4th-36th Vol. 5 - Standing Committee on Law Amendments

Members of the Committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Derkach, Gilleshammer, Radcliffe, Toews

Mr. Ashton, Mrs. Driedger, Messrs. Dyck, Evans (Interlake), Penner, Reid

APPEARING:

Ms. Becky Barrett, MLA for Wellington

Mr. Gord Mackintosh, MLA for St. Johns

Hon. James McCrae, MLA for Brandon West

Ms. Diane McGifford, MLA for Osborne

Mr. Tim Sale, MLA for Crescentwood

Mr. Conrad Santos, MLA for Broadway

WITNESSES:

Bill 28--The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments

Ms. Candace Bishoff, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce

Bill 32--The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. John Nicol, Union of Manitoba Municipalities

Mr. David M. Sanders, Colliers Pratt McGarry

Bill 33--The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. John Angus, Councillor, St. Norbert Ward, City of Winnipeg

Mr. David M. Sanders, Colliers Pratt McGarry

Bill 38--The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Stewart Briese, Union of Manitoba Municipalities

Ms. Valinda Morris, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba

Bill 40--The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act

Ms. Diane Peters, Private Citizen

Ms. Marilyn McGonigal, Private Citizen

Bill 45--The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

Ms. Kristine Cowley, Canadian Paraplegic Association

Mr. Garth Smorang, Manitoba Bar Association

Dr. Greg Stewart, Manitoba Chiropractors Association

Mr. Frank Bueti, Private Citizen

Mr. Jerry Kruk, Canadian Automobile Association

Bill 54--The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Dave Ennis, Association of Professional Engineers

Bill 55--The Certified Applied Science Technologists Act

Mr. Ralph Caldwell, Certified Technicians and Technologists Association of Manitoba

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 28--The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments

John Doyle, Manitoba Federation of Labour

Bill 38--The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Carolyn Garlich, Council of Women of Winnipeg

Bill 40--The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act

Valerie Price, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties

Bill 45--The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

Steven Fletcher, Private Citizen

MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:

Bill 8--The Real Property Amendment Act

Bill 10--The Mining Tax Amendment Act

Bill 28--The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 32--The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 33--The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 38--The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 39--The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

Bill 40--The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 45--The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act

Bill 54--The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions and Consequential Amendments Act

Bill 55--The Certified Applied Science Technologists Act

Mr. Chairperson: Would the Standing Committee on Law Amendments please come to order. This morning the committee will be considering the following bills: Bill 8, The Real Property Amendment Act; Bill 10, The Mining Tax Amendment Act; Bill 28, The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 38, The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 39, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Bill 40, Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendment Act; Bill 45, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Bill 54, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions and Consequential Amendments Act; Bill 55, The Certified Applied Science Technologists Act.

We have presenters who have registered to make a public presentation on all bills, except for Bill 8, Bill 10 and Bill 39.

It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of the bill. Is it the will of the committee to hear the public presentations again first? Agreed? [agreed] I will read then the names of the persons who have registered to make presentations this morning.

For Bill 28, Candace Bishoff, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. For Bill 32, John Nicol, Union of Manitoba Municipalities, and David M. Sanders, Colliers Pratt McGarry. For Bill 33, John Angus, Councillor, St. Norbert Ward, City of Winnipeg, and David M. Sanders, Colliers Pratt McGarry. For Bill 38, Valinda Morris, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba; Stewart Briese, Union of Manitoba Municipalities; and Ed Arnold, Selkirk & District Planning Area Board. For Bill 40, Brian O'Neill, Private Citizen, and Diane Peters, Private Citizen. For Bill 45, Steven Fletcher, Private Citizen; Garth Smorang, Q.C., or Doug Patterson, Q.C., Manitoba Bar Association; Kristine Cowley or Randy Komishon, Canadian Paraplegic Association; Dr. Greg Stewart, Manitoba Chiropractors Association; Frank Bueti, Private Citizen; and Jerry Kruk, CAA Manitoba. For Bill 54, Peter Washchyshyn or Dave Ennis, The Association of Professional Engineers. For Bill 55, Ralph Caldwell, Certified Technicians and Technologists Association of Manitoba Inc.

That is the list of the presenters so far. If there is anybody else in the audience that has not registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register with a Clerk at the back of the room or notify the Clerk that you have a presentation.

I understand that we have some out-of-town presenters that are registered to speak to Bill 32, Bill 38, and Bill 45. Is it the will of the committee to hear those first?

I also have one other request for a person that has a job interview later this morning. I wonder if we could hear that person first. Would it be agreed to that? [agreed]

The following are the out-of-town presenters. I am going to read first the person's name and ask her to come and speak first. The out-of-town presenter is Brian O'Neill. Diane Peters is the first presenter that I would ask the committee to hear, if that is possible. She is the private citizen that has a job interview this morning.

Before we proceed with the presentations, is it the will of the committee to set time limits on presentations? Can we set a 15-minute limit on presentations and 10 minutes for questioning? [agreed]

Now, before we start proceedings, can we determine also when committee should rise this morning? Is 12:30 an adequate time for hearings this morning? We will rise then and, if need be, reconvene this afternoon. [agreed]

Mr. Chairperson: Can we call then Diane Peters? Is Diane Peters here? She will be making a presentation, I understand, on Bill 40. Have you presentations for distribution?

* (1010)

Ms. Diane Peters (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: The Clerk will distribute.

Ms. Peters, you may proceed.

Ms. Peters: I was wondering at this time if you could take a few moments to read the first four pages only, in the interest of time.

Mr. Chairperson: I would suggest that you proceed with your presentations, and the committee members can read the first four pages, if that is the will of your presentation. That will expedite the process. You may proceed.

Ms. Peters: My name is Diane Peters. I have experienced domestic violence. Seven years ago I left a very violent marriage. For the last seven years I have experienced stalking and what I would call criminal harassment with no end in sight. I feel that it is very important that the laws in Manitoba be strengthened, changed. Some of the issues that I have talked about in the paper that I have given to you need to be looked at.

As I looked through Bill 40 yesterday--I only got one day's notice, so I have only had one day to prepare for this--it seems rather weak to me, and it does not address many of the issues I have had to face in my life the last seven years nor issues my four children have had to address in their young lives. I have heard that this bill is weaker than other bills that have already been made in other provinces. I wonder why that would be, why we could not learn from other people's experience? In particular, on page 3 under examples of conduct, it talks about "engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or anyone known to the other person."

I have had my coat slashed, my car burnt down, my windows broken, my tires made flat, threats to have me fired from my teaching job. Nothing has been able to stop this man. He has been convicted. He has been arrested; four times convicted; charged twice; put on probation. While he was on probation, my car got burned. He continued to harass me but in a very clever way, ways that I could not prove that he had done those things.

The police refused to look at the pattern of harassment and stalking. They refuse to see there was a pattern. When I got engaged, my coat got slashed, when I got married my tires were flat. When I began living with this man that I am married to now, my windows were broken. There was a definite pattern.

The police also do not understand that just because he has not killed me already, that there is not a chance he might unravel one day. They have said things to me like: if he was going to do harm to you, he would have done it by now. That shows an absolute, utter ignorance of the dynamics of domestic violence. The protection orders I have had, I have had restraining orders; I have been supposedly protected under his probation; I have had the orders that you go and get for free when I ran out of money. Nothing has stopped this.

It has damaged me. I had a complete mental breakdown two years ago and was unable to teach. It has damaged my children beyond repair. I think page 3, "engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person" would certainly include me, and yet the police constantly tell me that whatever restraining order I have is too vague. It seems very much like no one cares.

I have not been silent. I have questioned the police. I have gone to Child and Family Services and had Keith Cooper try to explain to me why someone like this can see their children and continue to stalk you and harass you through your children.

I need a moment to find the other page in here that I thought needed attention. Page 11 (j), a provision requiring the respondent to pay compensation to the subject for any monetary loss suffered by the subject as a result of the domestic violence or stalking, which may include loss of income, medication, counselling.

If anybody would have a case of criminal injuries, you would think it would be me. But no, there is a catch. If you do not have a police incident number for your assault, you are out of luck, and, if the police do not do their job and give you an incident number, sorry, too bad.

I stayed up really late last night and I am really tired. I think my paper explains it better than I can just standing up here. I have included my journal from a summer that I referred to in that paper. I reread it this morning as I photocopied it, and I was saddened to say a lot of my feelings are the same. I would have hoped I could have healed over these last seven years.

This is only a portion of the police incidents. I gave up reporting to the police a long time ago. I wear this personal alarm at work, and I have this phone, and I have a $2,500 German shepherd dog who is trained in personal protection that was donated to me by the Masons. My house is a prison. He has taken away my dignity, and you need to address this. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, I commend you, Ms. Peters. You are very brave in coming down here, speaking in front of the public and representatives in this Assembly. Circumstances that are made known by people like you are much stronger than anything anyone else can do. I commend you for your concern about how public policy has to improve to protect people like you.

I had a question. It was very important when you said that stalking often is not directed just at, in this case, it was you, or the woman. It sometimes is indirectly affecting yourself or a woman. Do you think it is important that the legislation do whatever it can to stop and prevent stalking directly or indirectly?

Ms. Peters: Yes, it is vital. This bill does not address people like me or my experience. It seems more to address a woman when she first leaves. But what about the stalkers who do not stop, who do not respect anything? It is just the nature of the beast that they do not respect laws. The laws have to be strengthened. There have to be consequences for every act they take against the subject. Otherwise, why would they stop? They are getting away with it. Why would they stop? I am also a crisis line worker at Osborne House, and I hear lots of stories about the inadequacies of the laws and the protection for women and children. If I was a millionaire, I would give every women who needs one a German shepherd dog because no one else is going to protect you.

