LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, March 2, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable
member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in
today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds
to deal with the crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good
citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with
the privileges and practices of the House.
Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in
today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds
to deal with the crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good
citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and
practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in
today's world; and
It is
the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs
like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds
to deal with the crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good
citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and
practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the
House to have the petition read?
To
the Legislature of
WHEREAS
the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a loss of property value and beauty to its
neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS
in 1990 the
WHEREAS
the City of
THEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it
the will of the House to have the petition
read?
To
the Legislature of
WHEREAS
the loss of elm trees to the Dutch elm disease is a loss of property value and beauty to its
neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS
in 1990 the
WHEREAS
the City of
THEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
*
(1335)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual
Report for 1990‑1991 of the
Mr.
Speaker: I am
also pleased to table the 1990 Annual Report
of the Ombudsman.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Constitutional Issues
All-Party Committee
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we welcome you back to our
Chamber here today and hope you are feeling
well. That is not intended to ingratiate
myself for longer preambles which I
know you will cut me off on immediately,
as you should.
I
have a question to the First Minister. The
parliamentary committee has reported
over the weekend on an extensive list of
proposals to deal with our Canadian federation, to deal with a great number of proposals dealing with
A
number of people have made comments on the proposals. A number
of people are making comments as we speak.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr.
Speaker, rather than each of us going off in our own caucuses tonight with our documents, I would
suggest that it would be better to
continue and build upon the consensus in this
province.
I
would ask whether the Premier would be prepared to reconstitute the all‑party committee
dealing with our Constitution, so that
the proposals that are before us and before
the country today, and I recognize they are only preliminary proposals, could be reviewed and commented
on by our all‑party committee, so
that again we can work with the strength of all parties on behalf of
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his
offer of support, assistance and
participation. I certainly would
acknowledge that I believe it is
important, for me as Premier and for us as a
government, to consult and to be able to in some way involve the opposition caucuses' views in this matter.
As
the Leader of the Opposition will know, I certainly have attempted as much as possible in expressing
my views and concerns about the
document that was tabled yesterday by the
Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee to reflect the concerns that were in the
I
would suggest to him that since he, like I, probably has not had time to go into all of the legal
wording, and I am sure the Leader of
the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has not as well, that this is a comprehensive document. One of things that is going to be important is that we recognize
it as a point along a process and that
the process will be extensive and will involve
opportunities for a great deal more participation by us as a government representing the views and
concerns of Manitobans.
I
would certainly encourage the two opposition caucuses to be reviewing this and to be, in effect, developing
their concerns and that some way we
will find a consultative mechanism that will
allow those views to be put into the mix as far as we are concerned.
When I go forward to the next meeting, when the Constitutional Affairs minister goes forward
on behalf of
*
(1340)
Mr.
Doer: Mr.
Speaker, again, I would offer up our support to review the document in an all‑party
way, because many of the recommendations
in the document we can comment on from our
all‑party report. There are
other points of departure where we have
never even discussed the proposals. I
think, again, rather than each of us
representing our caucuses, I think having all
parties around the same table dealing with the document on behalf of Manitobans would be a valuable and
continued contribution in our province.
Unity Committee Report
Legal Opinion Request
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question to the First Minister. He has indicated over the weekend his concern on the devolution of powers. I think that is again very consistent with Manitobans' opinions in the
public hearings, wanting a strong
national government, a strong federal government and not wanting to move many powers over to
the provinces. I think, intuitively, we all made the same
comments over the weekend on the
concepts that we had heard were contained in the report.
The Premier has indicated that his legal constitutional advisers are going through all parts of this
report to determine all of the
potential ramifications in a comprehensive way.
I
would ask the Premier: Would he agree to
provide that to the all‑party
committee if he agrees to constitute it, and
secondly, would he agree to make those opinions public in this Chamber and for all Manitobans, so again, we
can be working together on the
ramifications of these reports and the legal
opinions would be available to all Manitobans through this Chamber?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I
am not certain that we are going to
have everything in detailed legal form, but certainly the principles and the areas of concern that are
going to have to be addressed are ones
that I will state publicly. We have
nothing to hide when we have concerns
that have to be addressed in this constitutional
process. We want those concerns to be
known and understood, not only by
everybody in this Chamber, but also by the
public, so we will utilize as the basis of this the advice that we get.
I see
no reason why I would not share that advice with the opposition leaders or whichever
representatives we want to have to
ensure that all parties' views are brought together on this issue.
Mr.
Doer: It is
very difficult to know in this country what is
the next step. Is it the federal
government and cabinet making another
proposal? Are the First Ministers going
to be involved in it before another
proposal is made? The whole issue, as
the Premier said, is one step along the
way, but it is very difficult to know
what other steps are following from the federal government.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of
Constitutional Affairs have been very, very vague with Canadians on the process under which Canadians will
work with their Constitution. Certainly, in this House, process is very important because, as we know, we had a very
open process in this Chamber, something
that was condemned by the federal government
in the past and something that, I think, served Manitobans well.
Constitutional Issues
Referendum
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask another question to the Premier. The federal document contemplates a consultative referendum on
the constitutional proposal, either to
confirm the existence of a national consensus
or to facilitate the adoption of a required amending resolution.
I am
sure the Premier, his staff and his constitutional advisors have been reviewing this
issue. Is it the intent of the Premier to have the referendum if the
federal government calls one before the
all‑party committee will deal with any
constitutional proposal? Is the
timing going to be a potential referendum
first and then a proposal that comes back to this Chamber after that, or can the Premier shed
some light on the process as he sees
it, especially considering the vague recommendation
of the federal government to have a referendum
nationally and how that would fit with our processes in this Chamber in terms of timing?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I
must say to the Leader of the Opposition
that it is difficult to be definitive about this one. One does not know what the ultimate process
will lead to.
I
might say that I could not just blame the federal government for not having a process in mind
or having the process defined because I
know that they are getting conflicting advice
from other Premiers. I know that
some Premiers believe that we should
just simply set aside all the rest of it, get to the table and let the Premiers do what they did before
and try and strike compromises.
I,
for one, think that the process has to be a little more extensive than that. I think that there is a place for officials, legal and constitutional
officials, along with the ministers of
Constitutional Affairs to start just identifying the areas of conflict that clearly are
developing throughout the country, and
try and narrow down and focus in on what are the difficult compromises and those sorts of
things.
Having
said all that, the question on the referendum is one that again cannot be answered directly. The amending formula in the Constitution is going to require the
passage of resolutions in
Legislatures. This Legislature will
trigger its own process, the process
that our rules call for that involves public hearings and a minimum length of debate that we know
is set forward and a resolution in this
Chamber that ultimately will have to be voted
upon regardless of any kind of referendum, whether it be a provincial referendum separately or a
national referendum.
That
process would still have to take place in our
Legislature, in every other Legislature and the Parliament of
*
(1345)
Urban Hospital Council
Budget Reduction Proposal
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I
want to ask the minister on what basis he has asked the Urban Hospital Council to consider the
impact of a further $20‑million
cut to their base budgets for this coming fiscal year, and on what basis he has asked our two
major hospitals, the Health Sciences
Centre and the St. Boniface Hospital, to cut 250 beds between them.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, so pleased to see you back, Sir.
My
honourable friend again is attempting to‑‑how would I say this genteely?‑‑obfuscate the
issue‑‑is that the proper terminology?‑‑because
my honourable friend in referring to the
$19‑million, as she puts it, cut to the health care budget belies the fact that, in the last fiscal year, the
hospitals across the length and breadth
of this province received an increase in
funding, not a decrease as my honourable friend would have you, Sir, and those casual observers in the House
believe. That is not accurate, and my honourable friend knows
that is not accurate.
What
the $19 million involves, Mr. Speaker, is the difference between what the hospitals requested and
what we finally ended up budgeting for
them. That is the $19 million which left
every hospital in the
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Only this minister could ignore the difficult situation he has placed hospitals
in.
I
would like to know from this minister, given the $20‑million proposed cut to urban
hospitals and the 250‑bed reduction
to St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, what impact study has he done to determine the impact
that such budget reductions will have
on services being delivered through our
hospitals, considering the drastic‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, there used to be a member in this
House in the official opposition that used to say, there he goes again.
Well, I am not going to do that because the "he" is a "she", but there she goes again
talking about cutbacks when I have
explained to her that the hospital budgets were increased last year over the year previous.
My
honourable friend can wait with some small amount of patience until the budget and the tabling of
the Estimates to determine what will be
the relative financial position in next
year's hospital budget compared to last year's hospital budget, because I know my honourable friend would
demand my resignation. I cannot share
with her any more details around the budget for hospitals this year versus next.
Mr.
Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend that the Urban Hospital Council is considering a number of
issues, 40‑plus of them, which
involved some very fundamental issues on management of existing resources in the health care
system, a process my honourable friend
the New Democratic critic in Manitoba criticizes,
but her honourable friends the New Democrats in
*
(1350)
St. Boniface Hospital
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
I
would like to ask the minister, considering last year's budget reduction resulted in such drastic
proposals‑‑he considered
the closure of the St. Boniface School of Practical Nursing‑‑I would like to know if
the minister has accepted the fact that
this school has almost 100 percent success rate in terms of graduating, in terms of ensuring
that graduates find employment, and
will he now indicate he is prepared to keep the school open and ensure that LPNs are alive
and well as a health care profession in
the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, I am not certain I heard in
detail my honourable friend's preamble to the
question. I believe she alluded
that the school of licensed practical
nursing training in St. Boniface was closed.
I do not believe she is able to
say that, because I certainly have no such
request from the board of St. Boniface and I do not believe, as this question is being posed, that decision
has been made.
I
will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that issue has been discussed by St. Boniface and is one of the issues
that they are currently coming to grips
with.
Let
me tell you how government is attempting to deal with the very issue of the value of LPNs in the
nursing system. Because there is some concern over the training
capacity at St. Boniface,
Constitutional Issues
Multilateral Discussions
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
in listening to the Premier last evening, I thought I heard him say‑‑and he can
clarify if in fact he did not say, but I
thought he said that a representative of this government will attend the multilateral talks on the
Constitution.
Can
the Premier tell the House today why we are prepared to go to
such talks, since the
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is
important for us to begin looking at proposals that presumably are going to eventually be the basis upon
which the federal government will put
forth a constitutional amendment to the
country. I believe we ought to be
in there expressing our concerns about
those proposals and attempting to change them.
If
indeed, as I indicated last evening, a number of aspects of them are unacceptable to us, then it is
time for us to get to the table with
the other First Ministers, or with Constitutional Affairs ministers, and try and influence
change so that we do not get faced by
the federal government with a package that becomes a seamless web and one that may be
unacceptable in a variety of ways to
this Legislature.
When
the Prime Minister asked for us to have Constitutional Affairs ministers meet next week to begin
these discussions on the results of the
Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee report, I said yes to it, as I believe many other Premiers
across the country have, because I do
not think we can afford, just simply because Quebec is not going to be there, to stay away when
important decisions, judgments and
negotiations are taking place. I think
Manitobans expect no less.
