Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I understand that we were considering second reading stages of some bills. My expectation is that once we get through that list this afternoon, the House would move to consideration of the concurrence motion.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I was, I think, in the middle of expressing surprise at the co-operation of the government and teachers on this bill, because that certainly has not been the norm in the relationship. We have seen a minister who talks about real teachers and a Premier who has wanted to cut teachers' salaries by 25 percent. We have seen the decline of teacher input into curriculum and into other educational issues. We have seen a government which has ignored the advice of teachers offered over and over again on examinations and on special needs issues and particularly, more recently, on issues of technology.
Most importantly, in the minds of many teachers, of course, is Bill 72, which unilaterally intervened in collective bargaining and, in fact, took away the right to bargain collectively from the province's 12,000 teachers. So the relationship has, shall we say at the best, been a very uneasy one, and this is a government which seems to have set out to blame teachers, to attack teachers, to undervalue the contributions that teachers are making every day and under great duress, in some situations, to the education and the future of the children of this province.
At the moment, we have the minister and teachers considering the Scurfield report which although it makes some points of use I think also has a very unfortunate tendency to devalue further education, certainly playing into the kind of argument that the minister has often made about some mythical Albertan that she has heard of who has a business degree and yet teaches phys ed, and here is something which should not be rewarded. I am always interested to learn of the I assume equally mythical Albertan school division which cannot find a place in an entrepreneurial society for a teacher who has both a physical education and a business education degree, particularly as we increasingly see sport becoming as much of a business as it is physical education.
So, Madam Speaker, I could talk at great length about the other attacks that teachers have been under as a result of this government's policy, and it has now been 10 years. It has been a consistent and I believe quite deliberate policy of this government, and it is one that is counterproductive, undermines the education of children. One of the most important things that anyone will tell you is that you must have the teacher, the child, the school division and the government, the general public, pulling in the same direction on education, but this is a government which has sought I believe, quite deliberately for political purposes, to drive wedges between all of those partners in education. I do not think it has served them well, and I do not think it has served the people of Manitoba well.
So, Madam Speaker, I am interested to see the amendments to this Teachers' Society Act, and I welcome the co-operation that the government has been able to provide to the Teachers' Society. With that, we are prepared to pass this to committee and to listen to the presentations of the public.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, want to say a few words on Bill 26 before it goes to committee. As the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has pointed out, it is always encouraging when you actually see the government working with as opposed to working against, Madam Speaker. For good reason we do have Bill 26 before us and, in part, the Manitoba Teachers' Society in working with the government and being persistent in bringing forward what are relatively positive amendments.
From what I understand, Madam Speaker, the amendments in this bill were, in fact, requested from MTS to enhance the structure of the organization. Some of the changes that this bill will entail include allowing members at large to elect the society's president rather than delegates and the elimination of the president designate and past-president post. This is done in the hopes that the Teachers' Society will be more accountable to its members as well as enhancing the democratic process within the organization.
The Teachers' Society, also, Madam Speaker, seeks to create categories of memberships, namely a special category of membership for student teachers, as an example, who are currently associate members. There are also other housekeeping provisions that are within the bill. With those few words, we are prepared to see it go to committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 26, The Teachers' Society Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr Jennissen). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I am again glad to have the opportunity to put a few words on the record on Bill 34. This is a very short bill, and I think there are three significant purposes that it has. That is to, first of all, fix the term of office for all school trustees in Manitoba at four years, rather than the shorter provisions that have been in place. The anticipation is, and this includes the Division Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine, to have elections at the same time as the general municipal elections.
Madam Speaker, we have some concerns with that. We have expressed these in other bills in this Legislature before us this session which have also attempted to do that. Both The City of Winnipeg bill I believe has done that, and a municipal bill is also making that proposal, and our concerns are the same. They are consistent.
In the municipal bill, for example, my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) and my colleague the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) made some very good points on this. I do not want to reiterate everything they said but to say that we recognize this is the same principle and that we have similar kinds of objections.
My colleague for Swan River pointed out the difficulties in some school divisions in rural Manitoba in ensuring that there are elections, that there are people who are prepared to put their name forward. At two years or three years, as has been the norm, it was possible to find people who were in effect prepared to devote the hours, the time, the travel, and all of the difficulties that go with being a school trustee. They were prepared to do that for three years, but perhaps to find people to do it for four years is going to be increasingly difficult.
In rural Manitoba, I think one has to recognize that the remuneration for work as a school trustee is very small. It is quite different than say Winnipeg No. 1 or the larger school divisions in the city of Winnipeg or Brandon. It is a very small remuneration. The duties are enormous. School trustees face their constituents every day of the year. They have to be available all of the time, and they are dealing with issues which are very close to people's lives. They are not going to be the issues which concerned them throughout their lives, but for five, 10, 15 years, those issues of education are the most intense and the ones that most concern parents. So the school trustees are often dealing with people at very high emotional levels. As a result of the continuous cutbacks and offloading of this government in education, they have of course faced tremendously difficult issues of taxation and of trying to fund a school system, particularly in areas of diminishing population and at times of increasing cost particularly in areas of textbooks and technology.
They want to ensure that their children have an equal access to education and to education resources as do children in the city and in other provinces, so it is a difficult job. It is not well remunerated. It requires, in some divisions, many hours spent away from one's family because the travel is extensive. As we know, if you move outside of southern Manitoba, the roads are often not the condition one would wish one's family to travel on for long periods of time and certainly not repeatedly. So, Madam Speaker, for those reasons that my colleagues have outlined we do have some very serious concerns about that. We expect that the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, which has consulted its membership on this, will also be making presentations at the committee.
* (1440)
The second area that we want to draw to the House's attention is that the bill establishes an enabling section that allows a common mill rate to be created through an amalgamated school division after a three-year transition period. There is certainly value in the minister considering this issue. We are disappointed that school amalgamation has not been pursued in a way that it has been in Saskatchewan. This government, of course, set out with a stick rather than with a carrot. Not surprisingly, people resisted the stick in Manitoba. They are very attached to their rural divisions, and there was very little encouragement given to them financially or even organizationally to begin the process of amalgamation that I think most people see over the long run as being very valuable.
Saskatchewan went with a carrot. It went with money. It went with persuasion. It went with a minister who started out going to rural Saskatchewan and talking to division after division. It took quite awhile, but it gave people confidence that the minister understood their position. After that the incentives were there. In fact, Saskatchewan has been able to reduce its school boards by about half.
Madam Speaker, this government went with a stick, the heavy-handed approach, the centralized authoritarian approach which has been so consistently the public face of this government, and they got the resistance one would have expected. They have now had to turn to the carrot. Things have been much slower. The divisions are quite understandably very suspicious of this government, very suspicious and very concerned that the amount of--I guess the size of the carrot is not very big and certainly does not meet the needs of some of the larger rural divisions which have enormous costs of transport.
So the establishment of a common mill rate, we see as something certainly the minister should be addressing, but we are concerned about what consultation will be done, where the highest rate will be used and who in fact other than the ministers will be involved in establishing such mill rates. We have some concerns about that that I believe also the Manitoba Association of School Trustees will be discussing.
Thirdly, Madam Speaker, this bill also provides for ministerial regulation of information contained in audit of supplementary reports to school boards. This continues a trend that we have seen in education legislation from this government over the past five or six years. It is a government which uses the language of decentralization but, in fact, in education matters, as in health matters, has established some very strong centralized controls. In some cases--I am speaking particularly in terms of the Minister of Education--there is I think a very authoritarian and centralizing tendency within so many aspects of the ministry. I believe also that the trustees have some concerns about that, the regulation of information contained in the audit of supplementary reports, and we look forward to some discussion from them on that.
So, Madam Speaker, we do at this stage want to draw the government's attention to those concerns, and we will look forward to the discussion at second reading on this.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, want to put a few words on the record before Bill 34 going into committee.
This is one of those bills that is taking some action like bills such as Bill 36 where we see an extension from three-year terms to four-year terms. On the surface, as I have indicated in the past, it is somewhat easy to say to the public that there are going to be fewer elections. I really have not heard any dissenting information saying that we should not be going to the four years per se, but I still do have some reservations with respect to it for numerous reasons, and some of those concerns I have expressed in other bills.
But I did want to highlight that as at the very least a concern. It would have been nice to have seen somewhat more debate on that particular issue, because the biggest difference, of course, Madam Speaker, is that, generally speaking, your school divisions are, in fact, to operate in an independent fashion. They do not have the same sort of party structures, whereas in the parliamentary system you have government being held more accountable through opposition parties.