Mr. Mackintosh: I do not know if you will be able to stay around to hear the proceedings, but the Law Reform Commission produced a report last year on stalking which led to part of the legislation in the bill that you have got there. I think you are aware of that. The Law Reform Commission said that, and I will just quote: a stalker may target a subject's family or friends as a means of harassing the subject. For example, a stalker may repeatedly follow and threaten an ex-wife's new partner or her child.

That is what you were speaking to. The commission went on to say: our proposed act--that is the Law Reform Commission's proposed act--recognizes this by defining stalking to include situations where the subject fears for the safety of anyone known to them.

* (1020)

Ms. Peters: Yes, I have often feared for the safety of my new husband. My ex-husband made it clear, I wrote in my paper, he said he would blow away any man that stepped on my steps. I was often afraid for my new husband. My ex-husband had a pattern of getting anyone out of my life who came into my life, anyone who would love me, anyone who would help me. He would destroy the relationship somehow.

Imagine how my new husband felt; we get married and I have a nervous breakdown. It was a very difficult first few years of our marriage. It could have destroyed a weaker marriage.

Mr. Mackintosh: Despite that recommendation from the Law Reform Commission, the government took that out. In other words, this law only deals with stalking against the--how would you say it--main subject, the dominant subject of stalking. So we will be proposing an amendment to deal with that indirect and that stalking of people known to the subject.

I take it then you would support that and urge the minister to consider that.

Ms. Peters: I do--

Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry, Ms. Peters. If I do not recognize you, your mike does not switch on, and it is not recorded. What happens at committee is that the Chairman will recognize you, and then you may answer.

Ms. Peters: I forgot the question. Yes, I do urge the minister to make this a much stronger bill and to learn from the experience of Saskatchewan. Another shelter worker took this bill to her law professor. She is studying law, and her professor is from Saskatchewan. She felt it was very weak, and so do I.

Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Thank you, Ms. Peters, for your very eloquent and moving address this morning. I am sure that you know, as well as people at this table, that in speaking out today you are speaking for many women who cannot come down here, or will not come down here, and so our congratulations on your courage in being with us this morning. We certainly appreciate it.

You were speaking about 14(1)(j), which is on page 11 of the bill, and it reads: "a provision requiring the respondent to pay compensation to the subject for any monetary loss suffered by the subject as a result of the domestic violence or stalking, which may include" and then it goes on to suggest certain things that it may include. One of the things I notice that is not included there is any expenses that may accrue because of children being affected. I think you said that your children had been very seriously affected.

I know that counselling services for children who are witnesses of domestic violence are not readily available. I know there are some services at Klinic but there is only one counsellor, and one counsellor certainly is not adequate to care for all the children in the province who may need this kind of counselling. Then there are children who do not live in Winnipeg who could not attend that program anyway. I wonder how you feel about this bill, or if you have had the opportunity to give thought to the way this bill does or does not include children either as victims of domestic violence or as witnesses of domestic violence.

Ms. Peters: The truth is I have been able to get free counselling for my children through EVOLVE. I have gone through Klinic. I took a parenting program to teach me how to help my children. It is called Parenting Children Who Have Witnessed Domestic Violence. I have learned, I have read, I have studied. I have had to also learn how to counsel my children because each situation is so unique and strange. I have also got free services through Manitoba Adolescent Treatment Centre, so I do feel, as I am a school counsellor, there are services for children out there, wonderful services. I note the lack of mention of children in here, too.

Ms. McGifford: Was there a waiting list for the services at EVOLVE?

Ms. Peters: I was very lucky, there was a short waiting list. I am counselling someone right now who has a long wait ahead of her before her children can get help.

Ms. McGifford: Ms. Peters, what about children outside the city of Winnipeg? You recognize those services that you were able to obtain as a person living in Winnipeg would not be available. So I wonder what you think about the wisdom of including children in this bill, so that, for example, the counselling fees that a mother may accrue as a result of her children witnessing domestic violence would be paid for by the perpetrator.

Ms. Peters: I think that would be almost too good to be true, if you could make the perpetrator pay. I have had a great deal of difficulty getting child support even though it is a court-ordered garnishment. I continue to have a terrible time trying to get my payments from his company. I think it should be that they have to pay. He should have to have paid for all the bars on my windows. He should have to pay for when I was on disability and I did not get my complete salary. Yet I was still having to go to court to fight his craziness and hire lawyers to stop him from getting a protection order against me, which I knew he would abuse. I think it would be wonderful if you could make them pay. I do not know how you could get blood from a stone.

Ms. McGifford: I suppose the first thing would be to include, in this case, children in the legislation, so that there would be some legislation covering children. I am gathering that you agree that it would be important to broaden this legislation to include children.

Ms. Peters: Yes, I do agree. It would be very, very crucial to include children and to think about the damage that is being done to young children.

Ms. McGifford: I just wanted to once again thank Ms. Peters for being with us this morning.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate the fact that you came here and provided us with your input and certainly all the research that you have done.

Firstly, in respect of the issue of children, I know you received some legal advice on this matter from a law professor, you indicate. Is that correct?

Ms. Peters: No, I did not. I talked to some of the shelter workers about this bill very quickly yesterday to see what they thought, and one of them said she had talked to her law professor who thought it was not strong enough.

Mr. Toews: Just in respect of the issue--and I think your point is a very good one in respect of the responsibility that a parent has for a child, for example, that it may cause that parent some concern. Have you addressed your mind to Section 2 of the bill, specifically Section 2(4), which says that: where, but for mental incompetence or minority, a person would reasonably, in all the circumstances, fear for his or her safety owing to conduct referred to in subsection 2, the person is conclusively deemed to have the fear referred to in that subsection.

What I understand that means is that where a parent has that fear in respect of the children and the children are under age, then the parent can make the application under the section. So my understanding of the act is, in fact, what you are requesting, so that you can ask for this order. Where it is the safety of your children that you are concerned about, this is already provided in Section 2(4). Have you given any thought to that issue?

* (1030)

Ms. Peters: No, I did not notice. What page is it on?

Mr. Toews: It is on page 3, 2(4).

Ms. Peters: This sounds really good, but I have had the police come out to my house and say to me: we do not understand why you are afraid.

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to allow the continuation of this. We had questioning here of significant length by one or two of the committee members. I am going to continue this because we are going over the set time for questioning at 10 minutes. I am going to allow for that at the time.

Mr. Toews: I will wrap up very quickly. I note your concern about monetary losses. It was also raised by my colleagues here in respect of (j) on page 11. One of the things that my understanding of the act is, and this might address your concern, is that it is for compensation for any monetary loss suffered by the subject, that is, the person applying. It is my understanding, given what I have already said, that a parent would have a right then to apply on behalf of somebody who might be mentally incompetent or under age, and also the fact that my understanding is if you are put to the expense of counselling for your children, which you indicate may or may not have happened in some situations, this would then give you a right, because it is an expense you have suffered because it is not your children who have paid for that, it is you. So the act in fact specifically addresses the situation that you have talked about.

I am just saying that maybe, sometimes, the meaning is obscured by some of the legal words that have to be there. I can assure you, Ms. Peters, that we want to address your concerns and are very mindful of your concerns. I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Peters, for your presentation.

Might I ask the people who are sitting in this room whether it might be possible, if you have any conversations to be carried out, could you do them outside of the room, please? It makes it very difficult for committee to hear the presenters as well as the questioning. Maybe it is just my ears find it difficult to pick things up, but I detect this noise in the background. I would ask, if you have discussions, please hold them outside of the room in order to accommodate the procedure.

Mr. John Nicol (Union of Manitoba Municipalities): I do, Sir.

Mr. Chairperson: The Clerk is distributing. Mr. Nicol, you may proceed.

Mr. Nicol: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it gives me pleasure to talk on Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment Act. We are pleased to appear before the standing committee. We represent the 172 municipalities, including 118 rural municipalities and 54 urban municipalities, in Manitoba. The mandate of the UMM is to act on behalf of our members to bring about changes, whether through legislation or otherwise, that will enhance the strength and effectiveness of municipalities.

The current act has been in effect since January of 1997. The new act streamlined a number of procedures and provided municipalities with greater autonomy and discretion. Municipalities agree with the overall direction of the changes. However, in the last 18 months some problems with the act have arisen. We are pleased the Department of Rural Development has consulted with municipalities and are responding to some of the issues which were raised about the act by municipal administrators and elected officials.

Bill 32 continues the trend of streamlining certain administrative and financial procedures. We support the amendments which clarify areas of The Municipal Act dealing with the tax sale process and council proceedings. We also support the changes dealing with municipal finances. That is usually my taxpayers leaving, slamming the door. Under Bill 32, municipalities can approve expenditures not contained in the original financial plan, provided they borrow or have the funds in surplus or reserve. This amendment further enhances the ability of municipalities to administer their own financial affairs.

In addition, it simplifies the process for providing for special services or local improvement levies, allows municipalities to cancel taxes or levy supplementary taxes where there are property assessment changes. It also adds Indian bands and other local authorities to the list of parties with which municipalities can enter agreements.

In addition to these housekeeping changes, it also includes some more significant amendments on which we would like to comment, such as the change in term of office for elected officials from three to four years. We would first like to clear up the misconception that the UMM requested the changes for a longer term, which is not at all the case. The four-year term was a recommendation in the Cuff report prepared for the City of Winnipeg. It was the city that asked the province to make the change. The province agreed and decided to extend the term for all municipal officials and school trustees. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) did discuss this issue with us prior to the legislation being introduced, but it was not initiated by municipal government in rural Manitoba.