*
(1355)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, I could not disagree more with the
Premier of the
Will
the Premier now reconsider and take a leadership role for all of
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, that is an interesting point of view.
I might say that I felt, when the Dobbie‑Beaudoin committee report was tabled, that there obviously were
three federal parties who were working
very, very hard to satisfy
I do
not think there is any question that, as long as the federal government is at that table, and it
would not matter whether it was all
three parties from Parliament, they would be
representing very strongly the interests of
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, we will agree to disagree on that
one.
Referendum
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): My final
question has to be asked to the Premier with respect to referendum.
The
Dobbie‑Beaudoin recommendation on referendum is not a referendum recognition at all. I want to quote: We recommend
that a federal law be enacted, if deemed appropriate by the Government of
Can
the Premier now agree to at least giving the people of the
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I
just want to refresh, for the understanding
of the Leader of the Liberal Party, she should know very, very well that this province has been
the leader in
Although
I do not throw out mechanisms for further public consultation, the reality is that, by the
amending formula in our Constitution,
votes in every Legislature in Parliament will still have to take place and the decisions still
have to take place there. By our own process, a vote in this
Legislature will have to take place
after further public consultation. In
all those areas, we have done
everything and more in order to ensure public
input to it.
If
the further taking of a poll, or whatever you want to call that consultation, will help, I have not
ruled out any of that. I do believe
that ultimately parliamentarians and legislators are elected to exercise judgment and make
decisions. None of that should in any way take away from our
necessity to do that. That is one of our prime, if not the prime,
responsibilities that brings us here.
Environmental Concerns
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Environment.
Dr.
Lockhart Gray, head of the province's ground water section, has said in reference to the
aquifer contamination near
Another
official from the minister's own department termed the contamination an environmental disaster,
yet we have a situation where Bristol
Aerospace is investigating itself and proposing
its own questionable solutions.
Given
the evidence that the contamination is spreading with reports that contaminated wells have been
found in the Selkirk constituency, will
the minister heed my request of last November
and that along with residents of the area and call now for an independent public inquiry into this
problem?
*
(1400)
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is indicating that
there are residents in his constituency
who have not been involved in the discussions or who feel that there is some information
lacking. Certainly, we have moved very quickly, as additional
information became available, to make
sure that we supplied potable water, that we
are exploring alternative sources, and that we are working directly with
Chemical Burning
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
The minister just seems to be content
to protect the images‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for Selkirk, kindly put your question, please.
Mr.
Dewar: Can
this minister tell the House why Bristol
Aerospace is being allowed to burn hazardous chemicals at its propellant plant in an uncontrolled
environment, given the possibility of
dangerous emissions passing into the surrounding atmosphere?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): This is a most difficult situation, where the material that
is being produced is classified as
explosive and cannot be easily transported,
unfortunately. The site where
The
unfortunate part about it is that, while the production of the material is being dramatically
reduced, we do not at this time have
viable alternatives, while at the same time, we are receiving advice that the potential problems
with it being stored in large volumes
may very well lead to a very dangerous situation.
We
are assessing all possibilities, but we are also discussing with the advisory group, and they
have concurred that we need to re‑examine
this option.
Mr.
Dewar: Is this
minister able to ensure that the health of
the residents of the area and the health of the employees will not be compromised during this burning
process?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, this is a process that has been used
for some 30 years at the site, and we are doing everything we can to make sure that, as I said, we explore all
possible options for dealing with
it. At the same time, I want to assure
the member and assure the residents of
the community that we are going to put
additional high volume samplers on site and in the area to make sure that we can determine if in fact
there is anything that could be
dangerous to the population. The burns
will be of a test nature until we have
satisfied ourselves that this is not causing
an unsatisfactory situation.
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Cutting Area ‑
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), have been to
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I was in attendance with community leaders of
It is
easy to say, of course, that if we had followed a different course, events may have allowed
for greater production or greater employment. I am here standing saying that would not have been the case.
Ms.
Wowchuk: There
are no jobs in Swan River‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member kindly put your question, please.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Since the
minister has been to
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Manness: My
first awareness of the meeting on the 14th comes from the member opposite, although I feel
that our visit on Friday was probably
the rationale for the calling of that meeting.
I asked the community at that time to try and bring their thinking as to whether or not they
wanted to be part of the Repap
restructuring. I am led to believe also,
Mr. Speaker, that as of today, as a
result of Repap being involved, there are 60 to 70 jobs that are in the
I am
wondering then who is going to resolve the dispute. There are 60 to 70 people being employed
today. There has been some loss of activity as a result of Abitibi
no longer buying out of that area. There are some other people in
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
again: What commitment is he
prepared to make to the people of
Mr.
Manness: Again,
there is a little bit of revisionist history being spoken here, Mr. Speaker. The reason that the wafer board plant did not go forward is because the
proponents of it wanted two‑thirds
of the funding to come from government.
Manfor told us that $250 million
were lost when government got involved in
the forest product industry. That
is what happened.
With
respect to whether the community of
*
(1410)
Health Care System
Cataract Surgery
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Health.
Almost
two years ago, we asked the minister to address the issue of the lengthy waiting period for eye
surgery. Today 2,600 Manitobans are waiting for eye surgery, and
the waiting period is anywhere from six
months to one year. While these
individuals are waiting, there are
private eye clinics who are charging $1,000
per patient as a facility fee. They are
coming up because this government has
failed to address a very serious problem.
Can
the minister explain why the waiting list is so long and why this government has not addressed this
very important issue?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I presume my honourable friend is deriving his
information from the February 25 letter
from the president of the MMA which in an
apolitical way, with carbon copies to both opposition critics, was pointing this issue out to me.
The
waiting list as surveyed by the MMA may be accurate because I believe it was obtained by their
internal survey of practitioners. However, my honourable friend, not that I am trying to diminish the waiting list, et
cetera, but even Dr. Ross indicates
that there may be a 25 percent overlap of patients on the waiting list, and they are unable to
determine that.
It
presents a problem in terms of using waiting lists to establish what might be the impression that
there is less service being done in a
given area of service delivery.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to share with my honourable friend, because I know he is deeply interested, that
since we came into government, the
number of cataract surgical procedures has
increased by 21 percent. That is
a service of just under 4,500 procedures
in the last full year that I have numbers for compared to just over 3,500 in '87‑88.
Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, we do have an aging population then. First it was hip surgery, knee surgery, now
it is eye surgery. Can the minister tell us today why he is appointing another committee to study the
problem of hip and knee surgery when on
January 14 he said that he will come to this
House and tell the people of
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when my honourable friend describes those issues as
simple problems, I presume he has a
simple solution that he would refer to the House.
My
honourable friend says absolutely, and I would like to ask my honourable friend if his simple solution
is simply asking government and the
taxpayers of
Cataract Surgery
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, one of the ways is to have the out‑patient expand its
surgery. Can the minister tell this House today if they would expand
the day surgical procedures so that at
least these 2,000 people who are on the
waiting list can get surgery done?
It is an economical issue. These
people are suffering, and the taxpayers are suffering because‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I know that my honourable friend sincerely wants to
seek solutions to this problem and
indeed so do we. That is why I take his
advice very seriously, because that is
exactly what we have done over the last
three years. That is why we were able,
since 1987‑88, when there were
some 3,500 cataract surgical procedures done in the
I
thank my honourable friend for his suggestion, and we will continue to work on it as we have for the
last three years.
Rent Regulations
Rollbacks
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to me
and to thousands of tenants in
What
is the policy of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs when a landlord submits expenses,
has a legitimate rent increase approved
and subsequently expenses go down? Do
tenants benefit from this by having
their rent rolled back?
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if this occurs in that year, they
may have that rollback occur. With all of these issues, it is all tenant initiated. The tenant brings forward the concern by application, and the response is made.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: I would
like to draw the attention of honourable
members to the gallery where we have with us this afternoon six visitors from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr.
Speaker: On
Wednesday, February 19, 1992, the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) raised a point of order which was taken under advisement by the Deputy
Speaker. The honourable member for Thompson alleged that the
honourable Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) had obtained the floor, had not indicated that he was rising on a point of
order, but that the Chair had assumed
that the minister had risen on a point of order and had made a ruling to that effect.
I
have reviewed Hansard, and it is very clear that the honourable minister did indicate he was
rising on a point of order, therefore,
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did not have a point of order.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable minister have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Leave? It is agreed.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr.
Speaker, the Assiniboine Memorial Curling
Club has an outstanding record for excellence in this province. Eight times in the last 14 years they have
produced the junior men's curling
champions.
Last
night, in Virden, this year's winning team from the
I am
pleased to enter commendations to the Assiniboine Memorial Curling Club into the record and to
wish the junior men's curling champions
all the best as they proceed to the nationals.
* *
*
Mr.
Speaker: Prior
to Orders of the Day, I would like to advise
the House that at five o'clock when we get to Private Members' Business, Resolution 4, I have not dealt
with this matter yet, and I will not
come down with a decision at that time, therefore we will be dealing with Resolution 5 at five
o'clock.
*
(1420)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
would you call second readings, Bill 48, to be followed by adjourned debate on second readings starting
at Bill 6.
SECOND
Bill 48‑The Personal Property Security Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Second
reading, Bill 48, The Personal Property
Security Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les suretes relatives
aux biens personnels.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 48, The Personal Property Security Amendment Act, be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mr.
McCrae: Mr.
Speaker, the amendments proposed to The Personal Property Security Act are needed to
eliminate the impact of a recent Court
of Appeal decision on the operations of
The
Court of Appeal ruled that a requested search should cover not only a person's actual name but
also variations of the name. However, this raises two types of problems
for the registry and potentially for
First,
the registry's computer system is not set up to produce the kinds of search certificates
required by the decision, and it is not
technologically possible to develop the
kind of system that would identify all possible variations of a given name.
Second,
the registry is exposed to compensation claims from parties who receive a registrar's
certificate showing only those registrations
against the individual name spelled out exactly as in the request for service with no
variations.
At
present the registry issues every year about 15,000 certificates concerning individual
debtors. The Personal Property Security Act provides for payment
of up to $25,000 compensation per
certificate to anyone who suffers loss or damage because they relied on a certificate that
was invalid through error or omission.
The
amendments add a new subsection to the act.
It will specify that an error in
the spelling of any part of a debtor's name,
set forth in a financing statement or document registered in the registry, invalidates and destroys
the effect of the registration unless a
judge believes the error has not actually
misled someone whose interests are affected by the registration.
Finally,
the amendments are retroactive. We have
been advised that if they are not made
in this form an increase in compensation
claims from the registry should be expected.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister
might answer questions on this particular amendment.
Mr.
McCrae: I
suppose, Mr. Speaker. It depends on the
question, but normally I take note of
comments made by honourable members at
second reading debate and prepare myself to answer questions at the committee stage. If it is something that I can easily answer, I would attempt to do so.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, it has been the practice, although never
enshrined in our rules, to allow
questions on second reading. The
minister might not be aware of that.
For a
time period, I believe, if memory serves me correct, leave was not required in recent years
because it has not specifically been in
the rules. We have been doing it by
leave.
