ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call for second reading Bills 20, 40, 44 and 48.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 20--The Highway Traffic Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 20, The Highway Traffic Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route--modifications diverses), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have a chance to make a few brief comments on Bill 20, which will deal with miscellaneous amendments to The Highway Traffic Act regarding emergency lighting, traffic control, general penalties and mandatory suspensions. These amendments come about after recommendations of proposals that have come from the Manitoba Association of Fire Chiefs and the Fire Commissioner's office effectively to modernize The Highway Traffic Act to reflect in many cases what is modern technology and what is currently going on today.
There is a variety of amendments contained in this bill. I will just refer briefly to the different areas. The first area will be emergency vehicles. They include the provision of The Highway Traffic Act relating to the definitions of an emergency vehicle. In other words, the definition will be broadened or modernized and the lighting required on such emergency vehicles and the privileges and responsibilities of a driver operating an emergency vehicle.
* (1440)
In all cases, these elements of The Highway Traffic Act have been clarified for the public. The new provisions do not oppose new requirements on emergency vehicles but formally recognize newer types of vehicles and vehicle lighting.
In the area of traffic control, several amendments have been made to the provisions regarding traffic control devices in order to recognize recent innovations in traffic control such as transit priority signals and left turn signal assemblies which are currently in use, particularly in the city of Winnipeg.
Two further amendments enhance the responsibilities of a traffic authority, meaning generally a local government, and will simplify their administration in two key areas. The first area is that of pedestrian corridors. Traffic authorities, again meaning local governments, will now have complete control over the placement of pedestrian corridors. The requirement for the Highway Traffic Board approval prior to installation has been removed. Madam Speaker, local governments like the city of Winnipeg, city of Brandon are responsible for these corridors and should have the final say in where they are located and when they are put in place.
Secondly, we are talking about temporary parking permits, the removal of the limitation on issuance of temporary parking permits to residents. The Highway Traffic Act currently permits a traffic authority, in other words a local government, to issue parking permits to residents of an area but not to a person who may be visiting a resident, so common sense tells me that the proposed amendment will serve the public well which will give full discretionary authority over the issuance of parking permits to the traffic authority which is consistent with a general responsibility over the parking of vehicles in their jurisdiction.
A third issue dealt with under this bill is an increase in the permitted maximum fine under the general penalty provision. The current $100 maximum fine was set over 10 years ago and is out of touch with current values. We are increasing the fine to $500, in other words, a maximum fine, which is consistent with the general penalty provision under The Summary Convictions Act.
The last area of amendment dealt with in the bill is one that my department is introducing on behalf of the Department of Justice. We are adding two new criminal code offences related to auto theft and auto vandalism to the section which provides for mandatory licence suspension upon conviction. My learned colleagues will recall that The Highway Traffic Act was amended in 1994 to introduce mandatory suspensions for various auto theft and auto vandalism offences. That is the extent of the amendments dealt with under this bill. They are generally modernizing what is going on and bringing us up to speed with what is currently available in the way of technology. I look forward to discussing this bill in greater detail with my colleagues at the committee stage. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 40--The Pension Benefits Amendment Act
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 40, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Toews: I am pleased, Madam Speaker, to introduce Bill 40 which proposes to amend The Pension Benefits Act.
The main purpose of the amendment is to give the Minister responsible for The Pension Benefits Act legislative authority to enter into agreements with the federal and provincial governments which will simplify and streamline the regulation of pension plans for employers operating in more than one jurisdiction. Presently, Canadian employers operating in more than one jurisdiction are required to administer their plans in accordance with up to 11 separate pieces of pension legislation. While the laws are substantially similar, sufficient differences exist to make the process expensive, time-consuming and cumbersome to administer.
In 1994, representatives of pension commissions from across Canada, including those from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Ontario, proposed to their respective governments an agreement whereby pension plan sponsors would be required to administer their plans in accordance with only a single set of legislative requirements.
Under the proposed arrangement, the pension plan would be subject only to rules of the jurisdiction in which the largest number of plan members are employed. Such an arrangement would significantly simplify plan administration and reduce cost to employees and for employers who sponsor pension plans. As the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) can testify, this is a concern of some of his constituents who came to see me with him, and I trust that this will go some of the way to alleviate the concerns he raised.
The importance of removing unnecessary impediments to operation and expansion of private pension plans cannot be underestimated. For some time now, employers have been pointing to the rising costs of compliance as a major reason why the number of employer-sponsored pension plans has been in decline in every jurisdiction of the country.
