ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call second readings on Bills 27, 34 and 36.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 27--The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 27, The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association des éleveurs de bétail), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, this is the same measure that was introduced to this Chamber prior to the dissolution of the House. It has to do with relatively two very straightforward matters. One is the changes to the actual method by which cattle producers in Manitoba can continue to claim their refund, because as it has been in the past years of its operation, it is a voluntary contribution to the Canadian Cattle Producers Association by those cattle producers who wish to do so.
The situation that prevailed in the current legislation, however, was, in my opinion, too loose. It was brought to my attention that, in fact, in some instances, vendors were actually encouraging cattle producers to opt out of the provision simply to save themselves some bookkeeping.
As is in many of these instances, the industry, whether it is grain companies in a similar situation, a similar measure under The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act that I introduced earlier, they are asking for a straightforward and simple, all-inclusive kind of method and leave the requests for refunds to be dealt with at another agency. If it is automatic, it is figured into their billing processes.
In some instances, they are fairly sophisticated billing processes that are computer-driven, and then it is not an issue at the elevator door or at the cattle vendors' auction mart feed doors of whether or not a producer is a supporter or not of this particular organization.
I maintain, Madam Speaker, that this in no way detracts from the fact that the individual cattle producer has every occasion--and the bill will spell it out. The details, regulations, I think provide for twice-annual remissions of any levies paid, if the cattle producer, in a conscientious decision, simply does not wish to support that organization. I call that voluntary.
The other issue dealing with the bill has to do with providing and allowing the Manitoba Cattle Producers organization itself to add greater stability and security by providing additional vendor insurance in the instances where, regrettably, a business or a cattle operation buyer goes into bankruptcy or whatever, and individual stockmen find themselves holding the bill. Fortunately, this does not happen too often. Perhaps it has been about two years ago since the last serious situation arose.
I should point out to all members, Madam Speaker, that the government and the current regulations now provide a bonding requirement on the part of all livestock dealers. That is in place and it does, by and large, the job that it is meant to do.
It, first of all, requires those who deal with cattle to provide this bond at their own cost, which they do. That bonding level is graduated, determining the numbers and size and scale of cattle purchases made by any particular dealer. It could be argued, I suppose, and perhaps the member for the opposition would take this argument, if that is not sufficient why not increase the bonding level to a higher level? It is our opinion that would end, in the opinion of the cattle producers that would place in some instances unnecessary restriction or burden on particularly the smaller dealers of which we have many in the province.
We do not wish to impose that and the cattle producers themselves are not recommending it. What they are recommending through the venue of this bill is that they be allowed to use part of that checkoff money to buy, if you like, an insurance policy that would go on top of the bonding provisions now in place.
They feel that would provide the kind of ultimate security that there would not be instances where primary producers who have in good faith dealt with the dealer, shipped their cattle, and then sometimes find themselves out of pocket because of a failure of the dealer, a failure of the business, and present bonding limitations not being sufficient.
* (1100)
So, Madam Speaker, these are the two relatively modest amendments that are being presented in this bill. I would ask honourable members to take the occasion of the summer break to discuss with their own producers the merits of these amendments, and it would be my hope that the Legislature approve these when we return in fall.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 34--The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et apportant des modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Speaker, the purpose of the changes being proposed in this bill is to increase accountability of colleges and universities regarding how they manage their properties. The changes being recommended in this bill deal with the issue of grants in lieu of taxes as they are applied to the universities and colleges and public reserve lands.
In the case of colleges and universities, the current practice is for the province to pay grants in lieu of taxes equivalent to the real property taxes on behalf of these institutions. While the province has been responsible for the property taxes of these institutions through payment of grants in lieu of taxes, it has not had any input into property acquisitions and/or developments undertaken by colleges and universities.
Madam Speaker, sound management practices would normally require that those making decisions on their property portfolio should also be accountable for the payment of ongoing costs associated with those decisions. The bill then proposes to make colleges and universities directly responsible for payment of grants in lieu of taxes on properties they own or occupy and thereby accountable for any future decisions they make with regard to those properties.