I
believe the proper way, until this matter is resolved by the Rules committee, would be to ask leave
of the minister. I do believe it is fairly routine practice on
second reading.
Mr.
Speaker: The
minister has indicated that he would attempt to answer the question of the honourable
member.
* *
*
Mr.
Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, my question is relatively straight
forward. With respect to the
submission of the name on the financing
statement, will that include errors by the staff at the personal property registry or does that only
include errors, as I suspect, that
relate to the individuals who actually fill out the forms to submit to the personal property
registry?
Mr.
McCrae: I
believe, Mr. Speaker, the case that we are talking about in this matter relates to a mistake
made by a person filing a
document. I expect to have staff
available to me at the time we do
discuss this, and I can perhaps get informally, between now and the time of committee perhaps, for the
honourable member the precise answer to
that question.
Mr.
Chomiak: I thank
the minister for those comments.
I
move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate on the matter be adjourned.
Mr.
Speaker: It has
been moved by the honourable member for
Kildonan, seconded by the honourable member for Selkirk, that debate be adjourned. Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Order,
please. I would like to clarify, on the
point of order raised by the honourable
member for Thompson, he did not have a
point of order.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the bill standing in the name of the
prior speaker.
I
would like to comment on this bill at this time.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave for this matter to remain standing
in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan? Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr.
Speaker, I think that this is a deceptively
short bill in the sense that it has I think quite significant results. I appreciate the minister's comments which he
has just put on the record about the
difficulties the branch is having as a
result of the Court of Appeal decision.
Mr.
Speaker, I have the same concerns that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) had, that is I wonder
if this is an exoneration or if this
deals with both mistakes made by the registrant
himself or herself and the staff at the department themselves.
That is an important point because, of course, this section purports to invalidate any such
registration done with even the
slightest deviation which would mean that it was not the actual name of the debtor. It is not always easy to get the exact spellings, and it is an unfortunate
regular occurrence that people file in
the wrong names and that misleads any potential creditor who searches these goods and then,
of course, according to this would
invalidate the registration. It is a
concern, however, I think that the
proviso, that actual misleading, is still
the key and if actual misleading has occurred then the registration in fact remains valid.
Mr.
Speaker, with those comments I do not intend to object to this bill going forward to committee
stage. I simply indicate that I too share the concerns of the member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). I am concerned that this addition to The
Personal Property Security Act has been
done with full consultation with the
bar. The minister did not mention such
consultation, but I would hope that has
occurred.
I
will look forward at the committee to hearing from his staff as to what consultation with the
members of the legal profession has
occurred, what the response has been and whether or not they are supportive of this. I do not know that at this point.
I look forward to that information at the committee stage.
Mr.
Speaker: For
clarification purposes here, the matter had
already been adjourned by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Leave was needed to allow the honourable member for St. James, and I think I inadvertently said
leave to remain standing‑‑just
for clarification. I appreciate that
from the House.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 6‑The Denturists Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard), Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les denturologistes, standing in the name of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis). Stand?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave to have this matter remain standing
in the name of the honourable member for
An
Honourable Member:
Leave.
Mr.
Speaker:
Leave. That is agreed.
Mr.
Ashton: Mr.
Speaker, I just want to indicate the reason I
have asked for leave of the House to speak currently is that when the member for
An
Honourable Member: We
have spoken.
Mr.
Ashton: The
Liberals have spoken, so the bill will indeed be passing today.
It is
a very straightforward bill, Mr. Speaker, but in the true tradition of this House, as members of
the opposition, we have reviewed it
because sometimes there are straightforward
bills‑‑or at least those that appear on the surface to be straightforward‑‑that prove to
be quite complicated and controversial
for reflection and particularly upon consultation with groups involved.
*
(1430)
This
is fairly basic in terms of dealing with the composition of the disbarring committee in terms of
denturists, and as the bill itself
outlines, would change that and bring it more into line with other similar bodies, Mr.
Speaker. We could talk at quite some length, I am sure, about how this
fits in in terms of overall government
policy with regard to the dentistry profession,
denturists, dental assistants.
There
certainly has been a long history of that in this province going back to the Schreyer
government which brought in a child
dental care policy in this province, the movement on behalf of the then NDP government in terms of
establishing a role for paraprofessionals,
dental assistants in particular, the move of
the then provincial government of Sterling Lyon in the late '70s to essentially kill a lot of the progress in
that area‑‑many of the
people who trained for that found that they were no longer in a position to be able to do that‑‑the
move by the previous NDP government
under Howard Pawley to strengthen the child dental care program, and the unfortunate moves on
behalf of the current provincial
government in terms of restricting the role of that program which has provided excellent service
in rural and northern communities, in
particular, where there is not the same
kind of access to dental resources that we have in other areas.
This
was brought to my attention most recently by a
constituent, and I wanted to raise this because I think it shows the kinds of problems we run into in
assuming that we have a system of
adequate dental care.
When
this constituent of mine, Mr. Manaigre, had the unfortunate situation develop of a major
problem that began with a dental
matter, dental surgery, and later progressed to problems that infected his jaw, he had to pay for the
entire cost of going to Winnipeg,
including air fare, hotel, $652, and was unable to get any of that back from the Northern
Patient Transportation Program, which
even with the $50 user fee brought in by this
government, he had hoped to receive some type of assistance from the government.
The
bottom line, Mr. Speaker, once again was, here was a procedure that I believe is medical‑‑and
I will be taking up the specifics of
this case with the minister‑‑but which had dental complications in the initial stages, the
type of facility that is not available
in northern
Many
poor Manitobans, particularly the working poor, find themselves particularly in difficulty, Mr.
Speaker, often in a real dilemma
because if they are on social assistance, dental fees can be covered. I have talked to many a working Manitoban, not making a particularly exorbitant salary,
not covered by dental insurance, who
often asked the question whether they would
not be better off on income assistance, particularly when they have children.
As I
said, there is an excellent program in place, the child dental care program, although it is
unfortunate that the government,
instead of attempting to build on that, is essentially eroding it with the restriction
they brought in in terms of the
application, in terms of ages, because it is one thing that is particularly noticeable in
northern Manitoba, Mr. Speaker,
particularly in remote communities. It
has become an increasing problem in all
communities. The degree of junk food consumption is horrendous. I know of many communities of children as young as four and five years
old, the vast majority of their teeth
having gone rotten because of the consumption of highly sugared foods, and there is not that
kind of care available.
I am
raising this matter in the context of this bill because we want to see, I know in terms of the New
Democratic Party, continuation of the
types of policies established under the
Schreyer government. The bottom
line is we want to see more accessible
dental care. We want to maintain the
advances that have taken place. It is a combination of using professional
care in terms of dentists, but also
using the care of dental assistants and
denturists.
I
think this is, in many ways, parallel to the kind of developments that we are going to be seeing
in the health care area in the next
number of years in terms of the role of not only professionals, but paraprofessionals, Mr.
Speaker. I think it is interesting in a way that the situation in
terms of dental care in many ways
provides some lessons for medical care in
establishing a very clear role for paraprofessionals and also for preventative dental care as we have seen in
the child dental care program.
I
think it is important that when we pass any bill such as this, we reflect on that and also bring the
government to task for really
essentially putting us back in terms of the situation in terms of dental care in this province,
particularly in terms of child dental
care.
It
may not be a matter of concern to members of this Chamber personally.
Members of this Legislature have insurance for most dental costs. Many people who are fortunate enough to work
for major employers may have that kind
of insurance, although it obviously
does not cover all the costs. There are
many Manitobans who are in the position
of having no insurance whatsoever. In many ways, I think it parallels the
situation prior to medicare, Mr.
Speaker, when many Manitobans, many Canadians,
did not have medical insurance, the situation in the United States in terms of health care
currently, where 40 million people do
not have medical coverage.
It is
the same people who suffer. It is the
working poor in particular. It is people on low and modest incomes. It is for
them that we should be, I think seriously, when we look at health care reform and particularly preventative
health care reform, not just look at
traditional medical practice, but also in terms of dental care.
When
we are looking at the kinds of models that are
available, I look not only at
It is
very, very sad, Mr. Speaker, in this province, I believe, that we can have a medical system
that up until recent years certainly
was fairly universal, but a dental care system
that I believe is very much an arbitrary distinction from what is traditionally considered health care, which
has many, many major gaps.
This
individual I referenced earlier ran into that when he had to have surgery, but because it was
dental in terms of origin of the
original infection‑‑I could go into the details but I will take that up with the minister‑‑that
individual found that the costs were
not covered at all by the government in terms of transportation. He was fortunate enough to have dental
insurance for at least the procedure
itself.
It
shows the kinds of gaps that exist in society.
That is why while this bill is
fairly straightforward, it does deal with
denturists and the role of denturists, I think it is important to put it in the broader context, the
principle, I think, that this act and
other acts represent and a principle that has to be built on, and that is improving the access and the
quality of dental care in this
province.
With
those few words, I know our Health critic has a few more words to offer on this particular bill, and
then we will be passing it through to
committee, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave
has already been granted for this matter to
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns.
Now I would like to ask leave of the House to reverse their decision on that to allow the
honourable member for St. Johns to speak at this time.
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is
agreed.
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
*
(1440)
Based
on the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) comments on Bill 6 and the actual wording of the bill
before us, it would appear to be a
matter of routine business and of a housekeeping nature.
We will be assessing the bill at committee from that perspective.
It would appear to us that this bill does bring the denturists' association in line with other
bodies who have the ability to license
and discipline their own members.
Mr.
Speaker, it is certainly in all of our interests to pursue this matter further at committee
stage. I would, however, just like to make a few comments about the
broad area of dentistry since that is
the topic at hand and put three concerns
on record and make inquiries about government actions to respond to those three concerns.
The
first, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the state of the children's dental program. We all expressed concern on this side of the House last spring when news was
received that this government had moved
to cut back the children's dental program by
reducing the age for eligibility.
That cutback, that reduction in
service to children throughout rural and northern and remote
The
program was initiated to ensure that children who did not have regular access to good dental hygiene
and dentistry programs would have such
access. The program was intended to
ensure that problems pertaining to
children's teeth were identified at an early
stage to prevent much more costly investments at some point in the future hence representing a saving
for individual families and for
taxpayers as a whole.
(Mr. Ben
Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, we became very concerned when this government moved to reduce, to cut back this
program, to reduce the numbers of
children who would be eligible for service under the children's dental program. It is, in our view, a step backwards.
It is a move to be penny‑wise and pound‑foolish because certainly any savings now to the
government‑‑and they are small
savings‑‑will mean astronomical costs in the future for all of us.
So we feel it is in the best interests of the government of the day, however difficult the economic
realities are for it, to act
responsibly in the interests of future generations and not to be simply addressing matters from a very
pragmatic, practical, daily point of
view.