I was interested in knowing what other municipalities, for example, do, three versus four years. I would equally be interested in knowing what other school divisions across the province do. The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) makes reference to reforms that are happening in Saskatchewan. It would be interesting to see whether or not they have gone to four years, three years, because I do not think that is a debate that has really occurred to get public feedback on. I trust and have some limited faith that, in fact, the government has done some work in that area.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I think one of the interesting changes in it was the idea of the landed immigrant being changed to permanent resident. I much prefer the wording of permanent resident as opposed to landed immigrant. That is just kind of a personal note.
The other thing that I really want to comment on, and the member for Wolseley had made reference to it, is the common mill rate. Well, Madam Speaker, I think the government has really dropped the ball on the whole issue of amalgamation of school divisions. I think that we could debate endlessly for the government, and the government has chosen to use its selective hearing on this particular issue and is not going to be taking any sort of tangible action to deal with the inequities that are created in the way in which we finance public education.
Madam Speaker, I really do believe that the government was right when it was in opposition when it argued for a higher percentage of financing of public education through general revenues. I believe the critic then was Clayton Manness who talked about increasing up to 80 percent through general revenues. Then you have the provincial levy, and then you have the local school board levy. The more you rely on the local school levy through the school divisions, the more you will find that inequities are, in fact, being created.
I understand why it is that they are doing the changes today for that common mill rate in order to help assist in facilitating some amalgamation, Madam Speaker, but I just do not really believe the government has addressed the whole issue in the way in which we finance public education. I think that is unfortunate, that it does not serve Manitobans well by doing that.
With those few words, Madam Speaker, we are quite prepared to see Bill 34 go into committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 43 (The Victims' Rights and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les droits des victimes et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, this legislation is comprised of two main parts, as we see it. The first part is with regard to recognizing certain rights of crime victims, and the second significant part of the bill has the effect of gutting our victim compensation scheme in Manitoba, a scheme that has developed since its establishment in 1970 by the Schreyer government. I will deal with each of the parts of the bill in turn.
It was back in June of 1996 that the New Democratic Party, at its annual convention, passed a resolution supporting new rights for victims of crime, including enhanced access to information relating to investigation, charging, and criminal proceedings; access to and opportunity to discuss plea bargains with the Crown responsible; opportunity to make a victim impact statement at the sentencing hearing; information relating to sentence, release, parole and probation and any conditions attached; enhanced recognition of restitution for victims; and increased confidentiality for vulnerable victims. The party supported enshrining new victims' rights in law.
* (1450)
Subsequently, we were informed by the assistant deputy minister of Justice that the government was then looking at the idea of some recognition of rights for victims, but he said that they were looking at more of a statement than a charter. Well, Madam Speaker, we then began developing this legislation, as directed by the convention, in consultation with victims in Manitoba and based on our experiences and after hearing the concerns of victims in this province.
Then this September in the Portage la Prairie by-election our Leader was able to announce that in this session we would be bringing in a victims' bill of rights to provide a comprehensive code of rights for crime victims which was enforceable. It was interesting that, although the Minister of Justice had earlier said that--and I quote--I am not really sure if it will become actual legislation--and that was referring to the government's ideas, he changed his mind after our announcement in September. So we certainly are pleased that the government has seen fit to follow our lead and pay attention to what we were doing and bring in this legislation, although I have something to say about the substance of that legislation.
I really should also note that the Winnipeg Free Press in an editorial on March 4, 1998, said: Manitoba New Democrats are well ahead of the Filmon government in thinking through the attention crime victims should receive from police, prosecutors and courts. Justice Minister Vic Toews is left to trot behind them, saying he long ago meant to do much the same thing. He went on to say that the victims' bill of rights and the discussion paper we released was thorough, detailed and rooted in the realities that Manitoba crime victims have encountered.
We produced, before we introduced the bill to this House, a document entitled Victim-Centred Justice for Manitobans, which we tabled a few weeks ago in the Legislature. Attached to a discussion paper there is discussion legislation, which we received a lot of feedback on, and we improved that discussion draft before introducing our bill of rights into the House. It was our hope, it was our intention, that this government would look at the substance of our victims' bill of rights, and we urge them to copy the provisions and the philosophy that is set out in that legislation. Over the last couple of decades, a victims' rights movement has developed not only in North America but elsewhere. Particularly in the United States, the victims' rights movement is very mature and has a real impact on legislative change to, in a real way, recognize the rights of crime victims and give them the place that they deserve in the justice system.
In Manitoba, we have a questionable record in dealing with victims under this government. I want to remind members that it was under New Democratic governments in this province that this province and victims in Manitoba received one of the first victim compensation schemes in the country. We received one of Canada's first child abuse victim support programs, the first provincial protocol for zero tolerance of spousal violence, Canada's first surcharge on criminals to fund victim services, Canada's first legislated Victims' Assistance Committee, Canada's first specialized victims' assistance, the Women's Advocacy Program, Canada's first enactment of victims' rights principles, and one of Canada's first pioneers of victim impact statements. Unfortunately, that development and that recognition by New Democratic governments of the rightful role of victims in the criminal justice system began to fall by the wayside, to the point where we are on a regular basis having to bring in cases to this legislature and to the attention of the government where the rights of victims have been trampled on.
I think one of the most telling signs of this government's disrespect for victims is the fact that when auto theft in this province increased by 246 percent in just four years, this government did not do anything of any significance to deal with this challenge of auto theft, but what it did do was penalize theft victims with a $500 deductible, regardless if the vehicle was in a locked garage or left running in the street. I think back to the last election campaign when the Premier himself announced that the government would put an extra quarter million dollars into victims' assistance by 1996. They broke that promise, Madam Speaker.
In case after case after case, we have seen problems with regard to the use of victim impact statements. This is still one of the few provinces, one of the last provinces in Canada, to have a victim impact statement program. We have seen problems of mismanagement of funds designated for victims, cuts to victims' assistance grants, lack of co-ordination, gaps in victim services, particularly outside of Winnipeg. We have seen problems with regard to plea bargains. We have seen problems with regard to the prosecution of offences and the lack of protocol and support so our prosecutors can pay attention to the needs of victims.
Madam Speaker, what we are hearing from one victim after another is that things must change and they must change quickly. It is our contention that we do not need just a step forward for victims, a leap forward is required, a revolution, if you will, of respect for victims of crime in this province. This bill does not meet that need. This bill falls far short of the standard set by our bill before this House and by the standard that, I believe, victims in Manitoba deserve and expect.
What was critical when we drafted our victims' rights bill was to ensure that the rights set out there were comprehensive, that victims would have information and to all aspects of the case that affects them. Second, it was critical that victims be given the enforceable right to participate in the prosecution of offences. That, in fact, was even recommended by the Prairie Research Associates report from December of 1996. It there specified that victim participation was important. We thought it was very important to protect victims from harm and, most importantly, that the rights set out in that act must be enforceable.
Now, how do you ensure effective enforcement, Madam Speaker? First, you have to say who is responsible for delivering on the rights that are set out in the legislation. A task, an objective, a duty has to be given to certain people; second, that task or duty has to be specific; third, there has to be a place that someone can go to when their rights are violated. In our legislation, we said there must be a crime victim investigator, someone who was specialized to deal with complaints of this matter, who understands the criminal justice system, knows who the actors are and can swiftly deal with complaints that are brought to the investigator's attention.
We also believe, and we concur with the Canadian resource centre for victims of crime, that there should be the right to go to the court to obtain redress when one's rights are violated. We also believe that job descriptions should be changed, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) directed to ensure sanctions and incentives so that officials in the justice system comply with their obligations to deliver on the rights set out in law.
* (1500)
Madam Speaker, what do we have in the legislation before us? It has been said by observers of victims' legislation that the most important right, the threshold right, is the right to know your rights. If you do not know your rights, how can you seek them; how can you request them; how can you enforce them?
This bill does not even make it mandatory for crime victims to be advised of their rights. We know how important it is for that information to be provided to domestic violence victims. It is important that all victims of crime be given that right and that it be made mandatory.
Madam Speaker, the legislation talks about victims' entitlement to rights. The words are, and I quote: "Victims are entitled to," and then there are rights that are described. We are concerned that without the mandatory phrasing found in the word "shall," and without a person designated to provide the information and provide the rights, the legislation will not be enforceable. Even if those conditions were met, who do victims complain to under this bill when their rights are violated? They go to the same department that broke their rights in the first place. They complain to the Department of Justice. What kind of remedy and complaint mechanism is that? It is not good enough. Not only must there be an independent complaint process, there must be an appearance of an impartial complaint mechanism.