As the ultimate beneficiaries of pension plans are working Manitobans seeking to enjoy a financially secure retirement, the government of Manitoba recognizes the value of reducing unnecessary regulatory overlap and duplication. Success in achieving this goal will allow this government to create an environment in which employers are encouraged, rather than discouraged, to offer pension plans to their employees. It is important to note that the multilateral agreement being considered provides that matters relating to the division of pension benefits on marriage breakdown and the garnishment of pensions for the purpose of maintenance enforcement are to remain under Manitoba law.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that, in our view, action to promote the expansion and establishment of employer-sponsored pension plans is long overdue. This amendment represents a significant step in that direction, and I commend it to this Assembly for approval. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 44--The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 44, 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 referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill 44, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
The bill contains the following: The repeal of a transitional provision on the city's administrative organization; new legislation to permit Winnipeg City Council to pass district improvement by-laws to charge a district improvement levy for the purpose of undertaking local improvements within a designated area of the city; elimination of the requirement that the city maintain a civic charities bureau to approve applications to solicit funds for charitable purposes; clarification that Plan Winnipeg must be reviewed and readopted within five years from the date of third reading of the Plan Winnipeg by-law; streamlining the planning process by eliminating the requirement that the city's Executive Policy Committee conduct public consultations prior to first reading on a potential Plan Winnipeg amendment; and clarification that the Public Utilities Board is not mandated to review City of Winnipeg rates for services it provides.
* (1450)
Let me explain a little more of these details.
Transitional provisions for the city's administration organization: Subsection 43(2) of The City of Winnipeg Act contains a transitional provision which can now be repealed because the Winnipeg City Council adopted its administrative organization by-laws on February 22, 1995. Prior to adopting its administrative by-law, council was functioning on a transitional basis on former legislation in The City of Winnipeg Act which prescribed the city's administrative organization.
Local improvement districts: The proposed amendments would permit council to designate an area for the purpose of undertaking local improvements by charging landowners a district improvement levy. Either City Council or a petition to council from landowners can kick-start the process.
The next step would be for a district approval to be developed. The district proposal would identify the boundaries of the proposed local improvement district, each local improvement to be undertaken, the estimated cost of each local improvement and the estimated rate of the district levy which would be paid by property owners in the district.
A committee designated by council would hold a public hearing on a district proposal in order to give area residents an opportunity to review, discuss and ask questions about the district proposal. Based on the outcome of the public hearing and the recommendations of the committee of the council which conducted the public hearing, City Council may then give first reading to a district improvement by-law. If that happens, notice will be given to all property owners and they will have at least 30 days to object to the designation of their area for the purpose of undertaking district improvements and charging a district levy. Implementation of the district improvements will proceed unless owners having a total land area which is greater than 50 percent file an objection.
This new legislation was developed as a request of the City Council in order to respond to situations where several local improvements are needed in a given area of the city which would benefit an entire district and not just the property owners fronting on the capital improvement. The type of situation I am referring to here is one where the local improvements required are the extension of trunk services, waste water and land drainage, sewage, roads and boulevards, all of which would provide service for an entire district as opposed to an individual street.
Existing legislation on local improvements requires the city to establish an annual uniform rate for each type of local improvement, whether it is sewage, sidewalks or lane lighting, and that this rate is applied city wide on a front-foot basis. Levying local improvement charges on a front-foot basis in an area that requires major extension of services would be inequitable because it would mean that property owners who front on the street where an oversized water main is to be located would carry the entire cost of a local improvement which is intended to give residents within a given area access to water.
The district improvements legislation provides council with the flexibility to be able to deal with situations where an area of land basically lacks any servicing and landowners are prepared to cost-share all the costs required to service the area through a district levy.
The Civic Charities Bureau: City Council has requested that the legislation in The City of Winnipeg Act and The Charities Endorsement Act no longer require council to have the Charities Endorsement Bureau. Instead, council would like to have the authority to delegate to a staff person the approval of applications to solicit funds for charitable purposes. Presently, decisions on applications are made by a citizen board consisting of 12 persons.
This amendment would put the city on equal footing with other Manitoba municipalities. Under The Charities Endorsement Act, municipalities other than Winnipeg have the authority to appoint the person or body that will provide applications to solicit funds for charitable purposes. For example, Brandon, Portage la Prairie, Selkirk, the city clerk treasurer is designated authority by the local council to approve applications for fundraising activities.
The readoption of Plan Winnipeg: Minor wording changes have been proposed in this bill to state that the specific five-year review and readaptation of Plan Winnipeg must be undertaken five years from the date on which the previous Plan Winnipeg received third reading by council. The existing legislation states that Plan Winnipeg is to be readopted five years from June 30, 1992. Since Plan Winnipeg was, in fact, not readopted until 1993, the June 1992 date would see the plan reviewed and readopted sooner than the five years from the date it was passed.
Executive Policy Committee's consultations on Plan Winnipeg amendments: City Council has requested the elimination of the requirement that EPC hold consultations on a proposed Plan Winnipeg amendment prior to first reading. This requirement has raised the following issues, how broadly to consult, EPC's role in the consultation phase, confusion in the public's mind with respect to the distinction between a consultation meeting and a public hearing, and the approval process is more cumbersome than it needs to be.
Elimination of this provision in no way affects the requirement for a public hearing on Plan Winnipeg amendments. If council gives first reading to a Plan Winnipeg amendment, it is still required to hold a public hearing on the amendment.
Role of the Public Utilities Board with respect to the City of Winnipeg user fees: In February of 1994, a complaint was filed by community groups with the PUB regarding Winnipeg Transit fares and requesting the PUB to review the fares. In February of 1995, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Public Utilities Board has no role to play in reviewing transit fares. The Court of Appeal stated in its judgment that the legislation in The City of Winnipeg Act clearly gives the city the authority to set its rates for services provided, including transit fares.