It
is, furthermore, Mr. Acting Speaker, a concern of us that this cutback of this past budget reflects a
sign, is a signal, of things to come,
of very worrisome things to come. There
is certainly speculation and concerns
coming out of the Department of Health
which give us reason to believe that this, in fact, was the first stage in a deliberate plan to
phase out the children's dental health
program. There are concerns about
filling staff vacancies in this branch
of the department. There are concerns about this government's intentions to follow
the footsteps of the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, as I have already said, we recognize these are difficult times, that changes to
our health care system are in order,
but it is our view that changes and cutbacks which get at the very heart of health prevention
and health promotion do not make sense
and should not be considered a part of health
care reform, and in fact, really do indicate that this government is really using the words, the title, the
rhetoric around health care reform to
disguise and camouflage its real intention, and that is straight health care cutbacks,
without worry, without concern, about
the full impact that such decisions will have on people today and on generations to come.
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I put that concern on record and attach to it a plea that this government not
cut back any further the children's
dental health program, and in fact ensure that the program as it is, remained intact and that
it rededicate itself to restoring the
program to its previous criteria and, when
possible, to move beyond that and consider expanding the children's dental health program to all
parts of the province of Manitoba.
The
second concern I have is with respect to the
long‑standing request before this government from the dental association.
The Manitoba Dental Association has been seeking for well over a year now changes to The
Dental Association Act which would
allow the Manitoba Dental Association to order
upgrading or remedial retraining for its members.
I
refer members of this Chamber to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of Tuesday, May 21, 1991, when
Dr. Michael Lasko of the Manitoba
Dental Association indicated that it had been asking for some time for the province to provide to
the association the power, and I quote
from this article: to abandon secret disciplinary trials and order incompetent
dentists back to school.
The
concern was raised at that time that the government was not moving expeditiously to make necessary
changes to The Dental Association Act,
and I believe that those concerns are still
outstanding. Given that the
minister has indicated that the Manitoba
Dental Association is co‑operating with the government, and with the denturists association in
supporting Bill 6, I would hope that
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and this
government gives us some indication soon about its intentions with respect to the long‑standing
request from the Manitoba Dental
Association.
Finally,
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have a concern to raise at this time during this debate on dentistry
with respect to the dental auxiliaries
of this province. Members of this House
will all be familiar with requests,
letters, calls and pleas from representatives
of the different dental auxiliary associations in
The
move to recognize dental auxiliaries is not uncommon in this
country. It has happened in other
jurisdictions. It has been commensurate, it has taken place in
line with health care reform throughout
this country because it recognizes a more
cost‑effective, more efficient approach to the provision of dental hygiene and work provided by dental
assistants.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, along with this legislation that we have before us today, we are anxious to receive a
progress report from the government,
from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), about this long‑standing request from the
dental auxiliaries. There is some concern on their part that this
government is not moving as quickly as
possible and has yet to give a sign, a signal when concrete action will be taken to address the
outstanding concerns of their members
and their associate members.
While
we support at this stage the general provisions of Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act, we are
concerned that this act is before us in
isolation of any other attempts and moves and
initiatives to redress some wrongdoings and some gaps in policy in other parts of the field of dentistry.
*
(1450)
We
would have hoped to have had at this point in our legislative session, at this point of the
government's term in office, a package
of legislation pertaining to denturists and
dentists and dental auxiliaries, because, in fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is much that needs to be done
in all of those areas.
We
hope that very shortly we will see a sign of such action being taken in these areas of outstanding
concern, and above all, we hope that
this government is prepared to rethink its reduction in service under the children's dental
health program, is prepared to put any
thoughts, any plans for a further cutback in
that program, or in fact, the cancellation of that program, on the shelf, on hold, out of sight, and, in
fact, move toward redressing
inequalities in this area and expanding a much needed service that provides cost savings and
better health for all in the long run.
On
that note, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am prepared to indicate that we, at least on this side of the House,
are prepared to see this bill proceed
to committee for further deliberations.
Thank you.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the second reading of Bill
6 (The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
denturologistes). Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members:
Agreed.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 9‑The Economic Innovation and Technology Council
Act
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Filmon, Bill 9, The Economic
Innovation and Technology Council Act (Loi sur le Conseil de
l'innovation economique et de la
technologie). The
honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid) still has 35 minutes.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to continue my remarks
about this Bill 9, and the impact it is
going to have on the
I
hope the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger), who is with us here today, will listen seriously to
those concerns and carry forward with
the recommendations that we made to the
federal Minister of Transport some week and a half ago, when we met with the two ministers in Ottawa.
At
that time, Mr. Acting Speaker, in meeting with the federal Minister of Transport, we put forward the
proposal of a partnership arrangement
that would see the stalemate broken that
is currently in place in the province of Manitoba today, where it would allow us to move forward with
revitalization of the bayline to the
Port of Churchill through the various communities along the way.
That includes communities such as The Pas, Wabowden, Pikwitonei, Thompson and others.
We
think that this revitalization of this rail line is very, very important to the
That
is why I had the opportunity to ask questions of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province, to
ask whether the Premier and his
government would be willing to take part in the sharing or the partnership arrangement that we had
proposed. The Premier unfortunately did not see fit at the time to
commit his government to that
partnership, and I am asking the Manitoba
Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) if his department would see fit to undertake a role in that
partnership. The partnership that we proposed to the federal Minister of
Transport was one that could take the
form of a four‑partner arrangement, and that four‑partner arrangement would include
the
CN
has been very reluctant to undertake any upgrading of that rail line to Churchill and through the
communities along the way because they
feel that there is not, in their words, sufficient revenue to support that revitalization of
that rail line, even though the
railways receive hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits from the grain subsidies that they
receive to transport grain over these
lines that are deemed grain dependent.
With that, I think that the
railways have a role to play in that, and
that is why I included them in the partnership arrangement.
Now
what I am asking of this Minister of Transport is to take a very small sum from his overall capital
expenditures that we see his department
expending in this province on a budgetary
year, and committing those funds toward the revitalization of that rail line.
There
was a report that was released by the province of Saskatchewan in August of 1991, and the
figure that was used in that report was
some $35 million that would be required to
upgrade that rail line to full main line status; in other words, to improve the roadbed that would allow that
rail line to carry the presently used standard
hopper cars in the grain system today.
If
you had taken that $35 million, which I must add is a figure that was proposed as well, taking
into consideration cost of living
increases over the time since the Manitoba IBI study was done, and they had similar
recommendations on the funding that it
would require, it comes nowhere close to the estimates that CN Rail has been saying over the years
and the $100 million that they figure
would be required to upgrade that line, so the
Manitoba IBI study and the SAL Engineering study for the province of Saskatchewan have recommended that
funding of $35 million would be
required to upgrade that rail line. If
you broke that $35 million down over
three years or four years and broke it down
over the four partners who would be involved or could be involved in this suggestion and this upgrading of the
rail line, you would see a very modest
investment by the province of Manitoba to the
sum of some $3 million per year over that three or four year period.
To my
way of thinking, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is a very modest investment for us to have in our own
province and for our own port in this
province. We want to see opportunities
in the North expanded. The government has talked from time to time,
and I know the Minister of Transport
here had talked about the reactivation
of the rocket range at Churchill.
All
members of this House know full well that without that rail line to Churchill, that rocket range is
not going to happen. We are not going to see any opportunities
develop there. That is why it is so important for us to make
an investment in our own province. That is why we have come forward with this recommendation to make this modest
investment in our province.
I ask
the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) if he will look at his budget for this year and
see if he can secure the funding from
his capital portion to invest in that rail line, and at the same time to initiate the process
of communicating with the federal
Minister of Transport to strike that partnership,
to sit down at the table and talk about how we are going to accomplish this task, not just
merely to let the status quo remain,
because if we sit like that, the Port of Churchill will die and will never make any steps
forward, and the north of our province
will suffer as a result. I ask the
minister to undertake that, initiate
those meetings, so that we can improve the
opportunities for northern Manitobans.
Bill
9 itself, there is quote I would like to pull from the news release which the government released
on November 8 of last year, where it
says, and I quote: "Now it is time
for government to put its energies and
priorities towards economic growth and development."
I
think that is a very important statement for the government to release, and I could not agree with that
more, but if we do not seize on the
opportunities, as I spoke about a moment ago, to invest in the north of our province, we are
never going to see those economic
growth and development opportunities in northern Manitoba.
That is why it is so important to take those steps today, to invest in those opportunities as
they come forward.
In
the same news release, November 8 last year, it also talked about important transportation
links. The transportation links do not just occur on the highways and
the rail lines and the airlines in the
southern portions of our province; they occur
all over the province. It is
incumbent upon this government to recognize
that fact and to make the investments where it is important to retain the delivery of services
to the portions of our province which
find themselves isolated, more importantly, as
well as to the other areas, not just to build the highways so that we can link our communities together by
a better structure of road systems.
The
northern part of our province is presently faced with an unemployment rate, I believe it is near 25
percent, and that is a very serious
position I am sure the working people in northern
*
(1500)
I
believe that if we undertake to invest this modest $3 million per year, we will secure job
opportunities for these peoples in our
northern part of our province. We will
secure the opportunity for the rocket
range in the community of Churchill. We
will improve the export of our grain products through the
In
talking with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism's (Mr. Stefanson) department, they have made
us aware of how this rocket range is going
to impact or could impact upon us in this
province economically and for the job opportunities. It is my
understanding, in talking with the various people in I, T and T and the mayors of The Pas and Churchill,
that this rocket range could employ
some 200 to 350 people, direct jobs opportunities for Churchill.
As a
result of those direct job opportunities, there are also the spin‑off opportunities, anywhere
between three and five to one, which
means that those 350 jobs potentially could create between 1,000 and 1,500 new job
opportunities. That would see a doubling of the employment opportunities in
Churchill. The current population I believe is somewhere
between 800 and 900 for that community,
down significantly from the 7,000 figure which
had been there some years past.
I
believe that is why it is important for us to take the steps to invest in that rail line, so that
we can create those 1,500 new jobs,
those jobs that are so hard to come by in the
northern part of our province, to reduce that 25 percent unemployment level in northern Manitoba, to
give people a sense of pride, give them
their sense of pride back. That is why I
ask this Minister of Transportation
(Mr. Driedger) to take those steps, to secure
those opportunities for Manitobans.
As
well, that rocket range will create job opportunities for us, I am sure, in communities like
The
government talks about the research and development in our province, how important it is and the
role which it plays in our
province. Had they been so seriously
concerned by that, Mr. Acting Speaker,
I believe they would not have cut back on the
grant assistance to the Manitoba Research Council.
This
new Economic Innovation and Technology Council I believe is window dressing, nothing more than that. You cannot strike this council and give it a modest budget as
they have with no long‑term
commitment‑‑I believe it is $10 million for one year‑‑and expect it to perform
the miracles that the government wants
it to perform.
I do
not see that there will be any lasting benefits come as a result of this Bill 9, or what it was
intended to create for our
province. Unless you make a long‑term
commitment and attach the necessary
funding to support that, we will not have that
long‑term commitment to research and development in our province.