Madam Speaker, under block funding arrangements to colleges and universities, funding would be included to those institutions to recognize these new arrangements where they would pay property taxes directly. In a somewhat similar context respecting public reserve lands, the intent of the statute was not for the provincial government to pay grants in lieu of taxes on properties that are really under the control and jurisdiction of municipalities in which they are located. Accordingly, the intent of this amendment is to formally exempt them from payment of grants in lieu of taxes by the province.
Madam Speaker, we believe that the changes recommended in this bill enhance the level of accountability, decision making and management as it relates to these properties. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 36--The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Speaker, this bill relates specifically to the collection of school taxes on licensed premises operated by community organizations, service clubs, rinks, recreation centres and other public bodies. The statute currently provides exemptions for facilities owned by a municipality, a community association, a service club or other public body or group that serves the local community and is not occupied, used or operated for profit.
The statute provides a similar exemption to legions accepting the licensed portion of their facility. The intent of this exclusion was to ensure there was a level playing field with other groups or businesses which operated these same kinds of licensed facilities for profit.
Madam Speaker, a number of groups have successfully challenged the City Assessor in the courts and have been granted an exemption for their entire facility under subsection 23(1), the provision applying to public bodies that serve the local community. The court, however, did not exclude the licensed lounge portion as it currently applies to legions. This has created an inequity between legions and these other facilities.
In presenting this bill, Madam Speaker, it is recommended that the school tax exemption be limited to only the nonlicensed premises of all these organizations and clubs. The implications of this amendment are twofold: first, the tax advantage now being enjoyed by these community facilities over licensed legion facilities will be removed; second, these facilities which have a licensed area would now be required to pay school taxes to the province and to the school divisions.
Madam Speaker, by recommending the amendment that this subsection of The Municipal Act be tightened, we are restoring a level playing field intended by the original provisions which ensured the same tax treatment for all licensed premises regardless of their ownership. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call for third reading Bills 24 and 35.
THIRD READINGS
Bill 24--The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 24, The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, as we have indicated in previous debate on this measure, we have supported the efforts of the government in this respect. But I want to put on record the point, the fact, that we on this side do look upon this as another infringement on the freedom of Canadians, on the freedom of the people of Manitoba to move in and out of the province freely. It is another restriction that we are putting on people and, in a sense, it offends my own spirit of liberty, I think a spirit of liberty that should prevail and we like to brag about especially on Canada Day celebrations.
Of course, it does interfere with the free flow of goods. We all give lip service to freedom of trade in this country, but it is not only freedom of trade, it is freedom that people should have the ultimate freedom to move around this country in and out of provinces without having given the reason to authorities to stop them to see whether they are carrying certain merchandise or not.
I realize this is a special case. As I have indicated, we have supported the government, and I believe the minister himself realizes it is a bit of conundrum. I know he supports freedom of trade, but it is just not freedom of trade. It is the fact that we have given authorities another reason to stop people who may be suspected of carrying certain merchandise with them between provinces--not into Canada from the United States, but we are talking between provinces. [interjection]
Well, we have taken a stand on gun control too, Madam Speaker. The federal NDP and our Leader have made statements on that matter as well.
* (1110)
This bill, as I understand it, not only pertains to possible importation of tobacco products by road, but it is by any means. Therefore, it also includes airlines and airports. This means, of course, that there could be under the bill--I do know of all the implications--restrictive measures put in at airports with people.
Now I understand the department is only planning to post notices to remind people that they have an obligation to report if they have in excess of one carton of cigarettes or some equivalent tobacco in tobacco products, but it could go beyond that and other measures could be taken. I would shudder to think of RCMP or provincial officials having to search through baggage of people coming into Manitoba, let us say, from Ontario to see whether they have gone beyond their limit in terms of tobacco products and have not reported them. It is another move in infringing on the liberty of Canadians and of people to move in and out of Manitoba.
I just wanted to take the opportunity to again make that particular point. As I said, having said that, we are prepared to see this pass third reading.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 24, The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 35--The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, la Loi sur l'élection des autorités locales et apportant des modifications corrélatives), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, we are pleased to obviously see this bill at the third reading stage in the Chamber today. As you know, and as this House knows, we have been calling on the amendments that have been cited in the Chief Electoral Officer's report five years ago and again a couple of years ago.
Obviously this bill is important for election lists in the municipal elections, but it was equally important for the provincial election, and we should take seriously the recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer. This person has an independent and sovereign status to this Legislative Assembly, and it is important for us to take the advice from that individual in terms of how best to conduct elections here in Manitoba.