On the issue of victim participation in the case, this bill really is pathetic. I think, for example, of all of those cases where victims have come forward to complain about plea bargains. It is not always the outcome of the plea bargain, but invariably it is the lack of information. It is the lack of understanding as to why the plea bargain was entered into. I hear of cases, for example, where victims were never told about a plea bargain until after the sentence had already been handed down. That is the worst kind of case. But, Madam Speaker, the government bill does not allow for a victim to give an opinion about the plea bargain that is proposed, give any information, nor is the victim entitled by an enforceable law to an explanation about the plea bargain.
Participation in prosecutions should involve input into bail when charges are stayed, about restitution and presentence reports, about a release from custody. Why not? I keep thinking of the Bauder case. If the victim and the victim's mother there, father, had even been contacted and asked questions by the prosecution, many of the shortcomings, and in the mother's own view, the outcome at the Court of Appeal would have been different. There was wrong information as a result of the lack of victim involvement. I remember the ombudsman for crime victims in Minnesota saying that victims' rights lead to stronger cases. If you involve the victim in the case affecting the victim, there will be better information, a more co-operative and comfortable witness. Everyone benefits. In particular, justice will benefit. The prosecution will more likely be successful.
This bill, Madam Speaker, does not even allow for an oral victim impact statement. I think of the Futch family and their desire, indeed their need, to be able to present an oral victim impact statement. We know sometimes those are accommodated, but it is the obligation of the provincial government, we believe, to do everything it can to ensure that oral victim impact statements can be presented, if a victim so chooses.
It was interesting to see in January 1998, the Canadian resource centre for victims of crime present a document entitled Balancing the Scales, which recommended item after item which this government has refused to put in this bill. I cite, for example, the recommendation that the rights of victims be enforceable; that all provinces remove no-cause-of-action clauses, allowing victims to sue the Crown if rights under legislation are violated; recommending that all provinces have a victims' ombudsman or advocate in place.
The report goes on and on, Madam Speaker. They talk about what kinds of powers a provincial victims' ombudsman should have, and then go on to deal with issues of victim compensation.
Well, Madam Speaker, this part of the bill is a sad disappointment, and we do not know if this bill is beyond repair. I think it may be because it is based on a philosophy different than our bill of rights. Whether the government will be open to amendment, I certainly am skeptical, given that we have already proposed and the government is aware of our legislation and had ample opportunity to adopt, in some way, the provisions that we have put forward for Manitobans.
It is interesting, I saw the minister's comments somewhere to the effect that he thought this bill of rights before the House was the strongest in Canada, if not North America, and I really thought what puffery that is. This bill pales in comparison to almost any victims' bill of rights or victims' rights law in the United States. I do not think we have to go further than the state of Minnesota to see legislation that is way beyond this legislation. Minnesota, of course, has coupled their legislation with the crime victims' ombudsman in an office to give support to the rights set out in the legislation.
Madam Speaker, this is not a time for puffery. It is a time for meaningful action, for respect for victims of crime. It is time to open the black box of the justice system to let victims in to participate, to recognize their natural rights, to recognize their needs. I think as well, and I will say, with regard to victim impact statements, as one example, it is not only a part of the healing process that victims be able to describe, whether in written form or orally, the reality of crime, the pain, the tragedy of crime, bring to that sterile environment of the court reality, but it is important that offenders know that a crime is not simply another score in a video game, that it is not another body count in a movie, that crime produces horrible effects. It can last for generations and destroy people and communities, and, as part of the offenders' process for changing behaviour, it is important that the reality be brought to the courtroom.
* (1510)
Now, Madam Speaker, I want to move on to the other part of the bill, the main part of the bill, and that is with regard to victim compensation. There are two issues here. The first one is that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), when introducing this bill, went on to talk about how this legislation will recognize the harm done to crime victims, went on to talk about what a great step forward this bill was for victims' rights. Yet at no time in his debate on second reading or in his press release did the minister admit that this legislation essentially guts the compensation that has been available to crime victims in Manitoba under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme. He did not have the courage. That, coming from a Minister of Justice, is shameful and only widens the credibility gap that he suffers.
It is interesting to hear the minister then go on to say: and I am surprised, he said, that the opposition is critical--because he alleges that while the opposition agreed to this kind of recommendation by Prairie Research Associates in their '96 report on victims, you know, Madam Speaker, this minister just digs himself deeper. Was there not an editorial to that effect? He digs himself deeper and deeper when he is in trouble. He got caught misleading this House and Manitobans as to what was in this bill, and then he had the nerve to say that the opposition was in favour of reductions to victim compensation. When that report on victims was leaked to us and we released it to the public, as this government did not have the nerve to do that, what did we say? We said the report points to the need for the government to rebuild the justice system around the needs of victims instead of the broken promises on victim assistance and cuts to victim compensation we have seen in recent years. We went on to say: we will continue to fight the constant cuts to victim compensation. That is what we said about that report. Hardly an endorsement of a recommendation to gut victim compensation. We told them to stop it.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, last session this government had moved on the report to look at victim compensation, took that one recommendation from Prairie Research Associates to take away victim compensation from anyone who was not employed on the day of the crime. And we opposed that legislation. Unlike the government, our actions and our words are the same. But we are beginning to expect that kind of puffery, that kind of fantasizing, as I said yesterday, from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) because when he cannot deal with the embarrassments that he faces, when he cannot deal with the credibility issues that he has created, he concocts, he makes up an argument.
Well, what is in this part of the bill, Madam Speaker? You have to get three pieces of legislation to work through this law and its effect: this law, the existing Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and The Workers Compensation Act. Because, of course, criminal injuries compensation in Manitoba is determined by reference to The Workers Compensation Act, which in legislation sets out detailed formuli and the duration of benefits payable. In fact, the appeal system is also under that act and under Workers Compensation. What we discovered was that important provisions in The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act are now missing, important provisions for compensation of those injured by crime. The surviving spouse's death benefit, that is, the lump sum, is taken out. Payment of retraining costs is gone as an explicit provision. Under the current legislation there is clear provision for maintaining a child born from a rape. That is gone. They went to the effort of taking it out.
They even are going to the extent of including a provision allowing for the new director in the Department of Justice now, not in some independent body, to review, confirm, discontinue, or vary an order made under The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. In other words, even if a crime victim appealed through all the levels of appeal under The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and succeeded and obtained an award, the director can rescind that. The time to apply for compensation is cut in half, and of course the independence of the administration and the independence of the appeal body is taken away or certainly threatened. One level of appeal is gone, and that is the review office.
As well, benefits that were enshrined and protected in law before are now going to be set out in regulation. They are to be lowered and lowered and lowered at the discretion of the government. The formula and duration of wage loss benefits will be at the discretion of the government. Today they are set out very clearly in The Workers Compensation Act. The formula for a dependant's monthly payments, the payment of rehabilitation costs, of counselling costs, the formula for compensation for permanent impairment, even the criminal offences that give rise to a claim will be set out in regulation now.
What is very disturbing, particularly given the recommendation from Prairie Research, is that it will be up to the discretion of the government to decide on the cap of any particular benefit and the total benefits payable, even funeral expenses, Madam Speaker.
So in this part, there is a step back. Of course, in the earlier part I described regarding victims' rights, I suppose victims will take what they can. There is a limited improvement over the existing scheme, but it falls short of what we hope and expect. We believe that when it comes to the changes this government is making in the way of victims, it is looking to Prairie Research to determine the policy direction of this government, but at the same time we believe that Prairie Research was given the clear direction to look at how Victim Services in Manitoba, including victims' compensation, can be changed, but I am sure they said to Prairie Research, make your recommendations expenditure neutral. Why else would Prairie Research say reduce your victim compensation benefits and spend the money somewhere else?
That is not a way to recognize need and deal with the needs of crime victims. I just want to, as a footnote, note for the government that Prairie Research Associates did have a comment on the $2,000 cap that this government brought in for counselling and therapy, which of course affects mostly sexual assault victims. The report said, "to set an arbitrary limit on counselling creates a system that has no sensitivity to the needs of the victim." Indeed, the gutting of the victims' compensation scheme follows a trend by this government. Not only did they cap counselling sessions, of course last year, as I said, they got rid of benefits for those who were not working on the particular day of the injury, even though they would have a loss of earning capacity, even if they were to start work tomorrow, if they were seasonally employed. Earlier they deindexed all the benefits.
* (1520)
Now we are seeing behind the rhetoric that it is a government that has rhetoric on a regular basis about enhancing victims' rights and services and giving victims the first place in the judicial system, I think were words to that effect in the last election campaign. No, Madam Speaker, behind the rhetoric is a government that is being stingy, that is in many ways cruel and is disregarding victims.