To
get back to the grant assistance to the Manitoba Research Council, in 1990‑91, the government
had granted some $2,714,000 to the
Manitoba Research Council. That council
provides and maintains a technology
transfer infrastructure and related services
for
What
the government has done since that time, in the current budget which we are operating under, the
1991‑92 budget, is reduced that
grant assistance by some $700,000 to the Manitoba Research Council. Now if they were very serious about research and development in this province, they would
not have cut back that grant assistance
to this organization because we need to
have those opportunities made available through research and development to create the job opportunities
for us here in the
I
invite them, if they want to see the impact on what this means to the various communities, come out
to my community of Transcona, and I will
take you to one of the food banks. I
will let you talk to the people
there. I will let them relate to you how it impacts upon their families when they
had their jobs eliminated. They were laid off, their unemployment
insurance has run out, and they are
forced to go on welfare. They do not
want to be on welfare. They want to have job opportunities. I have
people calling my office nearly every day asking me if there are job opportunities available, if I can assist
them in some way. [interjection] I tell
them that if this government was serious
about creating economic opportunities they would have done it a long time ago, but they do not recognize the
57,000 who are unemployed. They have no long‑term commitment, no
strategy to deal with this situation as we find ourselves
in.
They
prefer instead to offload the responsibility onto the world economic situation and the high
interest policy created by the federal
government. I do not think that is the
right position to take. We have to seize the initiative in our own province, to make those opportunities for
our people in this province, not just
the Grow Bond opportunities that we see in the
communities in southern
Do
not just draw that imaginary borderline above
Roblin‑Russell there and say that the rest of the province does not count.
We need to take the steps to create the employment opportunities that these people so
desperately need. I do not see the government taking this action. We have hundreds and hundreds of families in my community that
desperately want to have jobs. They do not want to be on welfare.
We
had in this province profitable government agencies, and I talk particularly about the Manitoba Data
Services. The Manitoba Data Services, of course, had created some
high quality jobs for us in this
province. Then the government, in their
wisdom, took this agency and they sold
it.
That
business, on top of the job opportunities that were created, created wealth for us in this
province. We created revenue for us that we could have taken and
invested. The revenue that it had created for the
government was some $3 million per
year. That ties back to the figure that
I was talking about in my comments to
the Minister of Transportation (Mr.
Driedger) here.
If we
had had that $3 million from the Manitoba Data Services company, we would have been able to take
that $3 million and invest it on a yearly
basis over the next three or four years to
upgrade the rail infrastructure on the bayline to the northern parts of our province, yet we sold off that
opportunity and we no longer receive
the revenue for it.
That
was an opportunity that we could have had that would have allowed the northern part of our
province and northern Manitobans to
prosper, but we no longer have those revenues
available to us.
The
National Research Council building on
It is
unfortunate that the provincial government, in
conjunction with the federal government, has not undertaken to see that industry has filled this office
space to start with the research and
development that is so necessary to create those opportunities in this province. Of course, it is attempting to change the mandate of the building, to do
more primary research in the health
care field.
*
(1510)
We
all feel that health care is very important for us here in the province, and there is obviously going
to be ongoing long‑term research
and development opportunities that are going
to be needed. I do not believe
that will ever disappear.
We
need to do more than to just hang our hat onto one peg. If we put all our eggs into that one basket,
and that one basket suddenly has a
downturn, those opportunities in that basket have a downturn, the whole province will have a
downturn. If we diversify and spread those opportunities out
amongst other areas in our province,
then we would have created more opportunities in the
I do
not think the government has done enough activity in this area and I would like to see more
opportunities created. I hope that by this Bill 9, The Economic
Innovation and Technology Council Act,
that the government will seriously bring forward the research and development that we so
desperately need, and so seriously lack
in this province.
By
the same time, we have to have opportunities in our colleges, our universities and our high
schools to give our young people the
opportunity to become involved in this research and development.
If this government is not willing to make that investment in our young people, then we are
not going to see those opportunities
develop, and our young people are going to be
destined for a life of poverty because the job opportunities are not going to be there for them.
That
is why I hope the government is serious when they bring forward this Bill 9 and that they are going
to make more than the $10 million
investment into this fund, and that they will make it a long‑term ongoing structure that
will look into the research and
development needs for the province of Manitoba, and create those desperately needed economic
opportunities for Manitobans so that we
can reduce the 57,000 unemployed who we have in our province, and to improve the quality of life
for all people, so that we no longer
have to have the food banks in our communities
as we find them today where we have hundreds of families that make use of these food banks, to create
these new opportunities for these
people.
With
that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
We
have to look seriously at what we can do and I would be more than supportive of a government that
would show some leadership in these
areas, particularly in the area of creating
jobs, and something that would help our province, but in particular our rural communities, because
that is where I am from, and I am sure
that there are other members in this House
who realize the devastating things that are going on in the rural communities at the present time when we have
no job creation.
I
would like to relate this a little bit to my own constituency, this issue that hits very much
at home with the people in the area,
and it is something we mentioned earlier in
the day. That is the lack of
employment in the
When
the NDP was in power, they were working very closely with the Swan River community and a company
by the name of Penn‑Co group that
had an excellent proposal put in place that
would have created many jobs and a market for a lot of material, material that could have been sold, not
material that had a large amount of
chlorine bleach in it. There was a
market. If we look at the draft proposal, we are told that
markets had been identified in north,
central and western
All
it would have taken was a little bit of initiative on the government's part. They could have followed through with the Western Diversification funding that was in
place for the agreement. We could have had real jobs in the area
instead of having the deal we have now
that is hurting not only the Swan River
area, but the whole northern area when we have such uncertainty with a company that is not quite
sure where they are going. I hope the government can address this matter
and also address the needs of the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the other area that‑‑there are many people who are suffering, and the government
has not chosen to address them‑‑and
that is also the fishing community. The members of the fishing community have
petitioned this government many times
to ask them for assistance to improve markets, also to give them assistance with various problems
that they are having on the lake, but
instead, the government just sets those things
aside and has no idea of what level of poverty these people are living in.
They must show leadership to get some jobs into those areas.
As I
said, we have very high unemployment rates, very high numbers of people on welfare. There are people in my constituency who have come up with very good
ideas, particularly in the area of
tourism. They have proposals that would
take numbers of people off welfare and
invest the money in the community and
create jobs. I think that this is an
excellent idea and one that the
government should give very close consideration
to. I know that they have written to the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) on the matter, and
I hope he will follow through with his
commitment to look at it and hopefully develop some economic growth in that part of the province
to help those people, because as you
know, Mr. Acting Speaker, the majority of
people would rather be working than having to wait for a handout from the government in the form of welfare.
There
are times when people have no choice, but there are times also when government can step in and
deal with those issues. They must show the leadership and must be
prepared to invest in people. I do not believe, at the present time, that
we have a government that is prepared to do
that. They seem not to be too concerned when we have 54,000 people
unemployed in
Part
of the economic growth of this province is also in the farming community, and I hope that the
government will continue through with
some of the promises they made that would help the rural communities grow and have some
diversification on economic growth that
would be a spin‑off from the farming industry. We very
much need, in many parts of the province, to have gas distribution. I know the previous Minister of Rural
Development had indicated at the
municipal convention that he was prepared to
look at that and look at ways that we could get services brought to different parts of the province.
*
(1520)
The
I
know we have the Economic Development Board that the cabinet has put in place, and I have talked
to some people who are on that
board. I hope, as a person who is on the
board said to me, that this just is not
going to be another bunch of paper shuffling
and another report that is going to sit on a shelf. They are very much prepared to work with
government, to come forward with ideas
that will result in development in the North,
but I would hope that when people come forward with ideas that this government will take those ideas
seriously and not just put forward a
committee that is a figurehead, one that is going to shuffle paper and write another report that
is going to just sit on the shelf.
We
must have economical growth in all parts of
We
also have to have research for us to have development in the province. When I see that the government has cut back
the budget by approximately $700
million in the last budget, it disturbs
me that we, on one hand, could talk about economic growth and technological change and then cut
back on the research that is required
for a province to keep up with the changes that are going on in this world.
The
other area is the Manitoba Data Services.
It provided the province with
much revenue, $3 million in fact, that could
have been put into research and other areas of development, but instead the government has chosen to sell
off the data services branch and now
has lost the revenue from that.
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I hope that, in passing this bill, that the government will pay more than lip
service and go forward and have real
initiatives that will help the economy of our
province and create jobs for Manitobans and show leadership in the field, so that we are able to show
leadership in the field of technology. With those words I will close.
Point of Order
Mr.
Jack Penner (Emerson):
Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. The Leader of the
Liberal opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) referred
on Friday to comments that were attributed to the honourable member for
I did
not indicate that the Dutch elm disease was a total economic failure. I did say that in the
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson) I thank the member for his comments and I will take that under
advisement.
* *
*
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
We
certainly need a stronger
I
think that today, perhaps more than any other time in the history of
Speaking
as a new Canadian, we all brought from, certainly from the European continent, an idea that
progress was in and of itself good,
that movement was in and of itself good, that change and forward motion would be the end result
if we only worked hard. If we only planned and were careful, we as
individuals, we as families, we as
communities, we as nations would move forward
and would see progress made. I
think that, in the last few years, and
longer than that for some of us‑‑but I think everyone now
understands the fact that we have to rethink all of those values and those assumptions in the light of
our economic and social, financial,
historical and cultural current situations in
our entire society.
We do
need to be innovative. We do need to
look at technology. We do need to look at ways that we in
We need
also to look in the long term. Again, we
have historically been able to look
more or less from budget to budget,
from government to government, at the most, at the outside and, in some cases, go fairly
smoothly from budget to budget and
government to government. In other
cases, we would lurch a bit, but we
always had the idea and the sense that, if we
did something, if we made some changes, if we put this in place or did that, we would be able to come out at
the other end in a more positive
economic situation and with a stronger base for our members of society, our members of the
province, of the city, of the
continent.
*
(1530)
Governments
for a long time have always said that they wanted to put a long‑term economic plan into
place, and statements like that have
been made by governments for a very long period of time, of all political stripes. It has been very difficult for all governments to implement those long‑term
plans for a variety of reasons, not the
least of which is that we are a political
group as legislators, as member of a government. We are a
political group. We are
responsive, one would hope very responsive,
to the needs, wishes and desires of our constituents.
However,
we also must be aware that periodically, as a
government, we are obliged to go to the people for either a renewed mandate or, in cases which all
members in this House on both sides are
very familiar, a sharp slap on the wrist, if you will, by the voter saying, no, we are not in
favour of the way you are approaching
the situation, the way you are approaching
government now; we want to give another government the opportunity to govern.
While
we always talk as government, opposition and members of the Legislature about the need for a long‑term
development, it is very difficult for
us to actually implement that. As I said before, in the past, it has not been as
urgent as it is today. We could go from
one election to another stating and restating
the same kinds of ideas that we had in the past and more or less get away with it.
Today
we are not allowed to do that. Today our
society, municipal city‑wide,
provincial, nation‑wide, continent‑wide and globally will not allow for us to be that complacent,
will not allow for short‑term
strategies in and of themselves, short‑term strategies, strategies that deal with the
immediate issues. The medium‑range issues as well as the
long‑term issues and problems all
need to be addressed. We cannot address
the short‑ and medium‑term
issues without a long‑range strategy.