The Public Utilities Board Act has remained unchanged since 1959, and newer legislation under The City of Winnipeg Act enacted in 1971 takes precedent. The amendment to The PUB Act included in this bill is intended to reflect the Appeal Court's judgment and to eliminate the conflict of law which presently exists.
I have described for members in the House the main features of Bill 44. Essentially, the bill provides opportunities for enhanced local government autonomy and accountability. In conclusion, I would recommend the bill to the honourable members of this Legislature for their consideration and adaptation. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 48--The University of Manitoba Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 48, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Université du Manitoba, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, I rise today to move second reading of The University of Manitoba Amendment Act, and I am pleased to offer for the benefit of members of the House a very brief explanation of this bill.
This amendment act consists of two critical components. The first component relates to the membership of the University of Manitoba Board of Governors. While appointing two student representatives to the board is common practice, currently under the terms of The University of Manitoba Act such student representation is not a requirement. It is not mandated, yet, given that students represent a key aspect of our educational system and directly contribute to the cost of their education through tuition fees and taxes, we feel that they deserve to have a greater voice in the university decision-making process. This amendment would, therefore, entrench in law the existing practice of appointing students to the board.
* (1500)
This amendment will also bring the University of Manitoba's Board of Governors in line with those of the University of Winnipeg and Brandon University. The regulations for both of these universities mandate the inclusion of student representation on their respective boards. Under the terms of this amendment, six of the 23 members of the University of Manitoba board must now be students. This increased student representation will be accomplished by requiring that three of the 12 members currently appointed to the board by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council be students, as well as giving the University of Manitoba students union the authority to appoint three members from amongst the student population. The seven appointments to the board will be accordingly changed from six to three.
The second component of The University of Manitoba Amendment Act addresses an increasingly important concern as expressed to us by the University of Manitoba. The University of Manitoba approached my department for assistance in establishing legislative grounds which would allow it to pursue age-related policies, including mandatory retirement, with its respected academic, managerial and professional staffs.
Under the terms of this amendment, the University of Manitoba may now enter into negotiations with its bargaining units over such issues as mandatory retirement at age 65 or older. For those staff not covered by a collective agreement, the University of Manitoba Board of Governors may by by-law impose a similar mandatory retirement requirement.
By allowing the University of Manitoba to negotiate such issues through the collective bargaining process, we believe that academic renewal and pursuit of excellence will be fostered. At the same time, such a step will also give the university a greater flexibility in responding to the increasingly difficult fiscal environment for post-secondary education, in particular, the effects of the drastic reduction in federal transfer payments.
I must point out that once these concerns were raised with us by the University of Manitoba, my department also consulted with the University of Winnipeg, Brandon University and St. Boniface College to see if they required similar legislative action. Those places indicated that action was not necessary at this time. My department has left the door open, however, for future discussions with these institutions on these issues if they so desire.
Madam Speaker, I believe this covers the key aspects of the bill. The University of Manitoba Amendment Act is but a small example of the steps my department is taking to, in the words of the Roblin commission, do things differently in our higher education system. Through the efforts of the interim transition committee and the recently announced subcommittee on tuition policy, we are forging ahead in our plans to make our post-secondary education system second to none in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. The citizens of Manitoba expect and deserve nothing less.
My department and I look forward to continuing work with the many stakeholders in higher education, students, educators, administrations and taxpayers, in achieving this goal. I look forward to the increased student representation, the mandated student representation, on the University of Manitoba Board of Governors. I look forward to students having an ability as consumers of the system and as the people who pay for the services they receive, I look forward to their opportunity to have a substantial and meaningful say mandated for them on matters that concern them directly and greatly. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, in discussions amongst House leaders, I wonder if there is leave to sit in three sections of Committee of Supply for Wednesday afternoon.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to sit in three sections of Committee of Supply tomorrow, Wednesday afternoon? Agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: For Wednesday afternoon, then, in Committee of Supply, committee No. 1 in the House will be Finance; committee No. 2 in Room 255 will be Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Sport; committee No. 3 in Room 254 will be Highways. In the event that Highways completes its agenda, it will be followed by the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to amend these committees as posed by the honourable government House leader? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Is there leave to waive private members' time on Thursday morning?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to waive private members' hour on Thursday morning? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Is there leave on Thursday morning to meet in three sections of Committee of Supply?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave on Thursday morning then to sit in three sections of Committee of Supply? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Is there leave to sit in three sections of Committee of Supply on Thursday afternoon?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to sit in three sections of Committee of Supply on Thursday afternoon? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: I will announce the subject matter of the committees of Supply for Thursday morning and afternoon tomorrow. [interjection] Thursday at 9 a.m.
Madam Speaker: Thursday at 9 a.m.?
Mr. Ernst: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Also, is there leave to ensure that Friday rules apply on Thursday morning?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to ensure that Friday rules will apply on Thursday morning's sitting of the Committee of Supply? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) be appointed the Chair of the third Committee of Supply for Wednesday afternoon, Thursday morning and Thursday afternoon.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Ernst: I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Justice.