We recognize a four-year term will provide greater continuity in municipal administrations. In addition, we also agree that if the term is to be changed, it should also apply to school trustees to ensure that local government elections are more consistent.

However, we are more concerned that a four-year term will require a greater time commitment which may discourage people from running for municipal office. Attracting individuals to run for municipal office is already difficult in some areas, particularly in smaller communities. In the City of Winnipeg, a councillor is a full-time position. In rural Manitoba, being an elected official is just one more of many commitments which are made by individuals over and above their employment or business. While four years may and probably is appropriate for the City of Winnipeg, we are concerned it will have a negative impact on municipalities.

One of the main concerns is that many municipalities feel there was insufficient time for them to consider this issue. Based on the discussions we have had with our membership to this point, we must conclude that there is a difference of opinion among municipalities as to whether the lengthier term will be a positive change.

The most significant amendments contained in Bill 32 are the changes being proposed in the area of drainage, which continues to be one of the primary water resource issues in rural Manitoba. Poorly managed drainage projects not only contribute to the flooding and erosion of land, they can also negatively affect municipal infrastructure, waterway banks, the recharge of aquifers and wetland habitat.

We have been working with the province's interdepartmental task force on drainage, and most recently we provided input into these Municipal Act amendments. We also asked the Department of Rural Development to clarify the type of drains for which the municipalities are responsible and to deal with the question of how drains should be maintained. The amendments do address these two issues, and we are particularly pleased municipalities will be able to maintain drains to a standard that the municipality deems appropriate for its intended use.

* (1040)

Unfortunately, the department did not agree to give municipalities the ability to intervene in unlicensed drainage activities which impact on municipal drains. We strongly believe municipalities should have the authority to clear an obstructed municipal drain, and more importantly to stop the discharge of water into a municipal drain when the drain has been constructed without a licence. However, while the province is willing to allow a drain to be cleared, they will not allow municipalities to close an unlicensed drain. This position was confirmed in a letter which we received last week from the ministers of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings). The letter stated our proposal will be examined in the coming months as part of a larger review of water-related legislation, however the UMM still believes strongly municipalities need the ability to take action in those cases where unauthorized work impacts on municipal drainage systems. We are pleased to say that over 60 municipalities have passed resolutions supporting this.

It is important to discuss why we feel municipalities need the ability to close an unlicensed drain, currently a process in legislation for individuals to apply to the Department of Natural Resources for a licence for drainage activities. However, the response time for the application is very slow and the monitoring of drainage projects inconsistent and inadequate. In addition, the criteria which Natural Resources uses to approve drainage projects differs in eastern and western Manitoba.

As we all know, this lack of a coherent system has resulted in a large number of unauthorized drainage projects being constructed by rural landowners. If the drainage legislation is not going to be enforced or monitored by the province, municipalities must have the ability to take action where unlicensed activities are having a direct effect on municipal drains.

Municipal Act amendments are of course just one part of improving drainage and water policy in Manitoba. As we have stated, it is equally important that the Department of Natural Resources place a greater emphasis on licensing and enforcing drainage projects in a consistent manner. There is clearly a need for province-wide, long term strategy for drainage and for other water resources issues. We appreciate the province is committed to a process-developed and comprehensive water legislation. However, as stated in the province's letter, this process will take place over the next couple of years.

We believe municipalities will need the tools to deal with the issue within a shorter period of time. We would suggest that if it is going to take an 18 or two-year process to get this done at one meeting a month, we would appreciate having the opportunity to perhaps have three or four meetings in a month to speed up the process. We would not want to see something like this drag on for a long period of time and be placed perhaps on a shelf somewhere or something. We would like to see it done and done with and entered next year, if that is what is to happen.

The department stated, in the interim, municipalities could pass a by-law under the spheres of jurisdiction section of The Municipal Act giving themselves the authority to block unlicensed drains. According to legal opinion, which we have received, it is not really clear whether such a by-law would withstand a legal challenge.

Once again, Sir, there are differences of opinion, so it is not appropriate to ask municipalities to put themselves in a position where they could be found to have acted illegally and could be held liable for their actions. Ad hoc measures, such as this will not assist municipalities, further evidence the issue should be dealt with earlier when the amendments were first drafted.

With regard to the remainder of The Municipal Act, we hope the province will continue to monitor the legislation after this year's municipal elections. Municipalities remain concerned with other parts of the act. In particular, two issues which are consistently raised by our membership are councillors being allowed to abstain from voting and nonresidents being allowed to run as municipal candidates.

Currently, council members can abstain from voting on issues brought before council. Municipalities believe councillors should vote on all issues, unless they remove themselves from debate for conflict of interest. Municipal councils cannot be compared to provincial or federal assemblies where determining rules for voting by elected representatives. At five to seven members, municipal councils are small. Its members are not subject to the discipline of party voting. If there is no requirement for council members to vote, it is possible some decisions can be approved by a small minority of councillors.

Many municipalities have already expressed this very concern to the UMM. We urge the province to consider a resolution, passed at our last convention, asking The Municipal Act be amended to require councillors to vote on every matter other than those identified in the conflict of interest.

We also continue to oppose the lack of residency requirements for municipal candidates. We believe they should be residents within the municipality in which they are running. As elected officials, they will be available and accountable to rate payers. By their very nature, decisions by municipal officials need to be based on a sound knowledge of the conditions and characteristics of their local area. This knowledge is best gained by living in a community and experiencing first-hand the effects of council decisions.

We would recommend that residency requirements be included in The Municipal Act with the following exception: under the old legislation, a resident living in an urban municipality could run in a rural municipality for the position of reeve or councillor in a ward which shares a boundary with the urban municipality. We agree with this former provision, believe the opposite should also apply. A rural resident living in an area which has contiguous boundaries with an urban municipality should be allowed to run for the position of mayor or council in the urban centre.

As we stated, these issues have consistently been raised as concerns by municipalities since the new act was introduced. We therefore urge the province to consider these changes in their next review of The Municipal Act.

Finally, we would like to state our support for any amendments which come forward to allow sitting councillors who are also municipal employees to run for re-election in the fall. We have discussed this issue with the province and with our minister, and we hope that before Bill 32 is passed, provisions will be included to allow these councillors to run without having to take an unpaid leave of absence from their job.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to express our views on Bill 32, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Nicol, for your presentation. I want to indicate to you, however, that you did exceed your time limit by about two minutes--oh, I am sorry, no, no--10 minutes. I am wrong, Mr. Nicol. I am sorry.

Mr. Nicol: I exceeded by 10 minutes?

Mr. Chairperson: No, no, you are fine. I looked at the wrong hand on my watch. It is the one that moved faster.

Any questions of Mr. Nicol?

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Nicol, for your presentation. When it comes to the term of office for elected officials, you state that UMM did not request changes to that. How is UMM addressing the fact that this has been introduced and it is going to be legislation? Has the government indicated at all that they would consider in any way listening to your proposal, your request, or opposition to this legislation? Are they going to be dealing with it? Have they indicated if they are dealing with it to you?

Mr. Nicol: Thank you for the question. As you probably know me, I speak my thing, and I must tell the truth. Quite honestly, we had a number of calls regarding this position. In the interim, we have had three June district meetings including about 110 people at each one. The vote quite honestly--in the one place the talk to change it back to three years was voted down. In the other two they felt municipal councils would get along with it. A number of the people who complained about it in the first place did not put their hand up and say, yes, we still believe firmly in that. So, in all honesty, I must admit that it appears like it may be a nonissue in rural Manitoba.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Nicol.

Mr. Nicol: That is it? Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: That is it. We will let you off easy this time.

Mr. Chairperson: I call next, Bill 38, Mr. Stewart Briese, Union of Manitoba Municipalities. Mr. Briese, is he here? Would you come forward, please. Have you a presentation for distribution? The Clerk will distribute. Mr. Briese, you may proceed.

* (1050)

Mr. Stewart Briese (Union of Manitoba Municipalities): The Union of Manitoba Municipalities is pleased to appear before the standing committee considering Bill 38, The Planning Amendment Act. Over the past number of years, the UMM has continually discussed the need for amendments to be made to The Planning Act which would simplify and streamline certain aspects of the legislation. Along with proponents and other participants in the development application process, the municipalities have been unhappy with some of the cumbersome procedures contained in The Planning Act.

Because of these concerns, we were pleased to take part in an advisory committee which the province formed to examine changes to The Planning Act. We believe that the amendments in Bill 38 achieve the objectives of streamlining processes and procedures, and we therefore support the legislation.

Municipalities have often been frustrated with the time-consuming procedures which must be used under the current Planning Act for seeking ministerial approvals for planning by-laws. Some of these steps cause unnecessary delays, and we are pleased that Bill 38 streamlines these procedures. We agree with the changes to the approval process which will mean that when the minister approves a development plan by-law after second reading, the by-law comes into effect after third reading by the local authority and does not have to be referred back to the minister. Bill 38 also allows the local authority rather than the minister to make minor alterations to zoning by-law and dispense with the requirements for public hearings if in their opinion the alteration does not change the intent of the by-law.

We recognize that there may be concerns about municipal councils having the discretion to define a minor alteration rather than the minister. However, it is important to note that these changes are part of a larger trend in amendments made to municipal legislation in the past few years. Municipalities have been given greater autonomy for making decisions on issues directly under their jurisdiction rather than depending on ministerial approval. While the definition of a minor alteration is not provided in the act, we understand that the Department of Rural Development will be including guidelines in the Municipal Procedure Manual to assist municipalities in determining what constitutes a minor alteration.