Again,
Mr. Acting Speaker, we on this side of the House applaud the concept of a long‑term
economic plan, applaud the concept of
innovation, applaud the concept of working together to come up with a response that hopefully
includes short‑, medium‑ and
long‑term elements to the crisis that we are facing in our world today.
We
are in a crisis. The debate is going
backwards and forwards and to and fro
as to whether we are in a worse recession
than we were in the early 1980s or whether we are not in a worse recession.
I think it is almost a debate that begs the question, while the recession did not get as deep, the
trough did not get as deep this time or
has not gotten as deep as it did in the
1981‑82 recession, the recovery, if you could call it that, has been very slow, very sluggish, and we are
facing the possibility, if not the
probability, of a double dip, of the economy going back down again. The lines are quite graphic, if you will, showing the '81‑82 recession having a
very sharp drop and then an incredibly
fast improvement.
The
economy by the mid‑80s had gone past, had recovered up to above where it had been in the late 1970s
when we went into the recession. This time, the economy has been in a
recession for up to, if not longer
than, 18 months. While the depth has not
been reached of the earlier recession,
the line is less sharp in its recovery. As a matter of fact, it has not recovered at
all, and there are many economists who
believe that we could very easily be
headed for another dip in the economic indicators. We have
many indicators that show that we are in the midst of a crisis. We have talked in this House a great
deal. It does not appear to have been heard, but we will continue to
talk in this House a great deal about
the scourge of unemployment. I choose
that word very carefully. I do believe it is a scourge in the most biblical extensive use of that word.
There
are a million and a half Canadians who are unemployed. The figure is much larger when you take into
account the hundreds of thousands of
Canadians who have given up even looking for a
job because they know there is no job to be had. The figures
become even more reprehensible when you look at the fact that there are people who are working part time
who want and need and should be
entitled to full‑time employment, who are not working part time out of choice, are working part
time because there is no full‑time
employment.
If
you added all those statistics together you would get well over 10 percent of the entire population of
Canada and an enormously high
percentage of the adult population, the
population from 15 to 64 who should be able to be in the work force, unable for one reason or another to
participate to the full extent of their
abilities and the full extent of what they
would like to be able to do.
In
We
have put on the record, on this side of the House, the enormous unemployment statistics for the
northern part of this province, highest
in the country. We have put on the
record the enormous unemployment
statistics for people in the inner city of
The
unemployment statistics, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would suggest in the rural areas of
Another
indication is the housing starts in the country. The housing
starts in
*
(1540)
There
will be many people who, I am sure, will choose to purchase with their RRSPs homes that have
already been constructed. The spin‑off of those purchases of used
homes as opposed to new homes is much
less in the economy. You lose the appliances purchased. You lose the curtains and draperies, all of those kinds of things. You lose all of those kinds of economic spin‑offs that this federal
government proposal does not allow for.
Also,
Mr. Acting Speaker, when you put this proposal, which allows for up to $20,000 of RRSP money, side
by side with the same federal budget
which cut the co‑op housing proposal, you see a true picture emerging of the lack of long‑term
strategy on the part of the federal
government, the lack of any concern or caring
about Canadians who do not have access to large sums of money.
The
Co‑op Housing Program would, in
On
the other side of that, the Co‑op Housing Program would have provided 200
Another
thing that has been undermining the economic
situation in this province, and which I am not sure Bill 9 adequately addresses, is the whole area of
consumer confidence. Unemployment has a
major role to play in consumer confidence.
If you have 57,000 unemployed
Manitobans with tens of thousands more underemployed
or not even looking for work, you have a very high percentage of the adult population in the
province not having any financial
resources with which to spend. Of
course, consumer confidence is going to
go down. Of course, consumer spending is going to go down. Any number of economic innovation councils
and other pronouncements on the part of
the government that are not followed by
action are going to be looked at and are being looked at more and more by the people of Manitoba
with a great deal of well‑earned
suspicion.
Is
this just another shuffle? It would
appear on the surface that it might
very well be just another shuffle in this
government's long line of using working groups, committees, advisory committees, support groups. You name it, there is a group that this government has put into
place to advise, to work with, to make
recommendations to the government, and they do not listen.
The
people of
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. All honourable
members wishing to carry on conversations, please do so at a very low level or move into the loge
or outside the Chamber, please.
Ms.
Barrett: Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would like to put on record
that the conversations are a lot less loud than they have been at several times when I have spoken in the
past. [interjection] I certainly hope I
am provoking debate. I think that is the
point of this whole process.
I was
speaking about consumer confidence. In
the last eight years, since the federal
Conservative government was elected and
the last almost four years since the provincial Conservative government has been elected, the people of
this province have had very little
positive as an outcome of any actions taken by either level of those governments. I am not talking about the higher income levels; I am talking about the people‑‑[interjection]
I seem to have engendered some debate
here which is well and good, but I
would appreciate some quiet.
The
people of
These
people, to use a very trite phrase but one that I think has a certain degree of currency here, are
the backbone of our nation, the people
who have come here over the last 300 to 400
years, who have worked hard, who have said all along that they are more than willing to pay their fair
share. They understand the role that each of them must play in a co‑operative
society, that there are always going to
be requirements that the society as a
whole needs to put into place.
As we
as Canadians have over the years evolved, those requirements that individuals and families
are willing to pay their fair share to
ensure are things such as medicare, a public
education system, a basic system to provide for individuals and families who for one reason or another
largely, vastly the majority of which
are legitimate reasons, cannot pay for their
own basic necessities.
*
(1550)
To
that we have also recently added the sense that Manitobans are willing to pay and see the importance of
a clean environment so that we can pass
on to the future generations a world that is
worth living in, a world that we actually physically can live in.
There is some grave doubt as to the ability of people in the next generation or two to be able to have a
world such as that.
These
are things that Canadians in general and for sure residents and people in my constituency of
This
government and its Tory counterparts across the country and in
This
is why the government can come out with all the economic, innovative technology councils it
wants to. It can have working groups on a range of
things. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has an enormous number of
working groups. We have seen very little, if any, impact that those
working groups have had on the health care system, other than in a
negative context.
The
Department of Family Services has had several working groups, one in particular, a working group
on daycare that for 18 months believed
what the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) was telling them that the government was going to listen to what they had to say, was going to
take into account what they had to say
because they are the people who are working
in child care. They are the
people who know what the needs are. They
are the people who are actually doing the jobs.
They are the same kind of people
that this government is saying they are
going to consult and use in the Economic Innovation and Technology Council.
I
suggest that the people in Manitoba take a really close look at what happened with a working group
on child care because the same thing
might very well happen with this council as well, which is, they bought off the child care
community for 18 months and then they
totally, virtually disregarded the recommendations and the timetable that the working group had
implemented, had made recommendations
to.
Since
the restructuring in the child care system, the government has not listened one iota to the
thousands of parents, child care
workers and boards of child care agencies, family daycares who have come to the minister, who
have said publicly and in letters and
in presentations to the minister, we cannot
live with this restructuring that you have put in place over the recommendations of your working group.
I say
to you, if this is an example‑‑which it is only one‑‑of what this government has done in its use of
advisory councils, in its use of
supposedly listening to the people who are the
experts, then we do not hold out very much hope for this particular council either. The only positive thing, the only possible reason why this council may have
more of an impact on the government, is
that it is made up largely of people whom the
government already listens to. It
certainly is not made up largely or
even remotely proportionately of working Manitobans working for a salary, people who work in the
middle‑ and lower‑paid
occupations. It is made up of CEOs and
heads of corporations, a very valuable
input but certainly not balanced and
complete. It is not made up of members
of the labour movement who have a great
deal of input and should have a great deal
of input.
This
government and its Tory counterparts talk about a level playing field, talk about the need for us to
be competitive, talk about all kinds of
ideas that on the surface would appear to be
positive, or at the very least, innocuous; but what a level playing field really means to this
government is low wages, nonunion, high
unemployment, so that there is a wage pool just ready for the corporations to take advantage
of, an economic climate very much like
the economic climate in the southern United
States.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I watched Venture last night after the national report on Sunday evening, which I
am wont to do on occasion, and found it
was a very interesting story about a garment
manufacturer who had just moved from
This
program then talked to several manufacturers in
You
know what these people said was part of the
productivity? They were saying
that you have to take into account the
fact that if you pay low wages, you are likely to get a high turnover in your employed work
force. If you pay higher wages and give benefits, you are likely to
have a stable, well‑educated work
force. That is what we in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would suggest that one of the things that this new Economic Innovation and
Technology Council should take a very
close look at is what some of those business people are saying, that truly to be competitive you
need to have a well‑educated,
motivated, stable work force. We on this
side absolutely agree with that. Do you know how you get a well‑educated, motivated, stable work
force? You provide the social and educational infrastructure that
allows for that.
What
has this provincial government done? Not
very much, I will tell you, Mr. Acting
Speaker. They, through their restructuring of child care formulas, have
made it impossible for many of the
middle‑income families who used to be able to afford child care who no longer can afford child
care, so they have‑‑[interjection]
*
(1600)
The Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is talking about the situation in day care in
There
are also, Mr. Acting Speaker, cutbacks in education. This government talks, all the time, about
the need to be competitive, how we have
to have an educated work force, how we have
to increase our competitiveness in the global economy and our level playing field, and all those kinds
of things, while on the other hand,
what does it actually do? Not what does
it talk about it? Not what kind of working group does it put in
place, but what does it actually do?
It
provides virtually no increase for many school divisions in this province. It cuts back the training programs, it cuts back access programs, it cuts back BUNTEP
programs, it cuts back social
allowances for students, it cuts back the programs that are specifically targeted to the people who
need to be educated and retrained so
that they can be productive.
On
the third hand, what the provincial government has done, as a job training exercise, it has created a
heck of a lot of jobs in provincial
social assistance‑‑$30‑million increase for social assistance in the last budget. An acknowledgement of failure, an acknowledgement that there is no
job creation program, there are no
education programs, there are no upgrading
programs to allow the youth of this province, the new Canadians in this province, the people who have been
through deregulation and privatization,
kicked out of employment at the age of 40 and
above, there is nothing for them in this government.
There
is not a thing for them in this government, except a $30‑million increase in social
assistance. What kind of long term economic planning is that? Not very good economic planning.
If
you are a single parent in this province, woe be to you to try and get off social assistance, to try
even to do something as simple and
basic as to have some prevention programming put into place, like the parent‑child centres,
an excellent program that came in under
Core Area Initiative. Very low cost,
five years of good solid programming,
basically run by volunteers, basically run
by the people who are the users of the service.
This
government talks an enormous amount about the role of volunteers, while it cuts back child and
family service volunteers, while it
eliminates 600 volunteer positions from the
98 housing authorities.
(Mr. Jack Penner,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
What
this government really wants to do is to get out of the job of helping people
entirely unless they are wealthy corporations,
and then it is more than willing to help.
What
has this government done to the farm economy?
What has this government done
for rural development? What has this government done for people with mental and
physical disabilities? What has this government done for anybody
other than Great‑West Life and
Investors‑‑not much, not much.