We are prepared to see this matter proceed to committee. We hope that the government has a tall pile of amendments to improve the legislation. We hope the government has a tall pile of amendments to continue to recognize victim compensation in Manitoba, but we will see. We look forward to hearing the input of Manitobans, particularly those who have suffered not only at the hands of an offender, but at the hands of a justice system that does not recognize the rightful place of victims.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to put a few words on the record on Bill 43. It is indeed a very important bill. I read with interest one of the daily newspapers that had an interesting article on Bill 43 which caused a great deal of concern. Unfortunately, we do not necessarily have the same sort of resources as others in terms of trying to get some of the details, but I did do some consulting with respect to the bill. One of the things--actually what I should indicate is--generally speaking, it would appear that the bill is actually a positive bill. I want to comment on what I would have said had this bill come before the committee yesterday. That would have been something to the effect that this is in fact a large bill consisting of many small steps towards the bigger goal protecting victims' rights. Some of these steps are necessary, like informing victims of the criminal status.
The bill sets out a list of general rights for victims in the criminal justice system. It also ensures that victims have the right to free legal counsel in order to protect personal information. Also, victims will be able to have restitution requested at the earliest possible date. Victims will also be informed about the status of proceedings against the person accused of a crime, including police investigations. Victims will also be entitled to participate in a Victims' Impact Program in order to provide senior or federal, if you like, lawmakers with an account of how crimes affect victims. Further, there are provisions to ensure that the victims, as I say, are aware of the status of offenders once they are in the correctional facilities or under supervision while in the community.
I was, as a whole, fairly pleased. In fact, when we were in committee during the Justice Estimates, I went somewhat outside of the norm. I talked about that there are many ministries within the government which cause me a great deal of concern for their lack of real action. In some cases where they do take actions, Madam Speaker, it is not towards the betterment. I cited, for example, health care where there are a number of actions that are being taken, and one has to question why those actions. It would appear in many cases that it strictly has to do with the dollar as opposed to the social value, or the complete, absolute lack of action. I made reference to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). I talked about the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and the ministers of Justice prior, and commented to the effect that the ministers of Justice prior to this particular minister, the current minister, were very lacklustre. I did not see, outside of the drinking and driving legislation which just needed a phenomenal number of amendments--and our Paul Edwards was the one who talked about many of those amendments that it was so in need of, and, eventually, the government did bring in those amendments.
But what I found was the previous ministers of Justice had a laissez-faire attitude in dealing with it. They might have talked tough, but their actions spoke otherwise. Then what I did say is I said that this particular minister, if one could criticize, there will be a number of areas in which he can be criticized, but, Madam Speaker, I would also acknowledge that the minister has likely been more bolder than his predecessors. There are a number of pieces of legislation, and how they actually work out, the jury will still be out, but there is legislation that is there that was not being acted upon previously, and I can be very critical of the government for taking so long in bringing in the types of legislation which we have before us today.
But having said that, I make reference to that there are a few bills. When I looked at this particular bill and then I read the one news article today, it raised a lot of concern because, yes, there are some very positive things that have a lot of value to what are being talked about and to what I was able to study in Bill 43, and it deserves the support of the Chamber. Then when I read the article, red flags started popping up all over the place. When we start talking about spousal death benefits, the elimination of retraining benefits for victims who cannot go back to work--you know, my brother has told me of experiences that he has had where he has had a gun put to his head for robbery; he has had a knife put to his throat because of a robbery. These are very dramatic things, and these types of things in many cases do need to be addressed, and I was very disappointed when I read the article. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) came by my chair, and I expressed the type of disappointment that I have.
What I found interesting, Madam Speaker--because I can recall the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) raised the question, I believe it was yesterday, on the victims' rights bill in which he posed the question, and I will actually quote from the member. He says, "My question to the minister is this: is the minister also proud that the bill eliminates for victims their death benefits, retraining allowances, the clear provision for maintenance of a child born of rape and a legislated formula for benefits?"
* (1530)
Well, I think it is a very good question and I would not question that, but I have been provided with some other information which I understand at least the caucus would have been aware of, and that was that, in fact, the NDP caucus did raise the issue internally within the department. Madam Speaker, within the department, from what I understand, this was, in fact, being taken into consideration. In fact, there was a memorandum for June 12, and in the memorandum it talks of a couple of civil servants who indicate that their office was advised that concerns that were raised were, in fact, being addressed under regulations currently being developed.
Now, there is a big difference between regulation and legislation, I will grant that, and there is no doubt about that, Madam Speaker, but when I read the article, my first response was I could not support a bill of that nature. This is not about victims' rights when you start taking away things of this nature. What was not necessarily talked about was that it was, in fact, being incorporated in regulation. I am not convinced that regulation is the best place for it. I think that the best place for it could and should possibly be in the legislation. I am interested in whether or not or what the arguments are for having it outside of the legislation. With the type of information that I would have been provided if I was in the same sort of situation as the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), I would then have raised the issue of why you are putting it into regulation as opposed to legislation, because then this way the message is quite different.
If you believe that it should be in the legislation, then one should articulate as to why it should be in legislation as opposed to regulation, but the impression that was definitely left was that it was not going to be there, not only in legislation, but also regulation. But that was not the impression that I was given, and I think that that could cause a great deal of concern.
Had I not, for example, further requested information from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) on this issue, I thought the Minister of Justice would have been very negligent. Had the Minister of Justice not made any reference to it being in regulation, I would not have voted in favour of the bill. I would have suggested that both opposition parties should vote against this bill, but because we see it in the format of the regulation--it was interesting, the minister makes reference that he would be open to possible amendments. My plea to the Minister of Justice is that if you are not going to bring in the amendments, to give the assurances that, in fact, we will see, that we do not have to worry about what the regulations might be in the future, but that if you are not going to bring in those amendments, you better give pretty darn good rationale as to why that has to be in the format of regulations.
But the general principle of the bill is something which overall is fairly positive. It would be nice if in fact something was incorporated to ensure within the legislation that there will be compensation. As I say, I do not have the same sort of resources that other members in the Chamber have, so I cannot tell you today if in fact that is the case, that somewhere within those clauses that assurances are there, but I will look to the Minister of Justice to question his departmental officials and find out whether or not that is in fact the case, and if it is not the case, then to explain why that would not be the case, because I believe, and I would then ask the minister what harm it is to not have it put in legislation. If you want to demonstrate that you are sincere in your actions, then what harm is caused by having it incorporated in some fashion in the legislation?
I look at the government and the assurances were given that it would be put in regulation. That was given back on June 12 to at least one member of the opposition, so what would have been a good action plan, I would suggest, is to not only raise the issue during second reading with respect to concerns of taking from legislation into regulation, but also then to take it into the committee stage, because in the committee stage, then you can have more of that dialogue with the minister to try to ensure that there is an excellent understanding of exactly what is happening.
I am not sure if I am going to actually be present for the committee hearing itself, but I will be asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to give me the assurances with respect to what the current legislation is saying about compensation, a government's obligation for compensation, and I would expect that the Minister of Justice, whether I am there or not, will address the issue of what is going to be in the regulation so that government can be held accountable for what sort of compensation packages are going to be there.
I thought, as I said in the past, that there are a number of pieces of legislation that are dealing with justice that are here today in which the principle of them is quite supportive, recognizing the importance of crime to all Manitobans. What I have found personally is that you will find some sectors of the public who will say, well, health care is the issue. You will find others that will say education is the issue or jobs is the issue. What I find breaks every socioeconomic demographic that is out there, and it is the only issue that has as much appeal, is the issue of crime.
The public, if you raise the issue, anyone is prepared, virtually, to talk about that issue, because it touches. What people want and what people expect is to feel comfortable in the home in which they live. They want to be able to feel relatively comfortable that if there is going to be some sort of action that is taken against them that there is going to be a consequence for that action, that in fact the victim is not going to be forgotten through this whole process.
As I say, I look at the issue of crime, and in the government's past 10 years, all in all I have seen a lot of talk about let us get tough on crime. I can recall giving speeches before talking about not only there is a need to be tough on crime, but there is more of a need to get tough on some of those causes of crime. It is because of that that it got me involved at the local level.
What I have seen, because in more recent years as more and more constituents want me to make this more of an issue inside the Legislature, is to follow it more closely and to address the types of legislation or initiatives that the government is taking. But a part of doing that, equally when I was the Health critic for the Liberal Party, when the government does do something positive or takes a step in the right direction, I think that there is nothing wrong with saying that the government is doing just that, equally where government is falling to the side.
The New Democrats have talked about their task force report that they have, and there are a number of different ideas. Well, nothing prevents them from continuing to lobby on those good ideas.
* (1540)
It is the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) that often says to me that no one owns a good idea, that if we, whether it is as a government backbencher or a member of the opposition, have a good idea, why not share it? It is not a question of taking credit for it. There are initiatives that the government has taken which have followed, in my opinion, as a direct result of pressure from opposition, both the New Democrats and the Liberals. You can rest assured I will be ensuring that my constituents and as many Manitobans as possible are aware that here are the types of ideas that we have brought forward and the government has adopted.