We say it is good that the bill is being passed today. We say it is unfortunate that we had to deal with this bill in an expedited and last-minute fashion this last week. We would prefer a lot more anticipation from the government, and we would prefer to see the government take seriously the recommendations, not just this recommendation, but other recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of this province. Let us start dealing with this stuff early, and let us deal with it in a long-term, substantive way rather than in the last minutes of a legislative session.
We will therefore pass the improvements in this process that we have proposed in Question Period and that we have proposed in private members' bills in the past. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 35, The Elections Amendment, Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi électorale, la Loi sur l'élection des autorités locales et apportant des modifications corrélatives. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I just want to pass along, on a matter of House business, my thanks to the members of the opposition for expeditiously dealing with these issues. It is much appreciated.
Would you call for the adjourned debate on Bill 29, Madam Speaker.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 29--The Loan Act, 1995
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 29, The Loan Act, 1995; Loi d'emprunt de 1995.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, yesterday we were asking questions about schedule A regarding capital supply being authorized for various initiatives, for various programs, for various agencies.
Continuing in that vein, I have a question specifically about the special operating agencies financing authority. This is a relatively new concept, these operating authorities, and they are apparently given--this is something that is coming in vogue in other jurisdictions as well. I believe the federal government has been moving on this. I remember listening to the Auditor General of Canada talking about this a couple of years ago at a meeting of Public Accounts committee chairmen, so the concept is one to provide more flexibility.
The question I have is--I can see the Fleet Vehicles Agency. That is straightforward funding for vehicles that have to be purchased to maintain government operations. I assume that those monies for the purchase of vehicles will no longer be within the Department of Highways whatsoever, that all that money will be moved into this operating agency. That is one concern.
The other concern I have is regarding the Vital Statistics Agency. Just why does Vital Statistics need $1.3 million of capital supply?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to answer the question of the honourable member for Brandon East.
The Vital Statistics Agency has historically been basically a paper-based operation. There are books in there from the 1800s of old paper-based, handwritten records. It has only been in the last six or seven years that information has started to be now stored on an electronic basis because those records, quite frankly, as they are searched, become damaged. They are brittle. The paper is brittle and old and as people use the information--and that is why it is there so, obviously, you cannot not let them use the information. The intent is to convert all of that to an electronic base. It will certainly allow individuals who seek out information, it will allow staff to retrieve it quicker, but it requires a considerable amount of capital in the initial phase in order to set up a program to store that information and software and hardware associated with that and whatever consulting fees are required to create the electronic base.
We are not certain that $1.3 million is ultimately necessary, but it will depend in a large part on the capability of a scanning technology as to whether you will be able to scan the information in or whether you are going to have to sit down and input it as you would normally input it into a computerized system. So at the outside, about $1.3 million would be required, significantly less if it is not a scan-based kind of technology.
Currently, we are in the process of preparing an RFP, and we hope to have that out within the next couple of months and then proceed following that to select a system and implement it.
* (1120)
Mr. Leonard Evans: I stand to be corrected, but I thought the Vital Statistics Agency was one of the agencies that was going to be moved out of Winnipeg to a rural location. Whether that decision was carried out, I am not sure, but maybe the minister could elaborate.
Where will this equipment be therefore? Is it going to be in Winnipeg, or is it in some decentralized location?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Vital Statistics Agency was originally within the Department of Family Services. The SOA currently resides under the jurisdiction of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They are located in the Heaps Building on Portage Avenue and continue to be located there and will continue to be located there. It is not planned to move.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, I would just comment. The Vital Statistics Agency does play a very critical role. It is very fundamental to our society to keep records. It may sound very mundane, but it is very essential to keep records of births and deaths and marriages and so on. It is amazing how much information comes out of that agency and is used for analysis by policymakers for both economic and social programs.
In terms of the Fleet Vehicles Agency, I was asking, does this mean that there is no money whatsoever per se in the Department of Highways or the Department of Government Services for Fleet Vehicle purchases? All that money that we see here, is that all the monies being requested for this year? There is no additional money located in another department such as Government Services for vehicle purchases?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, yes, that is correct that the Fleet Agency is responsible for the management of approximately 2,200 motor vehicles which are leased to the provincial organizations and with the various departments on a full cost-recovery basis.