Yet
the government talks about economic innovation and technology.
I would suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the government take a look at its overall
strategy, its overall programming, its
overall budgeting, and broaden its focus from a narrow definition of economic development
and strategy and actually start doing
something for all Manitobans instead of
putting into place, yet again, another council made up of people that the government already listens to.
It
should start listening to 57,000 Manitobans who are unemployed.
It should start listening to the tens of thousands of Manitobans who are on social assistance
and govern for all of the people of
Mr.
Clif Evans (Interlake): I
move, seconded by the honourable member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that we adjourn debate.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 10‑The
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for The
Manitoba Hydro Act (Mr.
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 11‑The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): On
the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers
Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les
apiculteurs), standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
(Mr. Marcel
Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
As I
said, I would like to say a few words about the bill, but I would also like to take this
opportunity to make a few comments
about the orderly marketing system and supply management and the beekeepers who are also impacted by
this type of system.
I
guess when I look at this bill, I wonder, if the bill was only passed in 1987, why we are in such a
short time coming about having such
changes made. I did not hear the
comments from the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), but if he has consulted and this is what the beekeepers want, then
we would probably be prepared to support,
but I wonder and look forward to hearing
what the impacts of this bill will be.
What will be changed as a result
of it? I look forward to going to
committee and hearing what they have to
say.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I guess the other comments that I would like to make relate to the other
jurisdictions as well as honey that are
controlled by marketing boards.
Marketing boards play a very
important role in the economy of our country and in the economy of
*
(1610)
It is
very important that
I was
at a meeting in the Interlake just a few weeks ago and talked to some people who are not
beekeepers, who are not under the honey
marketing board but are under different marketing boards, and they are very concerned about
what is going to happen to the economy
of this province if we lose our supply management and our marketing boards. The government has done a good job of setting up one group of people against the
other saying they cannot take a position
on supporting the marketing boards because
it would then hurt the grain sector of the industry.
The
comments that came from these people were very
interesting, and that is the fact that they have said, if we are not going to any longer raise chickens or
raise turkeys or produce eggs, who is
going to buy all of the grain that we are
now buying? We, in turn, are
going to start growing grain and flood
the market. It all ties in to marketing
boards and supply management and I
think that the minister should think very
carefully about not supporting the supply management and the marketing board people when he refused to
sign the document submitted by the
Agriculture ministers.
I
think that supply management and marketing boards are something very unique to Canada and we have
to be sure that they are protected, and
I think that it is very important that this
minister take a strong stand on it and that Canada take a strong stand on all of these marketing boards that
so much affect our economy here, in
Canada.
There
are, as I said, thousands of people who are employed in the industry, thousands of people who are
concerned about it. In fact, yesterday I had the opportunity to
meet with three people from the
It is
a big issue here not only in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, as I said we will in a few days be prepared to pass this bill. There are still a few people whom we would like to talk to. In fact, the previous Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Bill Uruski, is someone
whom we will be talking to and have
talked to him because he was an excellent Minister of Agriculture.
He implemented this bill in 1987.
We will be talking to him about
what his feelings are on why this has changed. We will also be talking to honey
producers. There are many producers who produce honey only as a
sideline, as a hobby. We would want to
know whether this is going to have any impact on them.
We
will continue to consult, and in a very short time we will be prepared to pass this bill, and then look
forward to what the producers have to
say at the committee hearings as to whether or
not they are satisfied this is a good move. Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to reinforce that I
feel marketing boards are a very
important part of our economy, and we must make every effort not only to protect them here in
Manitoba, but our government must take
a strong stand at GATT on this.
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
I am
a little skeptical about this government taking a strong stand, because it is my understanding that
at one time Canada proposed that
marketing boards be removed and was not in support of them.
Mr.
Speaker, it is indeed very important that we continue to protect the marketing boards, because, as I
said earlier, if we do not have marketing
boards, if we change not only particularly
the honey industry but if we lose our poultry producers, if we lose the right to protect our turkey
producers, our egg producers, our dairy
producers, it will have a devastating effect
on the economy here in Canada. I
think we should be doing everything we
can to protect something that is looked at as a model.
There
are dairy producers in the
Rather
than going to GATT with a weak position and saying, well, what the heck, we have to have an
agreement so let us sign, even if we
are going to give up the marketing boards.
I think what we have to do is
fight for those to protect them and take a
leading role that other countries can follow and help other countries establish a system such as we
have, so that they can raise their
standard of living and raise their quality of life rather than trying to take something away
that is very good here in Canada and
lower our standards.
Again,
I find it very disappointing that the government would try to
set one group of people against the other saying that, if they protect marketing boards then the grain
producers are going to suffer; if they
protect the transportation systems, then
somebody else is going to suffer.
I think we have to look at the best
things that we have in our system and do what we can to protect them.
Mr.
Speaker, just on that I would like to reinforce and encourage the minister to do whatever it is
he can to protect our marketing boards
and protect all of those people who now make a
very good living and have a quality of life within the community.
There are a large number of producers who are involved‑‑in fact, I believe
there are over 450 million‑‑no, I am sorry, 800 producers in that part of the industry
that we must look at protecting. I would hope that government would continue to do that.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Pass it on to committee.
Ms.
Wowchuk: No, Mr.
Speaker, the member for
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
*
(1620)
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr.
Speaker, the member across the way has indicated
that the bill was introduced some time ago, and I have indicated to him that the member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman) will be very shortly
prepared to let this bill go to committee.
With that, I will conclude my
remarks. Thank you very much.
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a few remarks on the consideration of Bill
11, The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act. The purpose of this legislation is to
transfer the assets and obligations and
liabilities of the Manitoba Bee-Keepers
Association to the Manitoba Honey Marketing Board. It is a case that by consolidation and
integration of the activities of one
association there will be more efficiency in
the administration of its affairs.
The important consideration in
the transfer of assets and liabilities from one organization to another organization is the protection of
the interests of all the parties
concerned. In the transfer of assets and
in the transfer of obligations and liabilities, all
the interests should be protected.
It is
very important that, when arrangement of organizational structure is being done, the people who are
primarily affected will be
consulted. We need to consult all the
interest groups that are involved in
this kind of activity. [interjection] Well,
nobody is an expert on bees. You
always hear about bees and honey and
things like that.
An
Honourable Member: Conrad, have you heard about the birds and the bees?
Mr.
Santos: The
birds and the bees? Yes, I have, but
these are fairy tales, and you have to
sometimes talk about the reality of life
to the children other than the bees and the birds.
We
are talking here about the consolidation of the administration of the affairs of an
organization. It concerns the integration and unification. All I am saying is that if we are trying to rearrange the affairs of an
organization and transfer the assets
and obligations of one group from one organization
to another, all the various interest groups should be able to willingly consent to that
transfer by process of consultation so
that the interests can be protected.
That is why we have to consider
and debate this legislation in more detail
and look at all its implications.
We have the moral obligation to
consult with the people who are affected.
There might be some economies of
scale and some kind of efficiencies that can be gained in this consolidation, but those are
factual, empirical investigations that
can only be determined after some kind of
experience in this matter.
I
would not prolong my analysis in a subject matter of which I am totally ignorant, so I am going to say
my piece and take my seat.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I only ask that you do not call Bill 20 at
this time as you move toward the list
of bills that you are calling. We will
call that bill at this evening's
sitting.
Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Stand? Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? Leave? It is agreed.
Bill 14‑The Highways and Transportation Department
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 14, The Highways and Transportation Department
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du
Transport, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Stand? Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? Leave? It is agreed.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise
and speak today on Bill 14, The Highways and
Transportation Department Amendment Act.
I have had the benefit of the
minister's comments, which I found very helpful, as well as my own analysis of this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill, I am going to conclude my remarks by indicating the Liberal carcass is willing to
see passed to committee stage.
[interjection] Caucus‑‑caucus.
The member for
I
always have some concern when higher levels of government discretion are being given out of the
parliamentary procedure by way of
regulation, but further in this bill, out of the realm of Orders‑in‑Council and simply
into the hands of departmental officials. Of course, that is the major thrust of the
amendments here, to take the ceiling
from $5,000 to $25,000 that can be done
without Order‑in‑Council, that is, departmentally.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I generally like to preserve, as I think many parliamentarians
do, as much control in the hands of the
Legislature. However, I do recognize
that in a department such as this where
there are many leases, many land acquisitions
to be done in any given year, we do have to place trust and faith in our senior officials.
(Mrs. Shirley
Render, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
In
this case, I think it is not unwarranted to expand the $5,000 to $25,000. This, of course, in this bill not only deals with land which is to be let, but the value
of property to be sold, so that the
minister on his own will be able to sanction,
and his departmental officials, his delegates, sell land up to the value of $25,000 without an Order‑in‑Council.
The
bill also, I note, provides for land that has been acquired for departmental road, airport or
docks, to be leased out when it is not
immediately needed for the purposes of the
province and the public good.
That, I think, is relatively minor
and, I am sure, important in the ongoing workings of the Department of Highways and Transportation.
There
are, of course, other components to this act.
I note that it is being brought
into line with The Public Works Act with
respect to the $25,000 value.
There is no reason to think that
The Public Works Act in that regard has been unworkable. I have
not heard any indications from members of the public or members of the civil service that we should not go
to this $25,000 limit.
The
Public Works Act has been there, and I do not have any information that it is out of line. The other parts of this bill I believe are relatively minor, and I note
that the minister has said that he
welcomes any questions at committee stage on the remaining parts of this bill.
I
have reviewed them. I do believe that in
keeping with his indication, they are
relatively minor housekeeping amendments.
The major amendment is to take the higher level of discretion departmentally to $25,000. We are prepared to pass this to committee on that basis, to hear members of
the public at that point‑‑if
there are any, and I do not know that there will be speaking to this issue.
With
those comments our caucus, as I have said, will allow this bill passage to the committee stage
where we can have a fuller discussion
with the minister on the finer points of this
bill.
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Bill 15‑The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 15, The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter may remain standing?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave, it
is agreed. The honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards).
*
(1630)
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, this is another Highways
department bill. This one is somewhat
lengthier. I was not particularly concerned with the bulk of
the amendments which are proposed in
this bill.
(Mrs. Shirley
Render, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I
must thank the minister for his very helpful spreadsheets which the minister hands out and I find
particularly useful in analyzing this
bill and others. I think it is a
practice which I simply want to speak
to as thanking those departmental officials
who prepare these, because I find them generally candid and I find them thorough. They are extremely helpful as they show what the law has been, what it is going to be,
with an explanation. It is very
useful. I want to start with those
comments.
Madam
Acting Speaker, I note that this bill does make some very important amendments, I am sure, for
the people it affects, specifically at
the outset, the war veterans. There is
an amendment in here that ensures disabled war
veterans may be exempted from the
registration fees for trucks. I gather
that is without controversy and that is
relatively minor, I think, probably
important to those whom it directly affects.
