of the other
aspects of this particular amendment.
The amendment deals almost exclusively with the composition of the board
and with respect to the board, as I read the bill, basically expanding and
changing some of the individuals who participate on the board.
I believe the board now has eight members‑‑and
I stand corrected‑‑and now it is expanding, I believe, to 16 or 17
under this bill, secondly, dealing as I understand it, with the staggered terms
of the board and the method of appointing.
Now we tend to deal with these matters, that is board
appointments, directorships and the like, as a sort of pro forma on occasion,
but I am sure all members of the House will agree with me that matters of this
kind are significant because the board basically is responsible both in law and
in fact for the functioning of the Convention Centre Corporation. That is no small task when one considers that
the Convention Centre serves as a focus of activities for the city of Winnipeg
and serves as a focus for the attraction to the city of Winnipeg of conventions
and much needed tourism.
(Mr. Brian Pallister,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The role and the responsibility, Mr. Acting Speaker, of the
board of directors is a significant one.
It is something that should be dealt with, with great detail. We deal with a myriad of issues in this
Chamber dealing with governorship and dealing with control and direction of
various organizations and various bodies.
We do that on a regular basis, and sometimes we tend to not understand
or to place perhaps enough emphasis on the significance of the responsibilities
of a director of a corporation, be it profit or nonprofit.
By way of example, the boards of directors of hospitals
have significant responsibilities for their institutions. Hundreds of millions of dollars and the
expenditure of those millions of dollars, the balancing of the books, the
liabilities and the various directions and changes in the health care policy,
are determined by the board of directors of hospitals and other institutions.
That same scrutiny and that same requirement is required by
the board of directors of the Convention Centre Corporation. The Convention Centre Corporation, and I
recall the initial establishment of the Convention Centre, its very functioning
role is integral to the economy of the city of Winnipeg and to a large extent
to the economy of Manitoba by way of the attraction of business, the attraction
of events and the facilitating of those functions in the province and in the
city.
One must very carefully review the role and
responsibilities of this board of directors.
We will be, of course, examining that, Mr. Acting Speaker, and as we go
through this amendment I pose some questions to the board that will be
established should this bill pass, and the members that will be responsible for
the functioning of that Convention Centre.
I pose a question to them, and that is: What is the role and responsibility of the
Convention Centre? What is its focus
going to be in the years to come in the city of Winnipeg? What is the strategic plan that has been
developed for not only the Convention Centre but for the other tangential
attractions that are focused on the Convention Centre that deal with the city
of Winnipeg? I believe that it is an
integral part of the overall tourism development plan for not only the city of
Winnipeg but for the province of Manitoba as a whole.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I think we have to very seriously consider where Winnipeg
fits in the niche of the Canadian experience as to the attraction of tourism
and how the Convention Centre should and could focus as a hub for expanding
Winnipeg's involvement and Winnipeg's attractiveness to communities and to
individuals from outside of Winnipeg, thereby bringing in much needed revenue
and investment to the city of Winnipeg.
When I look at the city of Winnipeg and its present
development, I think we are all justifiably pleased in this Chamber as to what
has happened at The Forks, Mr. Acting Speaker, in terms of development
there. I am very pleased that The Forks
was developed, a long‑range plan that they commenced a long, long time
ago, back to the time‑‑
An Honourable Member: Axworthy again.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) brings
up the name of Lloyd Axworthy.
I can bring up names like Ed Schreyer and I can bring up names
like Gary Doer who were all involved in the establishment of what is becoming
the jewel of attractiveness in terms of the centre of the city, and members
opposite as well who were supportive.
There was an example of a joint effort to bring about a development
that serves as a hub of activity and has become a focus for individuals who
visit the city of Winnipeg and for individuals who reside in the city of
Winnipeg.
I think by all accounts The Forks is a resounding
success. I think that members in this
Chamber ought to look at The Forks experience and some of the other experiences
in terms of how we move the Convention Centre and its activities that function
through the Convention Centre into the planning for the development of tourism,
for development of business and for the development of conventions in the
future.
I do not know what role convention centres play, how
Winnipeg stacks up against other centres.