The majority of the Loan Authority goes towards the capital requirements which are basically vehicle replacement. There are some small other amounts, some upgrading of a garage and a body shop and some other facility improvements, but the vast majority of the money goes directly to vehicle replacement.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I know the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) wants to ask a couple of questions. I will just follow up with one more question in this area, and, that is, I notice in Schedule B there is Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority - Fleet Vehicles Agency, $5.2 million. So this is in addition to that money. There are monies that have not yet been expended, and this bill approves the carrying on of another $5.2 million. So are we expanding the amount of monies available in this category by adding another 2.8 to 5.2 that has not yet been spent?
Mr. Stefanson: The member is correct that the existing authority is 5.2 and this Loan Act is providing an additional 2.8, and really what that reflects is a portion of a carry-over on some vehicles. The vehicle replacement includes a carry-over of the '94-95 purchase of approximately $4.2 million for 238 vehicles. The replacement program for 1995-96 will consist of just over $6 million to purchase 348 new vehicles.
What this requirement does is it will maintain the age of the fleet at its present level of 3.9 years and continue the cycle of replacing vehicles at their historical average of six years which is consistent with the approach that is being utilized by the special operating agency.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, my questions are to the government, and they relate to the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. We know this government spent over two years trying to sell the corporation. According to the annual report of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation, they spent over $257,000 last year trying to sell the corporation.
My question is, what are the current plans of the government over the future of the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, the current plans are that we are seeking private-sector investment to pursue any additional development on the site. While I cannot report detail, I believe that we have some optimistic responses to RFP, request for proposals, and we will be dealing with them in the very near future.
Mr. Dewar: My next question is, how much money has the government committed this year in attempting to find a private-sector partner?
Mr. Cummings: Actually, the answer would be none in the sense that we are not setting aside dollars for investment. The corporation is making money on day-to-day operations; I believe it is recorded to be making about a quarter of a million dollars and is projected to do about the same, plus or minus, during the current year on day-to-day operations.
Obviously, the question has some validity, because the corporation cannot generate sufficient funds to cover off its responsibility to pay the interest on its development costs back to the province. That is going to have to be dealt with one way or the other, because as you will recall we have spent about four years travelling across the province looking for a community that would--during the heydays of environmentalism, it was a very difficult problem to have a community even consider the possibility of having a company or a plant operating in its jurisdiction that would be treating hazardous waste.
Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, my final question to the minister on this subject today is, will he assure the House and myself that the corporation will be brought forward to a committee of the House in the upcoming session so that members can have a chance to further scrutinize the operations of this corporation?
Mr. Cummings: That is a decision the House leaders will make. It has always been my approach that the more informed people are about the actions that we are undertaking, the better.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My questions are for the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). There are sections of this bill which deal with the student loans assistance loan, and that is what I am asking questions under here.
I wanted to ask the minister a question which I had raised with her earlier, and that was dealing with the question of whether all financial institutions in Manitoba, credit unions and all banks, are able to deal equally with students on student loans. Earlier in the year there were certainly some students who believed that unless they went to CIBC, they were getting service that was at a much slower level. They were citing delays of two to three weeks compared to students who were going to CIBC.
Has the minister had her staff look into this, and is there any justification for this belief? Is it indeed true?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): If the member would be kind enough to give me a few moments to obtain that response for her, I will do so and provide it the minute I have got it.
* (1130)
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask about community college students and loans assistance. Does the minister have a breakdown that could be provided on the number of students at community colleges, or the proportion of students having access to student loans who are at community colleges as opposed to universities? What I am concerned about here, obviously, is that fees are increasing at universities and colleges but the colleges have always been more accessible in terms of fees.
I am wondering if there is an indication in the numbers and statistics that the minister might have of whether that is still the case, whether the college fees in fact are still accessible to students and that they are finding less need of a loan in going to college. So that is the purpose. I am not sure how you would collect them for that purpose.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to just acquire that information and return it to her, which I will do posthaste.