We believe this will be sufficient to ensure the proper use of this section. Another significant amendment is the elimination of the reference to basic planning statements and the recognition of existing basic planning statements as development plans. This removes an unnecessary distinction between two types of plans and thereby simplifies the development plan process. Other amendments include the standardization of notice provisions and the clarification of the six-month waiting period for making a subdivision application after it has been rejected. The amendments which we are discussing today are the initial steps in a much larger process to review development and planning policies through the consultation on sustainable development implementation.

In addition, the Manitoba livestock management initiative is examining local and provincial planning policies. Planning is also central to the timely issue of peripheral development which is being examined by three different committees, including the Rural Development Institute, a panel announced by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to study the Capital Region strategy and a group of urban municipalities seeking support to study development in rural areas.

It is no surprise that land use planning is part of these studies and initiatives. Ongoing changes in the economy and population of Manitoba have been significant and have resulted in competing pressures for the use of land. These trends demand a greater focus on planning and land use policies by both municipalities and the province. The UMM has consistently urged the province to make land use planning a higher priority. We were critical when the provincial land use policies were weakened a number of years ago, and we continue to believe that more attention must be given to the policies affecting the location of development in Manitoba.

The UMM is pleased that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has announced that a template for development plans is being produced and will be provided to the municipalities to facilitate the adoption of development plans by more municipalities. A template should reduce the cost and time involved in drafting development plans. We hope that the template will be one part of a larger program of financial and administrative support from the province to assist municipalities with planning-related activities such as the formation of planning districts.

The UMM continues to encourage our member municipalities to pass planning by-laws, and with adequate assistance, we believe more municipalities will establish planning by-laws and enter into planning districts. There is no question that the province has an important role to play in providing assistance to municipalities, both through direct administrative and financial support, and through the development of stronger land use policies. If the province provides this planning framework, municipalities will be better equipped to make land use decisions at their local level, because while the province should play a leadership role, ultimately local government must remain the final decision maker on development land use decisions within their own municipalities.

The UMM is concerned that an appeal process for municipal decisions seems to be continually raised as an option for dealing with controversial local land use issues. We believe that through the current consultations and discussions about land use planning, other options can be found which will not remove the right of municipalities to make the final decisions on land use issues. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on Bill 38, and the issue of land use planning.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Briese, for your presentation.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Thank you for a very good brief that outlines a number of issues that we have been raising with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), and I think you very well put them together in recognition that we all, whether we are in the Capital Region, or rural areas, or the city, have to work on these issues together.

In particular I just want to ask you one question, and that is when you are talking about the template that the minister is announcing will be developed for helping municipalities to prepare their own development plans, I am wondering if you would agree that this template should be put together using the provincial land use policies, weakened though they may be, as a major component, that nothing in the template should make it easy for municipalities not to follow the provincial land use policies? How should those two things go together, I guess?

Mr. Briese: I think most of our decisions are based off the provincial land use policies, and possibly there could be some review of the provincial land use policies, but the template should follow the provincial land use policies, definitely.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Briese.

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to ask the committee for an indulgence here. I have a request from Councillor John Angus who has to be at another function at 11:30, and he has asked whether it might be possible for him to make his presentation before that time. So what is the will of the committee? Are you agreed? [agreed] I am going ask Mr. Angus to come forward to make your presentation. Have you a presentation for distribution Mr. Angus? Mr. Angus, you may proceed.

Mr. John Angus (Councillor, St. Norbert Ward, City of Winnipeg): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the members of the committees for the indulgence, and I apologize to the people that I may have leapfrogged over.

I am accompanied by Ms. Denise Pambrun of the City of Winnipeg legal department and Mr. Brian Moore, the city assessor, to answer any technical questions on what can become a very complicated issue, and I have a very brief presentation.

* (1100)

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in respect to Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Act. I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity today, on behalf of the City of Winnipeg, with respect to the proposed amendments.

The city wishes to voice its support in principle for the bill. The bill in our view improves on legislation which is critical to the establishment and maintenance of a stable assessment and tax base for the City of Winnipeg. From the city's perspective, Mr. Chairman, the bill falls into three specific categories: one, the fee simple amendments; two, the effective year amendments; and, three, the technical amendments.

In regard to the fee simple amendments, the city supports the enactment of these amendments in principle as they address the problems which potentially arose out of a court decision in relation to the Dynasty Building. The amendment clarifies that all interest in properties are to be assessed in the name of the registered owner of the property in question. These amendments eliminate the possibility the assessor will be required to separately assess individual interest in properties in the names of the holders of various interests.

However there is one concern that we have, and it is in reference to owners. It is contained elsewhere in The Municipal Assessment Act, and they are not consistent with the amended legislation intention. The unfortunate result may be that certain of the exemption sections will become ambiguous, and the assessor will have to be given clear direction to deal with it in the short-term leasehold interest, as an example, and it runs into potential court challenges and legal wrangling.

We believe that the intention of the act is to clarify that. We have attached a very simple amendment that will clarify that. It simply says that you either substitute "has as its registered owner," which you are intending to do anyway for "is owned by" where it appears in the sections, or add under the definition category as meaning "owned by a person who is a registered owner." So you declare that what "owned by" means or refers to. I think that it is simply a housekeeping type of amendment, because it makes it clear all the way through the bill what it is we are intending to try and accomplish. So I hope that is not too big a difficulty. I simply want to make sure that both our assessors and our law department have the opportunity to enact the legislation as the committee is intending.

Really effective, your amendments, Mr. Chairman. The city wholly supports the enactment of these amendments as they clarify wording and provisions which strengthens the assessor's ability to collect relevant and timely financial information. The technical amendments, we support them. These enactments, as they clarify and update aspects of day-to-day implementation of The Municipal Assessment Act, lead to greater stability and predictability in the assessment area.

As everybody understands the difficulties we have had, these amendments are going to go a long way to helping us get our house in order in that particular area. So we very much appreciate the fact the province has shown foresight in adopting a proactive approach to resolving difficulties of interpretation that can arise out of the court decisions, and we very much appreciate the support. We are here to support the general intention of the legislation, and with that one minor clarification which we think simply makes common sense to enact the intention of the amendments, I would very pleased to answer questions, if you have any, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Angus, for your presentation. Are there any questions or comments? If not, thank you again for your presentation.

Mr. Angus: Another scintillating presentation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your help.

Mr. Chairperson: I will call next Mr. Ed Arnold, Selkirk and District Planning Area Board, on Bill 38. Mr. Ed Arnold, is he here? I will call for a second time, Mr. Ed Arnold. Seeing him not, we will drop Mr. Arnold's name to the bottom of the list.

I will call then next on Bill 45, Doug Patterson, Q.C., Manitoba Bar Association. Is Mr. Patterson here? I will call for a second time, Mr. Doug Patterson, Q.C., Manitoba Bar Association. Seeing him not, Mr. Doug Patterson's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

Bill 40--The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Chairperson: I call next, Marilyn McGonigal on Bill 40, private citizen. Marilyn McGonigal. Have you a presentation for distribution?

Ms. Marilyn McGonigal (Private Citizen): No, I do not, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed then.

Ms. McGonigal: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have just received this legislation to review last night and I have a couple of points I would like to make that I think are very important in consideration of issues of domestic abuse and battered women.

Mr. Chairperson: Could I interject just a wee minute. Could those people that are standing in the back and having discussions, could they please move outside of the room? I am finding it very difficult to hear the presentation.

Can you hear in the back when I speak? No? I am asking that those people standing in the back and discussing items, could you please move into the hallway to have your discussions? I am finding it very difficult to hear the presentations. Thank you very much. You may proceed, Ms. McGonigal.

Ms. McGonigal: Thank you. By way of my background I have practised law in Manitoba for about 20 years, having just recently retired, and most of my practice was in the area of family law. I have dealt with a number of abuse situations, a great many. I am also involved in the Coalition Opposing Violence Against Women, a group in the city that is interested in seeing legislative change to improve the situation for women who are abused in our community.

My brief review of this act leads me to say that I am very pleased that this act is coming forward and certainly support legislation that will improve the chances of women not being reabused and not being abused in the first place and putting a stop to such things as abuse and stalking. Stalking is a particularly difficult thing to deal with, as you heard from Ms. Peters. A great deal of what she has said is basically part of what I would say.

But the issue I want to raise with you is actually one specific one. The first one is Section 19.1, where you have introduced a section that says the court may vary or revoke an order. I am not familiar with any words in this draft that say that the applicant must be present or notified of any plan to revoke orders. It appears that there is available without notice revocation and that poses a problem for me, because the applicant should have notice of any plan to revoke an order or it should be served on the applicant.

This poses a further problem of locating the applicant, because the respondent ought not to be responsible for knowing where she is. You see, in circumstances like this, she is a victim--and I am using the gender female advisedly because most victims are women in these cases--is often in hiding or has certainly changed her last known address to the respondent. So the responsibility for letting her know what is happening to her case is going to have to fall into the administration area. That is extremely important, and perhaps we need to have a contact place or a way of these persons making sure the appropriate court office or office has knowledge of her address that is not available to a respondent. That is extremely important. Also, where the applicant is present and there is an application to revoke the order, of course the judge must be satisfied it is fit and just to do so, but I think that it may be necessary to have a law that says that the instructions to consent to revoke an order should be made in the absence of the respondent.