There
are other relatively minor changes. The
only one that I wanted to flag for the
minister at this point that I would like
to comment on at the committee stage would be the proposed Section 319.1 which is a new section. That section, Madam Acting Speaker, ensures it is indicated that
Now I
know that this was an issue dear to the heart of my predecessor critic, the former member for
Assiniboia, who spoke at length and
quite eloquently, I must say, on the issue of
vehicle inspections, the point being that we must ensure insofar as is possible‑‑and it really
does not take much to do it‑‑that
the vehicles on the road are safe.
We know they are safe when they
are sold, certainly new vehicles. We
hope that there are adequate
protections in place for the sale of used vehicles, most of which occur privately or at least those
that do occur privately. We have some concerns about the safety of
those vehicles. I, having lived in
I
suggest, Madam Acting Speaker, that the vehicle safety system breaks down if we do not ensure
through regular inspections,
increasingly regular inspections as a vehicle gets older and older, that these vehicles are in
fact safe. I do note that Manitoba has been inspecting truck
trailers and semitrailers on a
regulated basis since 1989 and that we are broadening that eventually to include all vehicles over a
certain limit, but that at this point
we are giving to the registrar the ability, by
regulation, to prescribe the standards and the inspection procedures which will be put into place.
Madam
Acting Speaker, with those comments, we are willing to have this bill passed to committee. I do note that there are further amendments dealing with the wearing
of seat belts. I intend to question the minister at committee
stage on that and on the proposed
exemption for individuals who are travelling in the care of peace officers. I am not sure‑‑I would like to
have an explanation as to why we need
that.
I
have personal knowledge of individuals who were travelling in a vehicle driven by a peace officer and
who were involved in an accident, the
peace officer himself driving and being
seriously injured, in which they were not with seat belts and, of course, it was not held against them because
the car, in the back seat, did not have
seat belts. They were very, very
seriously injured.
I do
not know why we would exempt necessarily people who are being transported by peace officers in all
cases to be exempted from wearing seat
belts. I note that some individuals who
are intoxicated, violent, unco‑operative,
difficult to force to buckle up‑‑of
course, there are exceptions, but I am not sure that we should be exempting as a matter of
course people from wearing seat belts
while travelling with peace officers. I
look forward to some questioning on
that.
Madam
Acting Speaker, with those comments, I look forward to a more thorough discussion of this bill at
committee stage. Again, let me say that
I have found the minister most forthright
on this, and I think we can clear up some of the questions I have.
I am sure my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus will have similar concerns. I flag the ones that I will look forward to discussing at the committee stage where the
officials, I am sure, will be present.
Madam
Acting Speaker, with that, our caucus is pleased to see this bill pass on to committee stage.
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Bill 21‑The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 21, The Provincial Park Lands
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les parcs provinciaux, standing
in the name of the honourable member for
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Some
Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand. Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, this bill, in fact, has provoked some controversy, and I want to
acknowledge the work of the group that
has come to me with complaints about the effect of this bill.
I do
not pretend to be an expert at this point on the finer details of what park areas‑‑what
residents in what park areas in this
province have experienced difficulties and what they pay and what they do not pay in local taxes. I can assure the minister that I have encouraged the members of the
public who have come to me on this bill
to make their views known at the committee
stage. I warn the minister at
this point that there will be some serious
debate at the committee stage on this bill, because very strong feelings have been brought forward to
me about the level of ministerial
discretion which is built into this bill and what the future will hold for the residents of
provincial park lands.
I
start from a fundamental principle which was the genesis of the American Revolution, that no taxation
without representation was the battle
cry. Anybody who purports to tax, any
authority which purports to tax, must
expose itself to public scrutiny and must
be accountable to the public through the democratic process.
That is a principle upon which we have based our democratic system. To allocate to the minister the discretion which is embodied in this bill, to set taxes
over people at no prescribed rate but
simply through regulation, in my view, takes
us some significant distance from the direct accountability which we have come to enjoy as citizens of this
city and this country over our elected
representatives.
*
(1640)
Of
course, there is an indirect link in the sense that the government of the day sets those amounts,
and the government of the day is
ultimately accountable to all citizens of
I
want to raise for the minister now, that there will be some serious questions to be asked at the
committee stage, in particular by the
members of the association of private landowners
in Manitoba's provincial parks, who have taken the position, I think quite responsibly, that
they are willing to pay their fair
share of taxes for the services which they receive, but to allocate at this point this level of
discretion to the minister, leaves a
potential for abuse. I am not suggesting
this minister would exercise it, but I
am simply indicating that one of the
protections we all have come to rely on is a direct link to those representatives who do impose
taxes. That is a problem for this association; that will be a problem
at the committee stage. I look forward to some assurances from the
minister, some amendments perhaps, to
assuage the concerns of this group.
Mr.
Speaker, the powers which are allocated to the minister are quite clearly general in nature and
sweeping in nature in terms of imposing
taxes on these landowners. We will want
to find out exactly what the minister
is intending by the word "fair"
which is in this legislation. What is
"fair"? That is a nice concept, but I think if we are talking
about taxation we have to be a little
more specific than that. We will have to know, at least, what the criteria are that
he is intending to use.
As well, within the boundaries now considered
These
individuals have been promised on several occasions, indeed, by the current minister and the
current director of Parks, that this
group, that is the private landowners' group and its executive, would be involved in the
analysis studies relating to existing
real or claim services that are provided to the cottagers; that, likewise, regarding any
other objectionable policies including
planning and development, this group would be
involved, and that the minister advised the private landowners that complete revision of existing parklands
act was planned for March of 1991, and
that group would be invited to participate in
that and then have input into the final drafting and that none of these promises were kept.
That
is the allegation and a serious one indeed.
There were discussions leading
to a framework of development dealing with
this issue that the private landowners were brought into, were kept abreast of it and went along with the
process, and then see this legislation
come forward and tell us, as members of the
Legislature, that none of the commitments of the senior officials and the minister of the day were kept.
The
minister will have to answer to that at the committee stage.
I was hoping he would have answered at the time that this bill was dealt with, but he did not. I can tell him that there are going to be strong felt feelings,
because when people start to see that
they are going to face unspecified taxation without direct ability to control the political
masters who imposed that taxation they
get upset.
I
agree it is a leap, but the principle is the same, as did those who started the American
Revolution. It is a fundamental principle that people want control over
those who tax them. I do not think it is taking too much licence to
suggest that principle is an important
one for this minister to respect in this
circumstance. We will want some
assurances that what he is proposing
has limits, has criteria, that there is a framework for discussion and for input from those affected
and that there are some guarantees that
any minister, not necessarily this minister,
any minister in the future, will have curtailments on their ability to tax these individuals and remain
accountable to them.
Let
me be clear, let me represent the private landowners correctly.
No one is saying that they should not pay their fair share of taxes‑‑no one. The only issue is how do those taxes get set, and what is the accountability for the
politicians that he uses to set those
rates? It is a grave concern that the
minister seeks through this legislation
to confer upon himself and his department
the unnecessary and, some say, unwarranted privilege to apply those taxes without restriction.
Mr.
Speaker, we obviously have these very serious concerns. I think there is probably a better way to
deal with taxing these individuals, so
they have the assurances they are asking for
which are reasonable indeed. I am
going to, prior to this getting to
committee, give some serious thought to how that can be done because the minister obviously has
not. I hope that the minister, by the comments I have put on the
record today, will come to that
committee prepared to meet these people on the
discussions and deal with their allegations of his promises over the last months, if not years. I hope he will be coming prepared to answer them and their concerns and
accusations that he has not lived up to
the promises because I anticipate they will be
there. I will certainly be
listening closely to what they say, and
I will use every opportunity that I have, and our caucus will, to give them sufficient protection and
political accountability for taxes
which the department seeks to levy on them.
This
minister does not operate, this government does not operate, no government should operate to
impose taxes on individuals, on
citizens without being willing to make itself
directly accountable to those that it taxes. That is the essence of the system that we live under, and I am
very concerned that this bill takes us
well beyond that both in practice and in
principle.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Bill 22‑The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 22, The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi sur les permis relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et
de peche et aux pourvoyeurs et
apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autres dispositions legislatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for the
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is
there leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member:
Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that
this is yet another bill which gives a very high level of discretion to executive authority in this
province over people trying to earn a
living as lodge operators and outfitters.
Again,
I think it is important for the public of this
province, regardless of what government is in power or may be in the future, that we respect the right to
know what the law is, to have it set
out clearly and to know exactly the rules under which someone is expected to operate, and further
and most importantly, to have recourse,
to have direct, political recourse for those
who seek not only to tax us in the past legislation that I talked to, but who seek to regulate through
licensing and inspections and going to
get warrants to come into somebody's lodge to tell them how they should operate. That may be a very valid purpose in ensuring that certain standards are met,
but it is not without restriction. We have rules governing that.
As I
read through this bill, I became increasingly concerned that the framework for licensing, the
framework for examination of how
someone runs their business is there, but there is no detail.
There is no setting out what exactly we are looking for.
I mean, it just goes on and on about, well, the allocation of licences the minister may limit the
number of licences. The minister may do this. The minister may go and get a warrant. An inspector
may at any reasonable time‑‑listen to this: "The
inspector may, (a) at any reasonable time, enter any premises and make any inspection that is reasonably
required for the purpose of enforcing
this Act or the regulations."
*
(1650)
What
are the standards in the act that he is going to enforce?
I do not have a problem perhaps with some of the goals that the government is seeking, but what are
they? What are the regulations then? What are the standards we are looking at? What is the terrible thing that we are going
to send inspectors into somebody's
lodge to solve and give them these quite
substantial powers, Mr. Speaker.
We need to know, we need to know
in the detail of this bill. It is not
too much to ask the government to come
forward with the criteria to limit itself to,
in exercising these powers. I
know that many of the members of the
government have been in business. I look
at the benches of the government. I know they have been in business themselves.
Mr.
Speaker, I know that they would be the first were they lodge outfitters or lodge operators and
outfitters, they would be the first to
say what are you doing? Why should we
submit ourselves, exempt ourselves from
the normal course of business because
we happen to be running these lodges?
Why are we asked to submit to
this very substantial governmental incursion in the operations of our business?
Now,
I am sure that there are reasons, and I look forward to hearing them. There are reasons for this, I am sure. You know,
we want to maintain certain standards.
I personally am not aware of
what they are, and, boy, if I sat and read the bill, I sure would not know.
Mr.
Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing exactly what the terrible, terrible sins that lodge operators
would be foisting upon the public that
would require an inspector to have the ability
at any reasonable time to enter any premises and make any inspection that is reasonably required for
the purpose of enforcing this‑‑(interjection)
Yes,
I mean, you know, what exactly is the problem that this bill addresses? I searched every line of this bill for an indication of what these substantial and
very, very serious rights which are
given to the government. I searched for
a reason for those, and they may well
be there, but it is a mystery to me and
anyone looking at this act, what they might be.
I can
tell you I have received numerous calls.
I have a meeting tomorrow with
these people, and they are upset. I can see their point. I am looking forward to hearing their point
of view, and I am sure the minister is
going to hear it loud and clear when
this bill gets to committee.
An
Honourable Member: It
is the War Measures Act for lodge operators.
Mr. Edwards: Yes, it appears that we have a serious problem with the lodge operat