Ms. Friesen: My last question deals with the issue of long-predicted fee increases at universities as a result of the federal withdrawal of funds. There are studies, and the minister and I have talked about them before, the Informetrica studies, the one with which I am most familiar, but the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, both last year and this year I believe, have completed studies on the impact on university funding of the withdrawal of federal funding for post-secondary education.
Using a variety of variables, one of them, of course, is the passing through of the entire federal post-secondary portion to students. This clearly has very serious impacts on fees. The arguments that they have made in the past two years have been about the increase of fees by a third, possibly by a half over the next three or four years.
I know that these are still hypothetical issues. What I am interested in is how it will affect this particular line. Does the minister have a sense of or are there any studies being conducted within the department on how this particular proposal or prospect affects the student loans assistance program Manitoba?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, just to be sure I am interpreting the question correctly, the member is asking how the federal cuts might eventually impact down on student fees, and if student fees have to rise because of it, will loan circumstances change.
I thank the member for that question. While it is technically hypothetical, and indeed it is reality, of course, that we are going to see those federal cuts coming down through the system and ultimately into the system, we have done a couple of things. As the member knows, last year we have capped student fee increases to 5 percent as well as the preceding year. As well, we have the tax credit coming in for those paying the tuition fee.
As the amount transferred through becomes less, the other thing that will simultaneously be happening of course will be the setting up of the council on post-secondary education in Manitoba.
As Roblin has indicated in his report, it is important the universities start to do things differently. As we do things differently, using his direct quote, we will be looking at this huge entity of university and college articulation indeed even maybe some high school articulation into that.
Also in terms of systemic change to simply say, well, we are getting a big cut and the way we are going to address it is to just chop a certain percentage off everything that is happening there is not working. That will not work. That is the death-by-a-thousand-cuts syndrome that is counterproductive. We need to look at a systemic change, reorganization, looking at overlapping, duplicating things in the system.
How much of that reorganization will result in more effective use of monies, greater cost efficiency and so on, is unknown at this point, but it will have an impact on containing costs. Our goal will always be to try to not be put off our agenda by anything the federal government is doing. We have continued to say health, education, family services. That is 72 percent of our program expenditures in the provincial budget; those are our highest priorities and will continue to be our highest priorities.
More money will continue going into the colleges. Universities we are asking to respond to the challenge. We have received some responses. We are looking for a more creative systemic change. We are hoping the post-secondary council for Manitoba will be a significant catalyst in achieving that necessary reorganization.
That is a partial answer not a complete answer, I realize, but that is the direction we are moving in as opposed to saying, let us just increase costs of students, because we feel that is counterproductive. So we will look for savings in other ways.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister about the tax credit for post-secondary education fees, whether it will apply to college fees as well as university fees? Will it apply also to private vocational schools at the post-secondary level? Could the minister give us some idea of when the details and information will be available for the general public?
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, details of that should be forthcoming in the very near future. It is something that we are working on quickly. The attention and announcement for post-secondary education is of prime concern to university students, but would also have some applicability to college students. University students, of course, have in many cases higher costs that will make it more significant and important to them. Therefore, it was to the university students that we were addressing our main concern, but certainly college students also incur costs, so it is my belief and understanding that they would not be precluded from access to this tax credit, although our prime concern, as I say, was to the university student with the costs that they incur.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, Madam Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report on Bill 29, The Loan Act, 1995 (Loi d' emprunt de 1995); and Bill 30, The Appropriation Act, 1995 (Loi de 1995 portant affectation de crédits).
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report Bills 29 and 30, with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair.
* (1140)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Bill 29--The Loan Act, 1995
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of the Whole will come to order to consider Bill 29, The Loan Act, 1995, and Bill 30, The Appropriation Act, 1995.
I would remind the members that the 240 hours allowed for consideration of Supply and the Ways and Means resolution and for the consideration of the Committee of the Whole of Supply bills has expired pursuant to Rule 64.1. These bills are not debatable.
We shall proceed to consider Bill 29 clause-by-clause.
Is it the wish of the committee that we proceed in blocks of clauses? [agreed]
Clauses 1 through 13 inclusive--pass; Schedule A--pass; Schedule B-pass; Preamble--pass; Title--pass. Bill be reported.
Bill 30--The Appropriation Act, 1995
Mr. Chairperson: We shall now proceed to consider Bill 30 clause-by-clause.