Now, in most court cases, when both parties are present, when judges are making rulings or receiving evidence, it was my practice during my practice never to take instructions to discontinue a case on behalf of a woman unless she was alone and in my office voluntarily and not coerced. If you have both the applicant and the respondent in court asking to have an order revoked, I think that is in the same category as police going to a home and interviewing a victim and an abuser together--alleged abuser--or any other process that involves having both parties present. In these cases, one must recognize that it is necessary to separate the parties and receive the information, the instructions in some manner that will allow the judge to be satisfied that it is not necessary to have this order in place anymore.

Moving on from there to the next point, and this will relate to the first, is that I have a great concern and have had over the years a great concern about mutual orders of protection. They are very frequently granted by consent as a means of settling cases. It is a settlement ploy. It saves face for the abuser if protection orders and so forth are issued against both parties mutually. It makes the order look less like there is a victim and an abuser in the case, which is the one thing they often do not want to, certainly do not want to have in a settlement situation.

* (1110)

There is a great deal of pressure on women to have these orders be mutual, and I think it is very important that legislators understand that this should not happen without evidence of fear and evidence of actual requirement for such a mutual order. What we have to understand about this is that we have to understand abusers and stalkers. They have sociopathic, psychotic behaviours and tendencies, and they do not see laws as protecting rights or restricting their behaviours. They see them as tools, and they use them frequently.

I have heard many stories about how the law is used to create a situation where a woman can be breached for making a phone call about the children and so forth, and the woman--there is no reason on earth for this person to be afraid of this woman, and I think the issue then is fear. So to be consistent with certain parts of this legislation, we must have proof of fear. So the mutual order should not be given in any case unless there is sworn evidence or viva voce evidence of fear and good reason for it in circumstances where very often mutual orders are requested without presence of the parties by simply submitting consent orders to the court.

I also want to tell you that in my experience as a Legal Aid lawyer, often on doing these cases on legal aid certificates, lawyers are grossly underpaid in situations like these, because the general attitude is that certain things are not important. I say this because I was recently, before my retirement, advised by a fairly senior Legal Aid administrative officer that Legal Aid certainly does not pay to fight against mutual orders, that one just does this as a matter of course, and when that person was in practice, it was just one of the things you do to conclude the matter. You have settled custody; you have settled property; you have settled a lot of things and now this protection business, we really do not need this or, if you insist, then he has to be protected too.

There are far too many stories out there of women who actually have criminal records as a result of this process. One, for instance, I just happened to hear about last night, a woman who left her partner, with only one change of clothing. After he had assaulted her, she defended herself. He went to the police first. There were charges laid both ways. The result of assault charges both ways, he got there first and laid an assault charge against her. She went and that was it. They ended up with a mutual order of nonmolestation. That is an order not to contact, no-contact orders. What happened was that he contacted her, but the police would not investigate her reports of telephone calls. He also contacted her mother--and I know this legislation addresses some of these issues--and said it is okay for her to phone me and come and get her belongings. She did not believe him for months, but, finally, she made the call and, of course, it was on an answering machine. He took it to the police and insisted on a charge.

Now, I think that this legislation being quite strong--and I know there are probably ways it can be strengthened, but--must be examined for protection against the abuse of these laws, which become tools in the hands of abusers. Basically, that is what I would like you to have in mind as you look at some of these sections again, and make sure that they cannot be used this way and that, sometimes, further evidence is required.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair

I would caution without hesitation that where these orders are being sought against women who have children and are in situations where they are easily victimized and potentially abused, one should deal cautiously with issuing orders on behalf of people making such allegations. Thank you.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. McGonigal. Are there any questions?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Thank you very much for your presentation. I know that you have expressed some concerns that the legislation not go too far in one direction. In order to protect victims, we also do not create another class of victims, and that balance needs to be maintained. I thank you for your caution. Are there any specific sections that you feel might go too far?

I would be interested in your opinion. I know that there has been many, many discussions with many groups on this particular legislation. We have tried to ensure that that does not occur. For example, in the area of the initial orders under the protection orders, where those are done ex parte, without the other person being there, there are certain safeguards, so that the reputation of perhaps an innocent person is not tainted. So that was tried to be put into the process, recognizing, though, that in many cases it is difficult to make these assessments, and the need for speedy access to orders is very, very important.

Ms. McGonigal: Yes, I understand, I think, your concern. I think that, no, I am one of those people who think that you cannot go too far very easily to protect women from the abuse and stalking incidents in the community. They are very, very underrated as a means of coercion and intimidation. So it has to be allowed. But I think that something could be put into the legislation about mutual orders and what is required, as I have said, so that they are not just willy-nilly ordered.

I dare say, though, that if you are going to do telecommunication orders, it sounds like you are doing that with lawyers and/or court officers, right? I mean, one cannot just phone and get one, so I do not think that goes too far, if that is the case.

Mr. Toews: Just in that respect, I think your point is a good one, that when we are dealing with these ex parte orders, if it is not in person by the applicant, that the order itself be made with--I am just trying to find the section here--a peace officer or a lawyer, so that there is that kind of restriction, that there is an initial, I guess, assistance to the victim to ensure that this is not frivolous. I know that it is very, very important that we have speedy access, but I recognize your concern that we ensure the process is done in good faith and has integrity to it.

* (1120)

Ms. McGonigal: Yes, it could be other than that. When I think about it, there are many, many situations in which people do not have lawyers representing them because of the, well, I believe, legal aid structure and the fact that so many people who do not qualify for legal aid cannot have lawyers or they have exhausted their resources, like Ms. Peters, your earlier speaker, exhaust your resources on cases like this. Maybe it could include the people who are on the list for, for instance, witnessing passports or something. It is a much lengthier list of people who would be recognized.

I honestly do not know how, I do not right now know how you are going to protect with telephone applications, because recently I was conned on the phone by someone who claimed to be an official, in terms of in my professional capacity. Cons are going to take place. Obviously there are remedies if that is found out and so forth.

Mr. Toews: I guess, just to comment again, to thank you for your presentation and also indicate perhaps that is why and I believe that is why the drafters did limit it to a lawyer and, as they indicate, a peace officer, both at Section 4(2) and Section 5(1). So that goes to sort of create that balance.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I guess we are running out of time. I had two issues. First of all, just on that issue, we know in other jurisdictions where this legislation is in place, there are three other jurisdictions. I know particularly Saskatchewan, it is a lawyer, a peace officer, or a designated person. In order to accommodate the fact that in many small, perhaps remote communities, there may be a victims' services person or a volunteer who could be designated or given the background, given the skills to do this kind of work. We are proposing that and have given the minister that proposal as an amendment. You might want to just comment on that one. It is just to make sure that this act is flexible enough to apply even in remote communities, where of course there is a real need.

The second question is, if I would, Mr. Chair, your issue that you raise about the possibility of a revocation without notice to the applicant is a very important one. I just looked through the bill here, and indeed I do not see a provision in there with regards to either the emergency or the long-term orders that there is a requirement that the applicant be served before there is any further proceedings that lead to revocation. That was your conclusion, as well, was it? I mean, if that is the case there should be some provision built in there. I looked at the Saskatchewan bill, and indeed there is a requirement that the applicant be served with any notice of a rehearing, although she need not appear, obviously.

Ms. McGonigal: On the second point first. It is very important that that happen. It would be wrong if judges see that it is fit and just to remove these orders without knowing that the applicant knows, but it is equally important that that responsibility for service not be the respondents because that respondent is under an order not to contact, not to know, and she is hiding.

So that is the big point there, that you have a bureaucratic problem with that. You have to figure out how to do that, and it is fundamental, otherwise she thinks she is protected and she is not. She is in another province. She is having her orders processed, and she is now back in a tangle back in the first province because somebody has had a reason to get it removed. She cannot start again. She has got to give notices, and when she does that people find out where she is. Very, very important.

As to the first point, the first question, I reiterate that I think a designated person is a good idea in certain situations where you do not have local options, but it could be expanded beyond the peace officer or lawyer idea, particularly since lawyers cost money and peace officers are not always available.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: I want to thank you for your presentation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Going to Bill 28, The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments. The presenter, Candace Bishoff, please. Do you have copies? Just a moment, please. Okay, please proceed, Ms. Bishoff.

Ms. Candace Bishoff (Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I thank you for allowing me the opportunity to make a submission on behalf of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. By way of personal introduction, I am a senior lawyer with Manitoba Telecom Services, and in my capacity today I address you as the chair of the Labour and Employment Legislation Task Force of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.

The submission that has been handed out contains the detail of the comments that I would like to make on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. By way of introduction, the Chamber of Commerce was incorporated in March 1873 and is the largest business association in the Manitoba and Winnipeg community. Throughout its existence, the mission of the Chamber of Commerce has been to foster an environment in which Winnipeg business can prosper.

On behalf of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, I am making representation of a membership which includes over 1,200 member companies representing 65,000 employees. The majority of the chamber's membership, two-thirds of that membership, consists of companies that have less than 10 employees. The legislation that you are looking at today, Bill 28, will affect many small businesses that employ employees who will be affected by minimum-standards type of legislation, which is what you are considering in Bill 28.

The Chamber has been actively involved in a review of Bill 28 from its inception as a draft code of employment standards. The involvement has been through our involvement in the Labour Management Review Committee.

The Chamber is strongly in support of Bill 28 in general and is very pleased to see the efforts of the Department of Labour in connection with the preparation of this code. It is very comprehensive. It deals with some very old and archaic legislation, most notably The Employment Standards Act, The Vacations With Pay Act and The Payment of Wages Act. Those three pieces of legislation have caused a great deal of difficulty in administration in the Department of Labour in connection with inconsistent definitions, inconsistent methods of administration and enforcement, difficulty in administering procedures and other provisions which are redundant, outdated or inconsistent with one another. So it is a very good thing, both for business and for employees affected, to have one piece of legislation that deals with these issues.