Well, Madam Speaker, a good example of that would have been the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), who has now put me in a little bit more of an awkward spot. He has seen the public's reaction to the mayor having two votes, and now I understand that has been amended and the mayor will not have two votes. Well, who takes credit for the idea or raising the issue with the Minister of Urban Affairs does not matter. The point is that it has been rectified. When I go to my constituents, I will indicate that I lobbied for that particular issue.
Now, the same applies to justice. When we talk about the victims' rights, I would like to think that if the government starts taking up on ideas--and a good example, if I find out that it is not legislated or there are no amendments that take out or there are no clauses that re-enforce the compensation for the victims, and as a result there are going to have to be amendments in order to take that into account, I will, at least in part, suggest that I lobbied for the government to do it--not taking full credit, knowing full well about the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and others. What we are hoping is that common sense will prevail. If common sense in this issue does not prevail, and if there are some amendments that can be made and should be made and the government does not make those amendments, I will criticize the minister for not making those amendments if in fact they are not rationalized. If he cannot demonstrate that there is a good reason why it is not in there, I will then criticize the government. I will tell my constituents in the next election that, if I am elected, I will guarantee, to the best of my abilities, to lobby to ensure that there are going to be victims' rights when it comes to issues such as compensation for the spouse of a murder victim. Those are the types of things that I think our electorate wants us to do as a whole.
That is the reason why, when I looked at the bill and if had I spoken to the bill yesterday, my speech would have been somewhat shorter in nature; but, because of the Question Period yesterday, because of the newspaper article, I am concerned in terms of why it is that we do not necessarily approach things in a different fashion in some circumstances. I think that this is one of them.
I am interested in knowing--and I say "some circumstances" only because I have seen information that--because I requested information that shows otherwise, that in fact there was going to be the compensation in the future for these victims. Had I not taken that specific action of trying to seek further clarification, then I would have been more inclined to suggest to individuals like the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and others that they vote against this particular bill because it would be going against what it is that the bill's title actually is. So I am glad that I had the opportunity to seek some clarification on it, but I do appeal to the minister to seek from within the department whether or not there are clauses within the act that do in essence give the guarantee of compensation for some of those victims, that virtually all Manitobans who would have subscribed to today's paper and have read it now would be of the opinion quite possibly that there will not be any sort of compensation for some victims, and that does cause some concern. The only reason why is because as MLAs we can only go by information that is provided to us. Had there not been any information provided to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), I would not be critical whatsoever of his comments with respect to what has been said and recorded.
With those few words, Madam Speaker, I look forward to seeing the bill go to committee, and again I would hope to get some sort of assurances from the Ministry of Justice with respect to that compensation component in particular. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 43, The Victims' Rights and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 46, The Correctional Services Act (Loi sur les services correctionnels), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), Bill 51, The Cooperatives and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les coopératives et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Is there leave to permit it to stand? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 53, The Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act (Loi sur l'apprentissage et la qualifcation professionnelle), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments to Bill 53, The Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act. I had the opportunity to talk with the members of our communities with respect to The Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act and to gain more insight into how this particular act is structured and to receive their advice and consultation with respect to this particular bill.
I must state at the beginning here that I was a product of the apprenticeship training program through my early years in the workforce and had received my apprenticeship training in the electrical field quite a number of years ago, and I will not say on the record how many years ago that is now. I must admit that it was a very good program in the way that it allowed young people and I believe still does allow many young people the opportunity to receive skills training while obtaining some form of income.
Many of the people that I worked with over my years in the four-year program that I was involved in, and at that time it had just switched from a five-year apprenticeship program down to a four-year apprenticeship program for the various trades, many of the people that I worked with at that day that were enrolled in the apprenticeship program were living on their own and of course had been employed in jobs that were paying them at a wage level which many of us at that time suspected we were not going to be content to remain at. We wanted to improve our opportunities for the future and saw that the only way we could do it was to achieve some higher level of training or education to allow us to move to a higher level of income.
* (1550)
In those days, of course, as we see much the same now, there are people that go from a certain level of income. In fact, in my particular case, as we see no doubt with apprentices these days, you take a cut in wages under the knowledge or understanding that after a period of time, and it is usually a year, that you would have an increase in your wages as you would progress through the various increments or stages of the apprenticeship training program. In our case we had six-month evaluations of our progress, and we had the opportunity to receive increases in our pay along with the passage of time and the ability to demonstrate that you had increased your proficiency with respect to your knowledge in that particular chosen trade.
At the same time, people who were enrolled in those areas had the opportunity to grow and expand their knowledge base. Of course, during our years in that Apprenticeship Program--and the employer was CN Rail in our particular plan--we had an in-house Apprenticeship Program that would allow us the opportunity to meet directly with our counsellors, our apprenticeship counsellors, who were in-plant or in-house employees themselves but had knowledge or had demonstrated proficiencies in the trades for which they were regulating or administering the Apprenticeship Program.
As a part of that Apprenticeship Program, we had two months every year which we spent at the Red River Community College receiving the formal part of our training program, and it would start off with the basic electrical knowledge for my particular trade and then would advance each year, tied more directly with the broad practical experience that we were gaining through the workplace involvement. So each year, we would have more difficult challenges placed before us with respect to our chosen trade.
So, overall, that particular program I think was a very great advantage for myself, and I know for my family, because it did provide me with the opportunity to have, as it does for so many of our people in this province who are enrolled in Apprenticeship Programs or have completed their apprenticeship training, it provides us with the opportunity to have greater knowledge and to gain a skill that is portable and at the same time gives us the opportunity to have increased income opportunities for ourselves and our families.
Madam Speaker, when the federal government withdrew from apprenticeship training or from training programs in general just a short period of time ago, we were disappointed that the federal government would take that action. It is our understanding that when they withdrew from that training involvement that they transferred a certain amount of monies to the provinces. I believe that Manitoba's share was to be spread out over three years, $47 million, I think, in each of the first two years, and I think it is $49 million in the third year, even though it is my understanding that transfer has now been sped up somewhat. I hope that some of the monies that would be transferred from the federal government would be attached to the speed-up of the transfer that would take place.
I had hoped that the federal government would have remained involved in the training programs in the sense that they would be the body that would bring all of the authorities of the provinces together to develop national standards, so that people receiving training perhaps in Manitoba and wanting to relocate with their particular chosen trade to another jurisdiction or province in our country would have the same level of training and have the same level of experience and also a demonstrated proficiency in their chosen trade.
I am not so certain that is going to be the case now, although there are certain trades in our country that are part of the Red Seal Program which will be a national certification, but with the expansion of the trades that are proposed in this province there may be many of those trades through the expanded number of trades that will not be part of the Red Seal Program, for which there will be no national certification, and therefore it may become more difficult to have a balance of demonstrated trade proficiency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It may be a problem that Manitoba and other provinces encounter in the future as people move back and forth across our country.
I know the government through the Department of Education and Training had recognized that when the federal government made their announcement to transfer the Apprenticeship Program to the provincial governments--I believe it was in the fall of 1997, November '97, when that was going to occur--that the provinces were given some short notice that transfer would occur.
It created quite a flurry of activity I know here in Manitoba and perhaps in other jurisdictions, as well, because I believe that we were not well placed or well prepared for that transfer and that the announcement was kind of sprung on us by the federal government without too much forethought. [interjection] Why would he do that in the middle of my speech? [interjection] In the middle of my speech you would do that. Is that the way you want to do it? [interjection] Courtesy? So you have no courtesy for my speech. So my time is not important and yours is. Madam Speaker, I am appalled that the government House leader would act in such a fashion and not recognize some common courtesy in this particular House. But, that aside, I hope he will come back and announce whatever pressing matters that he has that were so urgent at the time.
Madam Speaker, getting back to the bill at hand here, when the federal government transferred the responsibility to the provincial jurisdictions dealing with the apprenticeship and training programs, it caught the governments off guard in that this government then had to react by way of having a task force that was appointed. The task force reported some time ago, and it came back with 18 recommendations, some of which had merit, in my opinion, and there were others in that particular report that I felt that I could not support. In fact, one of the recommendations was dealing with a special operating agency, and I know the government has since rejected that recommendation. I, too, thought that it was not advisable to move in the area of special operating agencies dealing with apprenticeship training.
Madam Speaker, the government has made a commitment, so they say, that they are going to double the number of apprentices or the number of people employed or participating in apprenticeship programs over the course of the next three years and that they have invested another $3 million into apprenticeship training. Now I am not sure if that money that they are investing there are new dollars into the apprenticeship training program or it is part of the monies that are transferred from the federal government. Perhaps the numbers that they are talking to for increased enrollments in apprenticeship are a part of the numbers that would normally have been part of the federal training program itself as well. So we will have to wait as time progresses here to see how that pans out.