Is it the wish of the committee that we proceed in blocks of clauses? [agreed]
Clauses 1 to 14 inclusive--pass; Schedule A--pass; Preamble-- pass; Title--pass. Bill be reported.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 29, The Loan Act, 1995, and The Appropriation Act, 1995, has directed me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the report of the Committee of the Whole be received.
Motion agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 29--The Loan Act, 1995
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 29, The Loan Act, 1995; Loi d'emprunt de 1995, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
THIRD READINGS
Bill 29--The Loan Act, 1995
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), by leave, that Bill 29, The Loan Act, 1995; Loi d'emprunt de 1995, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 30--The Appropriation Act, 1995
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 30, The Appropriation Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 portant affectation de crédits, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
THIRD READINGS
Bill 30--The Appropriation Act, 1995
Hon Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 30, The Appropriation Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 portant affectations de crédits, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a few words to say on this closing motion, Madam Speaker. I want to point out to the members of the government side that the opposition has done its utmost to be co-operative in terms of expediting the Estimates process this summer, because we do realize that with an election having taken place in late April, the government did not have the spending authority to pay various bills and to carry on the business of government and would have been in a very difficult position if we carried on for a lengthy period of time.
I believe that my colleagues have done their very best to thoroughly examine the expenditures. We agreed to go into three committees to expedite matters, but, nevertheless, all members on our side I know were very well prepared in asking very searching questions to make the government accountable, as it should be, and in fulfilling our mandate in the opposition.
It is not sometimes as satisfying to be a member of the opposition as it is to be on the government side. I have had the opportunity to be on both sides of this House for many years, and I know that in many ways it is more satisfying to be on the government side because there you make the decisions and there you have the authority to guide the province as you see fit to enable it to go along the road of economic and social progress.
However, in our British parliamentary system that we have inherited, we have a very critical role to play on this side of the House as well. Our job is to keep the government honest, to keep the government on its toes. I know it is awfully annoying at times--and I have sat on that side so I know what it feels like--to have sometimes these useless questions being asked in Question Period, you may think, or these questions that are so embarrassing or these questions that are so antagonistic.
We have a role to play. We have a responsibility to our individual constituents. We have a responsibility to the people of Manitoba to be as searching as possible in the asking of questions. Even though it may be annoying and may be aggravating to members on the government side, nevertheless, these questions have to be asked. That is part of the system. This is how our democratic system operates. We do not necessarily always get the answers to the questions that we pose, but we have to remember in this Legislature that we are in the public arena. It is open to public scrutiny. The media are here, especially during Question Period, and we are indeed being monitored. We are being watched, maybe not by everybody in Manitoba, but by a sufficient number I would submit, Madam Speaker, who are aware of the issues that have been raised in the House.
* (1150)
There are many new issues that are percolating and it is interesting how this varies from year to year, what comes up, what department gets to be in the forefront. I suppose in this past session we see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in particular being called accountable for the matters pertaining to the Jets financing and pertaining to the arena. I can say this, I do not know about other rural members, I do not know about other members on either side of the House whether they are urban or rural, but I can tell you that I have had more phone calls on the Jets issue, the arena-Jets issue, than almost any other issue I can think of in many, many a year.
I guess the last was Meech Lake when this House was looking at whether or not to pass the Meech Lake motion. That was a big issue and--[interjection] Well, Madam Speaker, I put an ad in the Brandon Sun and simply asked my constituents where they stood on Meech Lake. I can tell you like 99.99 percent were against us approving the Meech Lake Accord, and I acted accordingly. I acted according to my conscience and I did not support the Meech Lake Accord throughout. I never changed my mind. I did not flip-flop on the issue like certain people did. I maintained my opposition. [interjection] Charlottetown, I was against Charlottetown as well, but that did not come to this House. That was a little different. Meech Lake came to the House. We had to make a decision, and all of our colleagues here had to stand up ultimately to be counted on this.
I also recall, and the members should be reminded, that this was a very hotly debated issue. I think most of the time there were 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, maybe 5,000 people milling around this building during the process indicating, primarily, their opposition to the Legislature approving Meech Lake.