The Chamber is, however, concerned and opposed to some of the provisions in the code. Specifically, it is in Section 144(1)(ll),(mm) and (oo). Those provisions address the regulatory power that the governor in council, the government would have in terms of providing a very broad and sweeping power that could result in changes to the legislation through regulatory enactment as opposed to the democratic process that takes place when the legislation itself is changed.

The Chamber proposes that those subsections that I have identified be deleted. The concern is that--and I will read those subsections because I think it is important that you understand the context in which I am making this presentation. Those sections say that the governor in council would have the power to make regulations which--and (ll) reads: define words or phrases that are not specifically defined in the code; (mm) reads: enlarging or restricting the meaning of a word or expression used in the code; and (oo) reads: respecting any matter the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary or advisable to carry out the intent and purpose of the code. (oo) is not as offensive as (mm) and (ll). (mm) and (ll), my concern is--as a lawyer, I make this comment. There are some lawyers that--there is at least one around the table. There were some others.

* (1130)

The difficulty is this starts a slippery slope. If you provide in your legislation for a regulatory power that can in fact change the legislation, what you are doing is you are enabling the government of the day--now it does not matter what the government might be, what the composition of that government might be--to change the legislation depending upon the feeling of the day without going through the normal democratic process that takes place before legislation is changed.

The Department of Labour has proposed a provision that might deal with these concerns, and that provision is the introduction of a consultative process. The consultative process would result in--and that is in another section in the code. That would result in the government getting together so-called interested parties to consult with. The problem with that is it is a band-aid solution because, first of all, it presupposes that the appropriate parties that are affected are going to be consulted. There would be, I would envision, some form of invitation to participate in a process. It would not be the typical public process that takes place when there is change to legislation.

The second concern I have is that it also could leave one with a false sense of security that the appropriate parties are being consulted with. That, in effect, could be abused because if there is a perception that there is consultation taking place but there, in fact, is not consultation with the right groups, what do you have left? You have an even worse situation because there is not the public opportunity to participate in the amendment process.

In addition, even though the legislation says the consultative process must take place, it does not say that the minister must adhere to or abide by whatever the recommendations are from the group that is being consulted with.

Mr. Chairman, those are my comments, and I thank you for the opportunity of making this presentation.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Bishoff, for your presentation.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Thank you for your presentation. I have indicated to my critic and I will indicate to the committee that I am going to propose an amendment to delete (ll) and (mm) from the legislation, and I just wanted you to know that.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Thank you, Ms. Bishoff, for your presentation here today. You indicated that by allowing (oo) section of the 144 to remain in the act, it would be, I think you said a slippery slope, if I recall your words correctly, in that it would allow the government to make changes without having too much by way of consultation.

In the act, you are perhaps aware that under Section 144(4), it allows for a consultation process to take place. We would hope that this would provide for the ability for the government to have a consensus take place between those employers of the province, those that you referenced that you represent and perhaps in addition to those that represent the working people of the province. Do you see that this particular Section 144(4) then would not address the issue with respect to the slippery slope that you referred to where the government, whichever government of the day, would incorporate changes without having some kind of a consensus take place with respect to the regulatory changes that the government is proposing or could propose, hypothetically, in the future?

Ms. Bishoff: Dealing with the first point you made, when I made the comment about the slippery slope, I was talking about the provisions that have been deleted, (mm) and (ll). Those provisions actually address the issue of changes to the definitions contained in the legislation. I said that (oo) was, in fact, the least offensive of the three provisions that we are asking be deleted. At least (oo) contemplates that the matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council is considering must be within the intent and purpose of the code.

Dealing with the question you raised about the consultative process, what I said is that my concern about that process is that, No. 1, you have to consult with the appropriate groups, and, No. 2, when that consultation has taken place, you have to consider that there is no obligation on the government to take into consideration the recommendations of the group that has been consulted with.

One point I did not make which I will add is that one must consider that there really is no group in the province that represents the group that we are talking about here of employees that are affected by the employment standards legislation. For the most part, we have the labour side representing collectively organized or unionized employees. The employees that are affected by this legislation will be those people that are in need of protection in terms of the minimum standards that are contemplated under this legislation.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I appreciate the submission. It is good to see you again, and, by the way, it was 10 years ago today that we were called to the bar. I cannot believe it how time--

Ms. Bishoff: You have a better memory than I do.

Mr. Mackintosh: I commend the Chamber for noting the potential for real problems and unaccountable decision making by extending regulatory powers in the way that this bill was being planned to be extended. This is not a partisan statement at all, but there has been--I am sure you notice--a real trend by governments of all stripes to move more and more to greater regulatory power at the expense of legislative power in the certainty that legislation provides. I really commend you for looking at the legislation with that in mind, because we all can benefit better if legislation is clear and certain and detailed and we not leave everything to the government of the day. Often the regulations are dealing with the real nitty-gritty and the real close-to-home issues that is the subject of legislation. So I am glad to hear that the minister had responded to that concern appropriately.

I have another bill before the Legislature with a very similar provision to (mm). So hopefully my minister will be as generous.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to point out in subsection (00) that these tend to deal with administrative matters and are governed by the intent and purpose of the code. It is a clause that tends to be in virtually all legislation. I would also like to thank Ms. Bishoff for the work that she did as part of the LMRC, as well as the chair, Wally Fox-Decent, and the labour representative, Rob Hilliard, who have put in countless numbers of hours to scrutinize legislation that I understand first was contemplated in 1984 and has taken a long, long time to evolve. I thank you for the dedication that you have shown to this task.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you for your presentation. With the indulgence of the committee before we move on, there is not clarity as to whether the people who are not present should be dropped to the bottom of the list. Is there agreement by the committee that that take place? [agreed]. Okay, just add to that, if they are called twice and not present, they are dropped. [agreed]

Mr. Chairperson: We will then move on to Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, and I call David M. Sanders, presenter, please. Mr. Sanders, do you have copies? Thank you. Okay, Mr. Sanders. If you would proceed, please.

Mr. David M. Sanders (Colliers Pratt McGarry): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Sanders. I am director of Real Estate Advisory Services for the commercial property real estate firm, Colliers Pratt McGarry, one of the largest firms in Winnipeg.

I and my staff have been handling property tax and business assessment appeals on behalf of commercial clients for about three years now, and we have had considerable experience with well over a thousand appeals. We do appear in the Board of Revision and the Municipal Board almost daily, and we have been participants in some of the recent precedent-setting court cases affecting assessment. My interest in speaking to Bill 32 is relating to assessment only.

On page 1 of my brief, there is a background discussion of our firm, and hopefully a reassurance for the members of the committee that our interest in this matter of assessment is that assessments be fair and just and taxation accordingly for our clients and, indeed, for all other taxpayers. It is in that light that I am appearing today and did appear previously in 1996 to make recommendations on assessment reform. We were certainly pleased that many of the recommendations that we made in 1996 were, in fact, received favourably and would hope that would be the case again today.

* (1140)

With respect to Bill 32, in my brief it is referred to on page 7, if you could turn to it--it is very brief--Bill 32, of course, is The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. My purpose in asking to appear on this particular bill was to comment only on Clause 33(2) of the bill which revises Section 326(3) of the act. This is the section dealing with the imposition of supplementary taxes after the tax roll has been completed. My intent was to draw the committee's attention to the discrepancy in the extent of retroactive taxation which is permitted by the provisions of The Municipal Act as opposed to The City of Winnipeg Act, and to make a request of you which is discussed above that, beginning at the bottom of page 6. So if you could turn to the bottom of page 6 of my brief, it is under the heading of Bill 36, The City of Winnipeg Act. I had asked to speak on that bill, but I was out of town on Monday. But I think I can still make the point I wanted to make because, in fact, I am still seeking and requesting a consequential amendment under Bill 32.

In dealing with the imposition of supplementary realty and business taxes, Bill 36 did not address that issue, although Bill 32 does, and I wish to point out that the relevant sections of The City of Winnipeg Act differ substantively from the provisions of the new Municipal Act, including the amendments which are contained in Bill 32 and which are before the committee this morning.

For your information, Section 183(2) of The City of Winnipeg Act authorizes the city to issue a licence in lieu of business taxes to "a person who occupies premises for the whole or any part of a year for the purposes of carrying on a business for which a business tax may be levied, and who is not levied for business tax in respect of the business premises for the period." There is no reference to prior years, and I believe this section should be interpreted to apply only to the current year. However, the city assessor apparently believes he has the authority to issue licences for prior years and regularly issues licences in lieu of business tax for the current year and up to two prior years demanding that the recipients pay up to three years business taxes within 30 days.

In fact, to my dismay, I now have a client who was given business tax bills for four years, from 1995 to 1998, on April 17 of this year, and I have to ask: is there to be no limit on such retroactive tax bills?

I also suspect the city assessor or staff may be relying in their minds on Section 208(2) of The City of Winnipeg Act, which does permit the city to issue supplementary realty tax bills but only for buildings which have been in existence but which were not assessed and only for the current year and up to two prior years.

Now, I ask the committee to note this morning that Section 326(3) of The Municipal Act, both the current section and with the amendment as proposed in Clause 33(2) of Bill 32, authorizes all other Manitoba municipalities to issue supplementary realty and business tax bills only for the current year and up to one prior year. It refers to no earlier than January 1 of the year preceding the amendment being made by the assessor.