There are 51 designated trades in this province. At the current time it is my understanding that those numbers of trades are going to expand and that there will be some input that will take place on the part of the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Board that the minister will appoint, and that, as new trades training programs come on stream, of course, the numbers will increase. Currently enrollment, from my understanding, there are some 500 people that graduate a year from the apprenticeship training program and that there are some 3,000 or so people who are registered in apprenticeship training programs through the 1,500 employers that are part of that particular training.
Now part of the recommendations that came about as a result of Bill 53 indicate that apprentices will now have to pay for their textbooks, and there will be a tuition fee that will be set by the minister, I believe, through regulation. I believe that the number we are hearing is $200 annually for an apprentice to be enrolled in the program. Now, apprentices are somewhat different than we would consider people enrolled in university or colleges in that young people usually are the ones that are enrolled in university or colleges and quite often living at home with their parents and have access to resources. In other words, there is support from their parents while they are continuing to complete their education.
* (1600)
Apprentices quite often are different in the sense that they already have been in the workforce and have moved out from under their parents' roof and are self-sustaining. For them to enroll in an apprenticeship program, of course, they are going to have to take quite often in many cases a cut in pay to do that, which will affect their standard of living. Then to be asked to pay for their textbooks in addition to that and to have to pay for the tuition fee in addition to that can place a burden on individuals who may already be in low-pay situations. I am not sure how the minister proposes to address problems such as that, particularly where we have, and we want to encourage, involvement of First Nations people in training programs, particularly apprenticeship training programs, how that $200 tuition fee plus books will work out because it may be a discouragement from people enrolling in apprenticeship programs. That is not something we want to see occur.
I note in the article in today's newspaper that there was some concern about people who are employed in low-income jobs not having the ability to advance, and they get quite often stay in low-income jobs. Of course, it can affect them for the rest of their lives in that they will not be able to increase their quality or standard of living as a result of being trapped in those low-paying jobs. I would hope that with the announced expansion of the Apprenticeship Training Programs that we would want to encourage people to move into these particular higher skill areas of employment and that we would want to make some consideration available for people who are coming from these low-paying jobs or do not have the financial wherewithal to pay for the tuition fee or book costs, some consideration given to people in those areas.
It is my understanding that the average apprentice is in their mid-20s and that they no longer are resident in their parents' homes. Therefore, if you are living on your own and paying your own way or you are in a low-income job, the announcement about the tuition fee and books can be, in some cases, an onerous financial undertaking. Apprentices, as I have already stated, make sacrifices going into the apprenticeship program in that they start off at a lower wage knowing that the future would be brighter for them.
Some of the proposals in the bill that the minister has announced, and we have had a chance to talk with people who are affected by the changes in The Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act and the ATQ Board that is going to occur. The ATQ Board will establish policies and procedures for the Trades Advisory Committees. The Trades Advisory Committees, of course, will be comprised of people who will possess knowledge or experience of that particular trade or perhaps be an employer that would have those trades working for them.
It is interesting to note that in the appointment of the boards that the minister will appoint the 13 members of the new board, five from employers, five from employees, two persons representing the public interest, and the chairperson. What I cannot understand through this legislation, and perhaps the minister could clarify in committee, is how the chairperson is going to be chosen.
One would think that if the minister is moving to the ATQ Board that you would want to have the stakeholders, the employers, and employee reps that are going to be on that board, give them the ability to choose their own chairperson that would be mutually agreeable to the parties to allow them to be able to have some confidence that there is not some political involvement in this particular process of choosing the chairperson. So I leave that as a suggestion for the minister, knowing that the minister still has the ability to appoint two persons of the public interest to represent the government's intent on the ATQ Board.
In this legislation, it indicates that each member of the Trades Qualifications Board must be knowledgeable of the trades. If you have 51 trades and you are going to be expanding the number of trades in this province over a period of time, as has been announced, and we agree with that intended direction where it is warranted, how are you going to have that particular expertise of all of those trades contained within the members of the board, the 13-member board?
So we would hope that perhaps, in regulation, the minister would indicate that there would be some way to structure in the Trades Advisory Committees or some other form of body that would possess that knowledge would be able to provide that expertise and advice to the members of the Trades Qualifications Board.
In the limits of terms that the minister references in her bill, it is interesting to note and compare the appointments dealing with the ATQ Board versus the Trades Advisory Committee board in that the limits on terms, if you are on the main apprenticeship advisory board, you are allowed to run for two terms of three years each for a total of six years, and then you must leave the board, you can no longer be appointed or serve on the board for a period of time of three years, one term, but you are allowed to go back on the board, the apprenticeship advisory board, for a further term of two terms of three years each.
But the same rules do not apply for the Trades Advisory Committee that is structured. Once you have had your time on that Trades Advisory Committee that is permitted under this legislation, which is after serving six consecutive years, a member is no longer eligible to be appointed to a further term--so I take that to mean ever, that you can no longer be appointed. So I would hope that the minister would consider some explanation as to why on the ATQ Board you can serve two terms, off one and then back on, but the same rules do not apply for the Trades Advisory Committee.
It is my understanding that there is some difficulty now getting people to serve on the TACs and that under the current structure the Apprenticeship branch counsellors who are involved with regulating or administering those particular trades now seek out people to serve on TAC committees. Now, that may not be in the best interests of the public, as well, and perhaps the members who are representatives of those particular trades, the people from labour and the people from the employer representatives, would be the best ones to find members of the TAC to sit on the TAC body.
But that is not occurring at the current time, and I hope that that practice would change in the future, because it is, from my understanding and what I have been told, difficult to find people to serve on TAC bodies because if you are in rural Manitoba or northern Manitoba, you would have to travel some way to attend these meetings. Quite often you would have to give up not only the time away from your job, you would have loss of income in such situations. It would be more difficult to encourage people to travel to the larger centres, whether it be Brandon or Winnipeg or wherever, to attend the TAC meetings. It is not only the loss of income, but there is the travel and time factors that are involved, as well, which can discourage people from being on the TAC body. So we hope that the minister would give some consideration to wanting to have people with a commitment to remaining on TACs bringing that expertise to the body.
One of the other areas where there is some concern is with respect to the fees because it is my understanding that the Trades Advisory Committee has certain powers that will be given to them by the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualification Board, but it does not include the area of setting of fees. So I am not sure whether the TAC is going to be in a position to advise the ATQ Board with respect to fees for the chosen trades or professions, with respect to licensing or application fees, but perhaps the Trades Advisory Committees would be the ones with the closest day-to-day working relationship with people in those particular chosen trades.
One of the other problems that was identified, and I can draw it to the minister's attention, was dealing with people who would serve on Trades Advisory Committees because the Trades Advisory Committees, I believe, will be a creation of the ATQ Board and that under the current act that is in place now, under the proposed act here, Bill 53, there can be a problem that can occur, and I would like to describe it for the minister's benefit.
Under the old act, I believe that if you were a member of the TAC and had been on that body for a period of time and then for whatever reason moved out of the province of Manitoba, or you stopped working in that particular chosen trade, or you changed your status--you went into a new business or you moved into the management structure--you could then be removed in your capacity as a member of the Trades Advisory Committee.
* (1610)
Under the new legislation that is in place, we do not see any provisions in here that would allow for members of the TAC to be removed from the Trades Advisory Committees by reasons that I have just described, whether you have stopped working in the trade, you move out of the province or you get a promotion into the management structure, so there may be a problem dealing with quorum in the future if you have several members of a TAC, for example, that would have that occur and that therefore those particular bodies will not be able to hold their duly constituted meetings and conduct their powers or use their powers that would be given to them by the Trades Qualification Board. So I identify this for the minister's attention, that there is a need to look at whether or not there needs to be some mechanism put in place to deal with people who would make changes and no longer be available to the TAC body itself.
Dealing with the decisions, dealing with the appeals, it is my understanding, and I am not 100 percent certain on this and I would need some clarification from the minister, because the director under the legislation 17(5) indicates that a director may suspend or cancel an agreement, apprenticeship agreement.
It does not indicate on whose advice that decision may be made, whether it is the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Board or whether it is the TAC body itself and perhaps because this matter is subject to appeal and that the minister is empowered under this act, notice of appeal, the minister must within 30 days set up an appeal board to hold hearings on the decisions or make decisions on these matters, whether or not the director himself will be called in to provide evidence or testimony or whether it will be the Trades Qualifications Board or whether it will be the TAC itself that will be providing that advice to the appeal panel or whether or not there is only going to be one side of the information that would be heard. So there is some ambiguity in this act with respect to how that process is going to take place.