You had an assortment of people from various parts of rural Manitoba, friends of mine. We had native people here. We had various people, a real cross-section of Manitoba society, who were very adamantly opposed to this Legislature approving Meech Lake, and as we know this was not approved by the Legislature. The time ran out. Manitoba played a critical role, I believe, in killing Meech Lake, which I agreed with that we should not have allowed it to pass because I saw it as undermining the Canadian nation-state.
I will not go into all the arguments because this is not appropriate, but I simply say that this last session saw the issues that we saw, primarily the arena-Jets issue, but I am sure come next session, come the fall when we reconvene, there will be some other matters that will be forthcoming that will be highlighted.
I do not want to unnecessarily delay the proceedings of this House, Madam Speaker, but I will say in conclusion that even though it is a little chilly today I think it is going to warm up tomorrow for Canada Day. Many of us will be involved in Canada Day celebrations. I do wish everyone a great Canada Day and certainly I hope and trust that everyone will have a restful, peaceful and enjoyable summer. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is--
An Honourable Member: Point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, not on a point of order this time.
I want to put a number of comments on the record, first of all, in terms of the process we are following. I think it is no secret in this House that for a number of years we have talked on and off about rules reform and changing the way we operate in this Legislature, and one of the areas that we have often discussed has been changing the calendar of our sittings.
I want to note that this is the first time that we have essentially had a split session where the basis of the split has been dealing with budgets and Estimates in the first part, and then primarily in the fall we will be dealing with bills and also Private Members' Business.
I want to note that I think it has been a very interesting process that we have had for the past number of weeks because I think the initial experience has been a fairly positive one. I believe there are good reasons in terms of public policy that should lead us to consider doing this in the future, whether it be through formal changes to the rules, Madam Speaker, or through the kind of agreement that took place here, because we now have had the opportunity to focus pretty well entirely on the financial side of what government does with the budgetary side and particularly in terms of Estimates. In the fall, the focus will shift again to the legislative side.
I would note, in terms of looking ahead to the fall, that we also have the new process in place here of having many of the bills that we are going to be dealing with in the fall having been brought in for second reading. They are now up for public consideration over the summer. In fact, I think this itself is a very positive process. The members of the public now will have two and a half months to look at the bills before we debate those bills.
I believe that is something we should also consider in terms of future examination of the rules, because I believe we have one of the best processes in the country in terms of bills. We are the only province that has mandatory hearings on all bills. I do believe that in the past we have tended, because of the pressures of time, not to give that process its adequate due. I believe one thing that will follow from this process, Madam Speaker, is that we will now have I think ample opportunity for the public to look at the legislative agenda; and, when we do come back in the fall, we will be debating based on that public input. Then when we do go to committee, and I hope we will be able to schedule committee hearings on an orderly basis, I believe then we will have probably some of the greatest opportunity that members of the public have had to participate on the important issues of the day in the legislative sense.
I want to note and suggest that there is a lot we have done in this period of time that has, I think, been rather productive. In fact, I look also to some of the new members because I think part of what we have to do when we are looking at our rules, Madam Speaker, is constantly get the new input that comes from new perspectives. There have been new members on both sides of the House. Certainly, I know our new members have been very vocal, participated extensively both within our caucus and in the House. I look to the new members in particular because I think they can bring a fresh perspective in terms of what works in this House and what does not work, because I find that what tends to happen is over time it is easy to assume that things have always been that way so that is the way they should be in the future.
I really believe we have to change that. Our rules have not been substantially changed since the mid-1980s. The bottom line is that, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I think our rules need a major redraft just in terms of some of the inconsistencies that are in the rules. I think also we need a whole new approach. I think we should be considering a number of items.
There has been discussion, for example, on the role of committees. I think our committees can go far beyond dealing with bills. I have mentioned this in the past. There are many issues we can deal with in that sense.
I think we can bring some new perspectives by looking at some other rule reforms. For example, members' statements, I find we are restricted in this House because the focus is on either debate or questions. There are oftentimes when members of this House would, I am sure, like to make statements on public issues. I think that is fairly important.
I wanted to make those comments. I also want to make a number of other comments as well. I think this half of the session, because it will be exactly half of the session, is an interesting reminder to each and every one of us--I think the maxim is that a week is a long time in politics. In this particular case we are dealing with a situation where we are barely two months from the election, and I think we are already seeing some of the key issues that are going to be developing in this province over the next number of years. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) referenced, obviously, the Winnipeg arena which is fundamentally a new issue. [interjection] I want to say to the government House leader I appreciate his feedback on the rules, and certainly he will not have to worry too much. I think we will be in agreement on it.