So for consistency and fairness, I would respectfully request that Sections 183(2) and 208(2) of The City of Winnipeg Act be now amended to authorize licences in lieu of business tax and supplementary realty tax bills to be issued only for the current year and for up to one prior year, which would then be the same as for all taxpayers in the rest of the province.

If it is too late to amend Bill 36, which I gather has been reported by committee, perhaps you would be good enough to make the requested changes now by consequential amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act, but within either Bill 32, where this issue is in fact being dealt with for other municipalities, or indeed Bill 33 later on in the agenda this morning.

That, Mr. Chairman, is the presentation I wanted to make on Bill 32.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Sanders, for your presentation. Are there any questions? Seeing that there are no questions, I want to thank you for your presentation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: With that, I will ask you to proceed to Bill 33, please. Again, do you have a handout?

Mr. David M. Sanders (Colliers Pratt McGarry): It is all in there.

Mr. Vice-Chairperson: All right. Then I will ask you to proceed, please, Mr. Sanders.

Mr. Sanders: Mr. Chairman, if I could then have you turn to page 2 of the brief submitted dealing with Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. The first and the most important amendment I guess I have to ask of you deals with the effect of providing no information or penalty clauses which are found in the present legislation and which are to be amended by the bill before you.

Committee members will recall that amendments given Royal Assent on October 22, 1996, provided for a very severe penalty of a year's delay in obtaining otherwise justified reductions in assessment in cases where an appellant had failed to comply with the assessor's request for information on income and expenses of a property under the new Clause 16(1)(c) of The Municipal Assessment Act. The existing Sections 54(3.2) and 60(2.2) provided in such cases assessment reductions are not to take effect until "the year following the year in which the order is made."

As you may know, most 1998 realty assessment appeals were heard by the Board of Revision during 1997. Accordingly, in those very few cases where the Board of Revision decided that there had been noncompliance, the board still ordered that the reductions take effect in 1998, which of course was the year following the year in which they made their order and, indeed, was the year in which the assessment was to be effective anyway. The effect of course was, therefore, no penalty at all.

What you have before you in Clauses 14(2) and 16(3) of Bill 33, propose to amend the two sections to provide that, where applicable, the assessment reductions will not take effect "until the year following the year in which the order is made, or the year following the year to which the application relates, whichever is later."

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I submit that this proposed wording, which is no doubt intended to address the city's experience with the '98 appeals, would however result in extremely punitive and unfair penalties unless it is further amended now. Committee members must appreciate that it is still the case that final, Municipal Board orders may not be issued until many years after the "year to which the application relates."

I personally still have appeals for 1990, 1994, 1995, '96 and '97 which are not yet scheduled for hearing by the Municipal Board. It is also clear that the board will not be hearing all of the 1998 appeals until sometime in 1999 or later. I believe they have some 1,300 appeals. Under the wording proposed in Bill 33 before you, an appellant who is unable to have his 1998 assessment appeal heard by the Municipal Board until sometime in 1999 would then be subject to a penalty of two years delay in tax relief, having to wait until the year 2000, the year following the year in which the order will be made, or in fact possibly later, if the order was not made until 2000, and that is not outside the realm of possibility.

Turning to page 3, I would ask you to contrast that result for those unlucky appellants with the fact that the vast majority of appellants who obtained reductions during the Board of Revision hearings in 1997 were not penalized at all. I believe the true intent of the Legislature in this matter would be accomplished if the two sections were amended to provide simply that in such cases assessment reductions will not take effect until "the year following the year to which the application relates."

In both Clauses 14(2) and 16(3) of Bill 33, I would ask that you please simply delete the words "the year following the year in which the order is made", and at the end, "whichever is later," and your end I believe will be accomplished.

I would like to say a little bit more on this point. I would also request that the bill be amended to provide that these two penalty clauses--indeed there are two companion Sections 54(3.6) and 60(2.1) that will be effective only for appeals of the new general assessment for 2002 and thereafter. Such clear direction from the Legislature would ensure consistency and fairness now and avoid the need for a great deal of unnecessary litigation over the city assessors' continuing efforts to seek invocation of those sections in a few highly selective and, for them, unfortunate cases.

* (1150)

In considering this last request, I think committee members should be aware that after passage of the amendments in October of 1996, the city assessor failed to issue any requests for information under the new Section 16(1)(c) or any information relevant to the preparation of the 1998 general assessment for any property. The fact is that there is no one to whom these sections should apply. The owners and tenants of properties which the city assessor has singled out for test cases on this matter would certainly appreciate it if the government would clarify things now and save them the substantial trouble and expense of the otherwise inevitable Municipal Board hearings and trials in the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal. To the extent that my friend Councillor Angus expressed a desire to avoid such litigation, I would share that and ask that you help us both out by clarifying things.

The second issue I wish to deal with on the bottom of page 3 is the definition of "registered owner" in The Municipal Assessment Act, and in particular the insertion of the words "in fee simple." Clause 2(a) and 2(b) of Bill 33 propose to amend the definition of "registered owner" to mean, in respect of land, a person who is the owner of an estate in fee simple in land.

The present definition in the act is significantly different in that it includes any person who is registered under The Real Property Act as an owner of land or who is a grantee in a conveyance of land registered under The Registry Act. The significance of this definition is found in Section 11(1) of the act, which is actually being amended by Clause 5 of Bill 33 before you, which states that the assessor shall assess property in the name of the "registered owner" of the land.

Turn to page 4, for the committee's information in this particular act, "land" means real property other than an improvement, and "real property" means land and improvements on the land and includes (a) an interest held in land or an improvement, and (b) air, surface or subsurface rights and interests in respect of land.

I believe that the effect of the proposed amendment, which is to limit the assessor to assessing property in the name of the registered owner "in fee simple," would be in fact to exclude the possibility of assessing in the names of registered owners of leasehold estates in land, such as ground leases, and other related interests in air space parcels, surface or subsurface rights, life estates, which are going to be capable of registration pursuant to Bill 41 before this House, and so on.

This amendment would make it impossible to obtain separate assessments and tax bills for registered owners of these types of estates and interests in land and could greatly complicate both assessments and tax allocation problems for all such owners affected. For example, all the commercial properties and apartment buildings located on ground leases and in air space parcels on the North Portage Development Corporation's land would once again be assessed in the name of the corporation. It has taken us years of appeals and court cases to get the assessments of these entities sorted out in a way that makes some commercial sense, and this amendment would undo all that work.

I suspect that the city has requested this amendment having been frustrated in its unsuccessful court appeals attempting to exclude the downtown YMCA and certain community centres from the benefit of school tax exemptions, because they are registered owners of leasehold interests in land or air space parcels and not land in fee simple. And yet you will see Clause 10 of Bill 33 before you is indeed intended to preserve the exemptions for precisely these two categories of taxpayer if the property is "held under leasehold title."

With respect, I fail to see what mischief the proposed amendment is supposed to correct. I do see that the amendment will create a great deal of mischief if it is approved as proposed. I would therefore request that the committee delete Clause 2 of Bill 33 and leave the definition of "registered owner" as it is now. All registered owners of estates or interests in land, as presently defined in the act, will then continue to be able to obtain assessments and tax bills in their own names.

Turn to page 5. There is a further amendment with respect to the assessor's power to correct errors and omissions, amendment to Section 14. Clause 6 of Bill 33 proposes to expand the assessor's powers to correct errors and omissions at any time, to include errors and omissions described in Section 13(1) of the act. That section provides for the assessors to make amendments to annual assessment rolls being prepared in years other than when a general assessment is required for a wide variety of reasons.

I can see no reason for the proposed amendment, unless the intent is to enable the assessors to make those type of corrections retroactively to assessment rolls for prior years. On the one hand, I have made requests for Section 13(1) corrections which the assessor has failed to make or acknowledge or reply to, and I have submitted Section 13(2) appeals of those matters to the Board of Revision. So far the board has refused even to hear them. So I ask, just perhaps to be enlightened, would this amendment now permit the assessor to make those corrections? On the other hand, I would be concerned if the intent of the amendment is to allow the assessors to make retroactive corrections without restrictions. I would appreciate very much if the minister or his officials could advise just what the incident intended to be accomplished is by this particular amendment.

A very short one, in the middle of page 5, the posting of a notice of appeal hearing, community committee offices. I believe clause 15 which amends Section 57(7) needs to be revised, which is discussed below on page 6. Essentially I believe that you have to decide what amendment you do want, whether this amendment in clause 15 or the amendment in Bill 36.

I would say, towards the bottom of page 6, and my preference would be that you amend both Sections 41(4)(a) and 57(7) of The Municipal Assessment Act, to provide that in the case of the City of Winnipeg, such notices of hearings shall be posted not only at City Hall, but also at the office of the Board of Revision, which is presently done, and perhaps in all public libraries if there are no other regional offices of the city anymore.

And finally, at the bottom of page 5, the question of coming into force, transitional clauses. I would respectfully request that very careful consideration be given to the insertion of quite specific clauses in this bill dealing with the coming into force of the various clauses, and especially clauses 2, 6, 14(2), and 16(3), because at any given point in time there are a wide variety of assessments, appeals, and procedural issues underway under existing legislation. The Legislature could again avoid a lot of grief and litigation by making the effort now to spell out just what its intentions really are with respect to the application of the new amendments through existing and ongoing matters, keeping in mind the importance of maintaining some equity as between matters which are already settled and those still in dispute.