I have the impression, Mr. Acting Speaker, and this is only an
impression, that our Convention Centre has fallen behind developments in
perhaps other centres, that it needs to move into a new stage of
development. Shall we call it a first‑generation
Convention Centre, and we need to develop second‑ and third‑generation
models? From some of my visits to other
cities, I have seen some developments in other cities that focus around other
convention centres, and I think we may have fallen behind. I would hope the new board will provide some
impetus to developing a new generation, a new plan for the development of the
Winnipeg Convention Centre.
I also have the impression that the Convention Centre has
served the city of Winnipeg quite well and has filled its role fairly
well. It is a layperson's impression,
and it is not based on any great deal of research or development but it is
certainly an impression that I have as someone who has been a long‑time
resident and relatively active in this city.
I do look to the development of the Convention Centre with a new focus
and with a new mandate to develop into the next century.
* (1210)
Let me make this perfectly clear, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
I believe the development of the Convention Centre is tied very integrally,
deeply to the heart of the development in the city of Winnipeg, to the attraction
of business, to the attraction of tourism, to the development of a strong
centre and to the establishment of a vibrant Winnipeg that could develop into
the 20th Century much like the Winnipeg that was seen at the turn of the
century as the Chicago of the North and as one of the fastest, if not the
fastest developing city on the face of this continent when there was a vision
for this city.
There were hopes and aspirations that this city would
become one of the great cities in North America. Perhaps that is what we have lacked. Perhaps the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is
correct; perhaps we have lacked some vision in terms of this city, in terms of
this province and where we should and ought to be in the future. [interjection]
The member for Inkster says, whose fault is that? I suggest it is the fault of all of us. No blame can be attributed, but perhaps we do
need a vision in this city as to where we are going and how we are going. It is more than simply dealing with diverse
or smaller issues, but it is talking about what the strengths are of our city
and what the strengths are of our province and how we capitalize on them.
Certainly, I can suggest several areas and several sectors,
and the first one that comes to mind is our people, our diverse, educated,
talented and capable people. That brings
me to my own community, the community that I live in and the community that I
have the honour to represent, the Kildonan area which is comprised of West
Kildonan and Garden City where street after street, Mr. Acting Speaker, we see
a community that has been long committed to this province. We see an ethnic and a religious mix that is
second to none in North America and perhaps the world, and I think what serves
as a model of development and a model of a community living together, as well
as a community succeeding, a community that has been brought together not only
by adversity, but by commitment and hard work.
Perhaps some of that vision that we see in the community
that I have the honour to represent can be translated and can be harnessed and
channelled into new directions and to the development of a vision for this city
and for this province that we all can work together to achieve and will take us
out of some of the lethargy that has been introduced into our society by a
very, very acute and difficult economic downturn that has not been helped, I
dare say, by the actions of the present government, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am
sorry to say, but perhaps we can rise above that particular lethargy and we can
move into the 21st Century.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I note that my comments have generated
debate amongst the members of this Chamber‑‑and I am pleased to see
that‑‑have generated debate about what comprises this vision, about
what documentation went to cabinet, what documentation did not go to
cabinet. Already we see debate prompted
in this Chamber about where we should be in the 21st Century and where this
city and this province is going. I
welcome that discussion. I hear it in my
own home community. I hear it on a
weekly basis as I go door to door, and I welcome discussion by members opposite
in the Chamber about what our goals are in this province, in this city, and
where we intend to proceed into the next century.
As the galleries fill, Mr. Acting Speaker, I will continue
to discuss this future, because it is important. At one time, there was more of a vision. We seem to have lost that in this city, in
this province, and I think it is sad. I
think it is something that we all should work together. I do not say this in a partisan way. I think it is something that is felt probably
by all members of this Chamber. It is
something that perhaps we have to get back and work towards, because it fits
with the development of the five‑year strategic plan or the 10‑year
strategic plan for the Convention Centre.
Despite encouragement from members opposite and despite the
demands, as I can see from the comments and the faces of members opposite, I
will be concluding my remarks, Mr. Acting Speaker. Even though members opposite are encouraging
me to continue, I do not want to dominate totally this discussion, and I want
to allow other members who are anxious I know to discuss this bill, to have the
opportunity. With those short brief
comments, I will conclude my comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Portage la
Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Municipal Affairs be amended as follows:
the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Steinbach (Mr.
Driedger); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Riel (Mr.
Ducharme); the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for
Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for
Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson); and the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae).
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30?
[agreed]
The hour now being 12:30, this House now stands adjourned
until 1:30 Monday.