But what I want to do is, rather than just reflect on the provincial issues we are going to be dealing with, obviously, the Winnipeg arena was one of the significant issues that we have discussed. There has been other issues. I just want to reflect on the fact that tomorrow is Canada Day, Madam Speaker, and I was tempted earlier to give a nonpolitical statement and table my tie as that statement. People may notice, it has various depictions of our flag.
I wanted to say that, but the reason I did not do that was because, quite frankly, I could not make a nonpolitical statement about Canada at this point in time because this will be the last opportunity in terms of Canada Day before the upcoming referendum that is going to take place in Quebec in terms of an issue that is very much going to determine the future of our country. What I wanted to do, Madam Speaker, recognizing fully the democratic right of the people in Quebec to make that decision they are going to be making later this fall--and we will be sitting prior to that and this may in fact come up again--but I want to say as we go into tomorrow, July 1, that I personally am very proud of this country. I am proud of every single one of the 10 provinces, and I cannot picture a Canada without Quebec.
* (1200)
My Canada, and I think everybody's Canada in this province, includes Quebec. I think in the true spirit of Canada Day tomorrow--which originally, of course, was Dominion Day and, quite frankly, I find that it is unfortunate that term has been lost because when you are talking about the original meaning of the term Dominion Day, I think very much it reflected the fact that Canada is from sea to sea to sea. I cannot see a Canada without Quebec. It is integral to what we stand for as a country.
What I wanted to say just in conclusion as we head into July 1, tomorrow, I hope that we will all take the opportunity tomorrow, all members of this Legislature as well as all Manitobans, to say in our own personal way just how proud we are of this country and express by doing that our hope that this will remain one great united country. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I wanted also to take this opportunity to make a few observations. First and foremost, we have seen I believe a lot of productivity out of this Chamber over the last 29 days. In fact, you will see that, at least to the best of my knowledge, this is one of the fastest we have ever gone through 240 hours, if not the fastest, of the Estimates process. I think that takes a great deal of effort from all members of the Legislature, whether you are in opposition or whether you are in government.
Madam Speaker, along with that, we have seen some fairly substantive bills passed through the Legislature, Bill 3 dealing with maintenance enforcement, something which all political parties support. We have indicated that we would like to see this government bring forward additional legislation regarding maintenance enforcement, not to have to wait the number of years we had to wait since the government had taken office.
There was important legislation also passed through for the City of Winnipeg with reference to the elections, something in which we again feel is very important, the whole issue of the tobacco tax issue, something again in which all individuals inside the Chamber at least tentatively applied their support and with respect to The Elections Act that came out of the most recent election where the issue was really raised. But, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) mentioned earlier, it was in fact an issue that has been there for a number of years. So we did see four very important bills go through the third reading process and later will no doubt receive Royal Assent.
With respect to the Estimates and the way in which we handled the business of the Chamber over the last 29 days, in the future we do believe that it is important to have the two committees up and running, that the rules that we had agreed to were for this particular session, given the going-in time, in order to be able to expedite. Next year, we would anticipate that we would be back into the two committees.
Madam Speaker, I also would like to echo some of the words that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has put forward with respect to rule changes. We believe that it is long overdue, that we do need to revisit the rules and take into consideration a number of the things that that informal rules committee had put together over the last few years. We all know that the longer you are in a Legislature, the more difficult it is to implement changes in the rules. So I would hope that this will be something in which the government will in fact want to act upon.
Over the summer, there will no doubt be a great deal of discussion and debates. I know from within our party's perspective on the legislation that is before the House, there is going to be no doubt one very controversial bill. A lot of debate that we are anticipating in the fall is going to be on the balanced budget legislation, and we look forward and welcome a public input with respect to that.
Having said those very few words, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to pass this bill and we anxiously await September 18 when we are back into session to be able to continue on the business of the public.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 30, The Appropriation Act, 1995. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, while the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is seeking the audience of the Lieutenant-Governor, I would move, seconded by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that when this House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until a time fixed by Madam Speaker upon the request of the government.
Motion agreed to.
* * *