It is my understanding too that in this legislation that anyone that contravenes this act is subject to the provisions of the act, in other words a fine not more than $10,000. Although the old act provided for fines--I think it is between $100 and $500 and I think Alberta has $35,000 maximum fines--this new act is going to allow for up to $10,000 fines.
I take it then that if the minister does not appoint an appeal board within the 30 days, the minister or the government will be subject to those fines as well because there is nothing in here that says that the government is exempt from any provisions of this act if they contravene the act itself. So I hope that where appeals do come forward that they will be commenced within the required 30 days.
In the old act, of course, the minister was the final level of appeal. Under this new Bill 53, the appeal board that the minister appoints will be the final level of appeal. Conditions that can apply for appeals can be somewhat varied, but if there is not a continuation of an Apprenticeship Program or there is some breach of the terms under which the Apprenticeship Program is commenced, either by way of participation by the employee or perhaps those that are the employers under this act do not provide the necessary training or qualified tradespeople to provide the training, then of course the registry of that Apprenticeship Program can be terminated.
Another area that we have not seen any information or feedback on is correspondence, I believe, that has gone from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) on behalf of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) and the government dealing with apprentices that are enrolled in trades where you have to purchase your tools and you have, of course, travel costs that are associated. Now, it is my understanding that there are going to be some tax provision changes that are brought about to allow people that are enrolled in apprenticeship to claim the tuition fees, but with respect to the books, that is a provision that is held under Revenue Canada and that is something that has been applied for change.
I did not see anywhere in there whether or not there is going to be some taxation provision changes made to allow apprentices to claim tools or devices that may be required to allow them to perform their trade function. So I reference that for the minister's attention. Perhaps it may be already covered under The Income Tax Act for Manitoba, but we will attempt to ask the minister that question, because we want to make sure that those apprentices that have to buy tools, particularly where they are at a time at a lower level of income at the beginning of their apprenticeship, have the ability to claim those costs against their taxable income.
We want to make sure that we get people interested in the Apprenticeship Program. We do not want to put roadblocks in their way. We want to encourage as many people as possible to participate in the training and that by making these changes and opening doors for them we will encourage more people to be involved in apprenticeship and training.
Madam Speaker, I know there are perhaps other members of this Chamber that would like to comment on Bill 53, and I look forward to members of the public, those so choosing, to comment on Bill 53 when it goes to committee hearings. Thank you for the opportunity to add my comments.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, want to put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 53, an important bill. It should go to committee.
This bill is an attempt to strengthen the apprenticeship system in the province of Manitoba. It takes into account recommendations made by the Apprenticeship Task Force chaired by Mr. Vern Davis, which reported in 1997. In response to the shortage of skilled workers in Manitoba, this bill attempts to bolster the apprenticeship system through a number of means. The Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Board will be increased in size to 13 members and will play a role in steering the direction of the apprenticeship regulations. Because of the increase in size and responsibility, an appeal board will also be introduced.
I think that is a positive thing. Appeal boards provide the other alternative for individuals or groups that feel that they have been unjustifiably treated, and I much prefer them going before an appeal board, let us say, as opposed to having to go before the committee. So I think that is quite a positive change. Obviously, it is going to be introduced.
Trades Advisory Committees will be given a mandate to advise the board on issues related to apprenticeships in their respective fields. Again, that can be a fairly positive achievement in the sense that it is important that there are avenues or vehicles in which organizations will be able to get what is the reality of the situation from different perspectives. By having advisory committees being given the mandate to advise the board on issues, I think that will make the board itself a lot more functional, and I think that is a fairly strong positive.
Also, endorsements will be introduced to ensure that workers and industries are committed to keeping individuals' skills up to date in all sorts of different professions and trades. One has got to acknowledge the need for ongoing training. I know Mrs. Sharon Carstairs often talked about learning being a lifelong experience, and that is so true because, as technology and times change, there is a need to ensure that time is set aside for individuals to be able to maintain and update and hone their skills.
There is also a part of this bill to ensure basic standards are met by tradespeople. Again, I think that this is to meet, in part, expectations that are out there, and that is the reason why we have the standards and we ensure that those standards are, in fact, being followed. It also ensures certain quality of work that has been completed.
* (1620)
This is indeed somewhat of a noble step on the part of the government. Somewhat--I do not want to give it too much credit on this. But one must ask why it remains so lethargic when it comes to the funding of four apprentice and trades education programs. Manitoba cannot afford to be left behind. It is imperative that more programs be established to ensure that there is an adequate supply of skilled workers in this province.
There has been a shortage in many different areas that need to be addressed. I can recall a couple of years ago within the garment industry where there was, and still is today, a huge shortage of workers. When we have shortages, wherever it might be in different trades and so forth--and there are shortages today because of some of the construction that is going on, Madam Speaker--the overall, the provincial GNP, if you like, there is economic loss. There are social losses as a result. I do not think that a government can be aggressive enough to be able to address the demands that the economy puts on the province, and the province has a very significant role; not only does the province, I would ultimately argue even our national government.
That is why there was a great deal of concern when we talked about apprenticeship and the offloading of some responsibilities and this government agreeing in certain areas and us agreeing somewhat, Madam Speaker, in some of the things that were happening with the apprenticeship and labour offloading that was taken. But suffice to say, in general, Bill 53 is indeed a positive. It would be nice to see the government emphasize the importance of apprenticeship for the future of the province and in some form even to go abroad.
I can recall a conversation I had with a constituent, Madam Speaker, as an example, where she went to the local newspaper in order to get a carpenter, and because anyone can, in essence, advertise in a newspaper, there are no real qualifications, and that was being called into question. Obviously, this is a constituent who felt that they were somewhat burnt through the process. There is that saying that the consumer beware, but I think that there is a great deal of merit for government to be involved in many different areas of ensuring that we have adequately trained workforces serving a wide spectrum of the economy.
I think, in the most part, the government has not addressed that particular issue in terms of its financial requirements or obligations. I would think that even though Bill 53, as I have indicated, is somewhat of a positive step forward, we see more and more trades being developed. I believe it is just over 50 that have been identified, and we are looking at the expansion of things such as the trades board to that 13--the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) made reference to the need to possibly expand it to a larger number, given the number of trades that are out there, and there is some merit to that. But, wherever possible, Madam Speaker, what you want to ensure happens is that you want to ensure that the Apprenticeship Board does, in fact, have an infrastructure that is below it that allows it to better serve all of its members.
I have a very good family friend actually who works within the Apprenticeship Program, and on the odd occasion I do get the opportunity to sit down and listen to some of the concerns from his perspective. It is interesting because he brings a very good perspective in the sense--and I will not say who he is, Madam Speaker, because he is somewhat critical of the government's approach with respect to apprenticeship training.
If we take a look at the jobs that are out there, the jobs that are going unfilled, I think that it is most unfortunate that we have not been keeping with the times in ensuring that we are best utilizing the talents that Manitobans have to offer. I know in the last provincial election I was in Inkster Industrial Park and we had a couple tours. There was one company that worked with steel. They had a lathe that was vacant for a good while because they could not find someone that had the skills to be able to work the machinery that was necessary.
I can recall a tour that I had of a garment factory out on Inkster Boulevard. There, there was discussion in terms of what this individual was having a difficult time with was getting an individual that could operate this specific machine that made a certain piece of clothing and the upkeep of that machine. You could relatively easily train one part of it, but the actual upkeep in understanding of the equipment is what made it so very difficult. Both of these jobs, both of the examples that I give are fairly good, decent paying jobs. Because they are left vacant, it does have, as I say, a negative impact, because if you start talking about the micro scale and you apply it to the macro scale, the impact is quite dramatic.
Even though, as I say, Bill 53 is a positive bill, I would have liked to see the government being more aggressive on the whole concept of apprenticeship training in trying to equip other Manitobans with the skills necessary in order to achieve a proper place in the workforce, therefore contributing more positively in many cases to the province.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, to speak on Bill 53?
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. On House business, I would like to do this before the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) gets going, because I do not want to do to her what I attempted to do a little while ago to the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) who was not too pleased with me. I have offered my apology to that honourable member for creating a bit of a stir while he was trying to make his contribution to the debate.
Madam Speaker, there would be a will, I believe, to waive private members' hour today.
Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to waive private members' hour? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, in order to facilitate the business remaining before this House, and there is a significant amount of work going on right now with respect to a number of bills, I believe that it would be useful to get the work done to have the Standing Committee on Law Amendments meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 22, to consider bills, the consideration of which has not yet been completed in the committee on Friday of this week.
* (1630)
I can go through all the numbers, but certainly these bills need to be considered, need to be referred to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments: 2, 11, 26, 34, 43, and 53. In addition, we would be referring to this committee Bills 300, 301, 302, and 303.
If necessary, and with the leave of the House, I would also announce that the Law Amendments committee would sit at 3 p.m. on Monday while the House is sitting, that is why I need the leave, and that is Monday, June 22 at 3 p.m.
Also, if necessary, that committee could carry on on Monday, June 22, at 7:30 p.m., to work on the bills before it, including Bill 35 and all of the other bills that would have been the subject of presentations today and tomorrow.
Now, I think what you need to put to the House is whether leave would be granted to allow that committee should it be necessary to sit at 3 p.m. on Monday, June 22, while the House is also sitting.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. First, I will make the announcement that the Law Amendments committee on Monday, June 22, will sit at 10 a.m. to consider bills before it, which include 2, 11, 26, 34, 43, 53, 300, 301, 302, 303 and clause-by-clause consideration of Bills 8, 10, 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 45, 54, 55.
Now, is there leave to permit the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to sit concurrently with the House on Monday, June 22, at 3 p.m.? Leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Subsequently, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will continue to sit at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 22, to do clause-by-clause for Bill 35 and any other bills that are before it.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I want to speak for a few minutes on Bill 53, which is a bill under the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh). My colleague for Transcona has spoken at length and went in great detail about this bill, so I certainly do not want to repeat what he is saying.
I do want to point out that this government has faced what in itself has called a crisis in apprenticeship over the last eight or nine years. Madam Speaker, it was clear, I think, by the early 1990s that apprenticeship was reaching a critical situation in Manitoba, that the numbers of people in apprenticeship were declining, that the ages of apprenticeship were increasing, and that the number of trades into which apprentices were entering was decreasing. I remember I used to speak regularly in Estimates to then Minister of Education, the member for Fort Garry, when she was Minister of Education and Training, asking about the inclusion of training programs into cultural agreements and the necessity of ensuring that Education and Training be part of cultural industries.
I note that the government has not done that, although it has continued some of the cultural industries agreement, but the training element has not been there and so, not unnaturally, very easy to predict, we are actually facing a shortage in the film industry in Winnipeg at a time when it could have been expanded. The very clear example of British Columbia including 20 new trades in the film industry alone is a very interesting and important example to us. We could have adopted it some years ago, but we did not. So when the federal government--and I am surprised that the previous speaker did not speak about the federal withdrawal from apprenticeship; it would have been most appropriate to have heard his comments upon it.
When the federal Liberal government withdrew from apprenticeship most recently, it did so in a very hurried manner. It did so with very little advance notice to the provinces, and indeed, once it had begun the withdrawal, it then speeded it up. So the government here in Manitoba was faced with a crisis, and indeed, in Freedom of Information, I have just received documents of a presentation that was done to the business advisory council that this government has formed. There the assistant deputy minister, or the deputy minister rather, has presented information referring to the crisis in apprenticeship, and it was. I seemed to me that for a year and a half the provincial government was literally frozen. It did not know what to do.
Finally, it appointed a review committee, as other provinces had done before, and the review committee, of course, given the nature of this government, had no representatives in the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Why on earth should we have expected that the Tory government in Manitoba would have appointed to a review committee on labour management issues anybody from the Manitoba Federation of Labour, that which represents over 80,000 workers in the province? They did not, of course.
The review, however, did report. Some of its recommendations I am pleased that the government has accepted; some of them I am pleased that they have rejected. I think the proposal for a special operating agency at a much greater arm's-length distance from government we would have had some serious concerns about, but, fortunately, they rejected that.
There is some element in this bill, and I think it is one of the reasons it is receiving general support amongst the people that I have talked to, not support in every detail, but general support, is that it does lead in the direction of greater co-operation between business and industry and labour. That really has to be the heart of any Apprenticeship Program which works. We hope that the conditions which are being set in this bill will enable that to take place.
It is also important, I think, and I am not sure how this bill is going to be interpreted in that sense, but apprenticeship is a very old system and is one which depends upon the transfer of knowledge from journeyman to apprentice. It is one of the few areas in life where labour has control over education and the transfers of skills, and I think we want to make sure that that sense, in a modern context, is retained. So we are hopeful about the new system and the new principles that are being applied to the selection of the board or at least the appointment of the board. There does seem to be a greater opportunity for that kind of co-operation there.
We have some very serious concerns about the charging of tuition fees. Many of the apprentices in Manitoba are age 27 or older. This is also the case in some other provinces as well, but these are people with families, often people who are making a sacrifice in terms of wages already to enter into an apprenticeship system and for whom tuition fees of whatever size may simply not be possible. There are those, of course, who would not want to take on the student loans. I think we are now averaging in student loans in Manitoba $18,000 on average at graduation, and that is an enormous amount for anybody in post-secondary education to take on. That we should now actually be looking at as a baseline, because it is going to increase. That is where we are now and that is where we are now with people coming through the system who were there in the time of low fees, their first couple of years at relatively low fees. The rapid increases of the last couple of years are now beginning to show themselves and will increase those numbers, I think, to a considerable extent.
So tuition fees are a concern for us. These are older students. We do not know yet, although I understand the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) have written letters on this, how these will be applied in terms of a student tax credit, and we must remember that for apprentices as well, it is not just tuition fees, it is not just the price of books for which we look forward to some relief from the federal government, but it is also the question of tools. Tools are enormously expensive. Even in a trade such as barbering and hairdressing, where you would think that the tools, relatively small, portable, et cetera, would be affordable, in fact good scissors cost upward of $200 and $300 in some cases, and this adds, of course, to the tuition fees. So we have concerns about this.
* (1640)
That is a structural change, and an important one, and we also view this in the context of the withdrawal of the federal government, which has meant that the mobility of labour through national standards in apprenticeship is not as it might have been. Certainly the Red Seal Programs will be retained, and we certainly hope that is a long-term retention. You never know with the federal government and post-secondary education or indeed with the provincial government and post-secondary education, but in this case, there is certainly a lot of responsibility and blame that has to fall upon the federal government. So we would like to see some move by the board and by the trade Apprenticeship Boards, committees which are created under this bill that they exert pressure for an expansion of federal standards and that we do all that we can in Manitoba to expand the mobility of labour through national standards and national skills.
We notice, and my colleague from Transcona has already spoken on this, that the appeal mechanism is changed. We will have some questions for the minister about that at committee, and we notice particularly that the regulations are not to be made by the minister and hence passed thought cabinet and published. They are to be made by the board for the most part, not entirely, but the majority of them, and in very crucial areas on licensing will be made by this board. What this means, of course, is they will not be as easily available to the public. They will be subject to perhaps easier changes than they would be if they had to go to cabinet, but the absence of a readily available public account of that, I think, is quite significant.
It is an area that the government has been moving into in many other bills. It is one where we register our objection. We think that this is a diminution of democratic principles and we think that public accountability, the public record, has to be important here, and we will be reiterating that to the government at committee time.
I notice, finally, one other area of responsibility that has been allocated to this board is to advise the minister on skills required in Manitoba. That seems to me an enormous responsibility. It is one of course we have been raising questions about in the Legislature in the last week. We went back to the Mauro report, we looked at the Roblin report, we looked at all the opportunities the government has been given to create advisory bodies to advise them on the match between post-secondary education and training and the skills that would be required in Manitoba. Mr. Mauro, very early in the 1990s, gave the government some very specific recommendations on this. They ignored them.
The next few years were taken up with ministers dancing around the federal Labour Force Development Board. Over and over again I asked minister after minister about that issue. Where were the labour development boards for Manitoba, the ones that would have brought together labour and business and industry and education? Manitoba went to meeting after meeting and never ever formed a labour force development board in Manitoba. So now, as part of the responsibilities of this board, they are to be given an enormous responsibility, and it is my impression, Madam Speaker, that they do not have the staff to do that and it certainly is something which we will be asking the minister about at the committee.
We will want to know whether this will take the form of an annual report, whether it will be a report every other year, what it will be based upon, where the research is going to come from this and how the minister will be making this advice public.
It is an enormous responsibility. It is certainly one that is much demanded by Manitoba. The government should have been addressing it over 10 years. Now, after 10 years in office and when employers in Manitoba are reporting skill shortages, the government slides it into a bill which essentially deals with apprenticeship and adds it as an additional responsibility to a board which already has very large responsibilities in an area of post-secondary education.
So Madam Speaker, we are prepared to pass this bill to committee. I know that there is general support for the general direction that this legislation is going in. There are areas of serious concern for a number of specific areas. It may be that we should be looking at some amendments to this bill in committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 53, The Apprenticeship and Trades Qualifications Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Monday, June 22, be amended as follows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), and the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura).
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Acting Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.