I thank you very much for listening to me. I would be happy to try to answer your questions now or indeed later if I can be helpful.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Sanders. Any questions? Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Chairperson: I call next Valinda Morris, Bill 38. Valinda Morris. Would you come forward, please. Have you a presentation for distribution?

Ms. Valinda Morris (Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba): I do.

Mr. Chairperson: The Clerk will distribute. You may proceed with your presentation.

Ms. Morris: Good morning, Mr. Minister, members of the committee. I apologize if you have crooked copies and for the handwritten changes. I have had mechanical hostility all morning. Nothing is centred, and this was frozen in twice and had to be faxed over here, et cetera.

Anyway, it is a pleasure to present this report on behalf of the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba. We are doing this because our council has already been mandated by its membership to advocate for improvements in integrated land use planning, enforcement of provincial land use policies, maintaining sustainable development principles, prevention of urban sprawl, and protection of the public interest.

As some of you will know, we have an active urban and rural issues committee that studies and tracks the applications for various development plans and zoning by-law amendments around the province. We have appended our open letter to the Premier and all MLAs regarding responsible land use in the Winnipeg region. This illustrates our policy and the background logs the active role the Councils of Women take in advocating for these improvements. It covers the period 1989 to 1995. We have done more than that, but I have not included that tabulation. This accumulated research puts us in a unique position to comment on Bill 38, Planning Act Amendments.

* (1200)

We are not legal experts, so we seek and receive voluntary legal advice on technical terms and meaning. We are not professional planners. We are not paid by anyone, nor beholden to anyone either, in spite of what was insinuated in the Free Press yesterday. Our work is part of the public service advocacy and education that the Councils of Women have been offering for over a hundred years.

We would like to acknowledge the co-operation received from the staff of the Corporate Planning and Business Development division of the Department of Rural Development. Their explanations and answers to our queries have been very helpful in cutting down the comments we are making today.

We agree with the four aims of Bill 38: streamlining, standardization, flexibility and improved public participation. There is also language clarification that we appreciate as well. Overall, we commend Bill 38 with a few restrictions.

Our serious concerns and criteria are as follows. One, do the proposed amendments weaken the wording and application of the provincial land use policies, the PLUP? Yes, and we will cite one example where we believe this tendency is evidenced. It is in subsection 25(3) saying "and may include," not "shall" but "may," which would allow municipalities or planning districts to undertake limited or extensive studies as may be appropriate. Thus a wide discretionary choice is given to municipalities or districts. Will they decide according to their interests in economic or environmental issues or according to the time or funding they have available? We believe that the best way to protect the public interest is to have provincial leadership and responsibility evident in a supportive manner. For example, in this subsection it could be more specific and refer to the availability of provincial data and staff.

Another permissive clause is 40(3) where the verb "may" is used.

Second concern, does Bill 38 enable municipalities to understand and enforce government policy and regulations? We believe that the legislation must protect those who, in the course of their civic duty, have to say no to their friends and relatives. We are thinking here of the municipal leaders who have a very difficult role to perform.

We would like to draw your attention to the attached excerpt from the Manitoba Water Commission Interim Report. It is at the back of your package there, dated March 19, 1998. We quote from its page 64: Not all municipalities have been enforcing their own zoning by-laws. Although the responsibility for passing the by-laws rest with the municipality, the province must approve the plan and ensure the necessary by-laws are passed. It appears that neither or these conditions have been met in the R.M. of Ritchot. Oh dear, there is a terrible mistake--that should be Ritchot. Sorry, missed that one.

This leads us to ask who or which level of government enforces the by-laws. It seems that the responsibility stops with passing them and writing them down. After the '97 flood, the public purse had to underwrite the damage caused by this lassitude and failure to take responsibility. This was preventable and still is. Please read the recommendations on page 66 of this report and make sure that Bill 38 is as up to date and responsible as possible in the light of these findings.

Apparently, the computer also dodged me, because I had another sentence in there about the fact that there was a 63 percent noncompliance with the Water Resources Commission's permits. I find this very high and I feel that the municipality was remiss. They were unable to have proper inspectors. Some of the land owners who were second owners of properties did not know that their lovely houses were below the standard. So there is a problem all around. But if the inspections are not done when the buildings are first put in, I think it is just human nature that people think it is okay, and it was not okay. Any of you who have driven down Marchand Drive, say, last February and again after the flood, you can hardly recognize what has happened there. So it is a big problem.

Also, if this standing committee can manage it, we would request that this Bill 38 be harmonized with The Water Resources Administration Act to prevent further noncompliance with the stipulated regulations.

Third concern, should subsection 51(3)(b) be clarified as suggested in the Council of Women of Winnipeg's written submission to this hearing. Unfortunately, I have not appended it, but it will be available to you. If so, we suggest adding, and I quote, "except when the property or building"--I did not know whether there was right wording--"or parcel or structure is flooded due to being below the permitted level for flooding." It just seems wise to put in an extra phrase about the flooding conditions in this section.

The last one, how many people understand the difference between major and minor alterations to a development plan or zoning by-law. In subsections 28(7) and 42(9), the words "is of the opinion," that is, the local council is of the opinion, suggests a subjective decision that cannot be challenged.

Subsection 30(4) does offer a process of appeal if someone objects. Another alternative is to change the wording in the first two subsections to "where the alteration is of a minor nature, making it an objective decision, not a subjective one."

In conclusion, the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba hopes that the above are constructive comments and suggestions. We look forward to seeing the recommendations of the committee on Sustainable Development implementation. We think it will further alter The Planning Act. Meanwhile, we believe Bill 38 is a decided improvement.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Morris, thank you very much for your presentation. Excuse me for being preoccupied with some other business matter. Any questions for Ms. Morris?

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Not so much a question as again congratulations on an excellent job. As I have stated before in other committees and other bills, the work of the Provincial Council of Women and the Council of Women of Winnipeg has always been of superlative quality, and I frankly do not know where we in the Legislature would be without the work that you have done. So congratulations again.

Ms. Morris: Thank you. I accept on behalf of the council.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Morris, sorry about that. Proceed. Go ahead, Ms. Barrett?

Ms. Barrett: No, that is fine.

Mr. Chairperson: No more questions. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Morris: Sorry I spoke out of turn.

Mr. Chairperson: It has been brought to my attention that the person representing the Canadian Paraplegic Association is here. I am wondering whether we could get leave from the committee that we might hear her before we recess for lunch. Is that agreed? [agreed]

I will then call Ms. Kristine Cowley of the Canadian Paraplegic Association to come forward, please. Ms. Cowley, do you have a written presentation for distribution? The Clerk will distribute.

* (1210)

For the benefit of those people waiting to make presentations, I believe I have instructions, and if it is the will of the committee, that we will recess at 12:30 or thereabouts. We would then reconvene the committee at three o'clock to continue further hearings and presentations. Does the committee agree to that? [agreed] For the benefit of those that are here, you might want to go for lunch but be back here at three o'clock to continue the presentations. Thank you.

Ms. Cowley, would you want to proceed with your presentation.

Ms. Kristine Cowley (Canadian Paraplegic Association): Certainly. You can hear me?

Mr. Chairperson: Yes.

Ms. Cowley: My name is, as you have already heard, Kristine Cowley. I am the Executive Director of the Canadian Paraplegic Association. We are a member-based organization which provides rehabilitation, information and advocacy services for people who are spinal cord injured in Manitoba.

Just to give you a bit of background, there are about 800 people living in Manitoba with spinal cord injury. In the course of doing what we do, we often through delivering rehabilitation services or information services see things where there is a need within the membership of people who are spinal cord injured that we need to address. So this is as part of that that we are speaking to you today.

In particular, this is in regard to the recommendation to amend Bill 45. In particular, it is referring to the section relating to personal care or attendant assistance for people who are injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident. As it says here on page 1, under Section 11 of the current Bill 45, there is one recommendation to change Section 131 so that it reads "shall" rather than "may." We also recommend that Section 131 be amended, so that we strike out the section that says "of not more than $3,000 per month," and in essence what we are recommending is that the upper limit on attendant care be removed. We are suggesting that it be replaced instead with the recommendation that the level of attendant care be determined by an appropriate medical authority from time to time. That is detailed in bold as you can see here.

Secondly, we are recommending that it be retroactive. So that is where the 131 paragraph 1 comes in where we say: For greater certainty, the personal assistance expenses under this section are payable to qualified victims after March 1, 1999, whether the accident that results in the bodily injuries giving rise to the claim occurs before or after March 1, 1999.

The reason for this is--just to put into words that are understandable--people currently who are injured in the motor vehicle accident are eligible for home care assistance up to $3,000 a month, and that covers the vast majority of people who need assistance, there is no problem. But just so that you will see in here, since the implementation of PIPP, there has been 35 people who have been injured, sustained a spinal cord injury as a result of this accident. Now, of those 35 people, only 12 are in need of some form of attendant care. So this does not affect everybody. Secondly, of those 12 only seven would really need--there is a typo here. It is actually only four of these people who are injured would be needing more than the $3,000 per month limit.

So what this means in the terms of spinal cord injuries is that someone who has no use of their arms at all, who would need assistance in getting up, getting dressed, performing activities that are required for daily living. I spoke with MPI, and the number of people who this would affect since implementation of PIPP in total is nine people, which means in the last four years there has only been nine people who this would actually affect retroactively.

So what we are talking about is a very small number of people out of the total of people who are injured through motor vehicle accidents, who would need to have this increased attendant care level. That really is not very many, but we are talking about the most disabled of all of the people who are injured through motor vehicle accidents. So this is brain injury in the case of head injury and spinal cord injury. So someone who is a high level quadriplegic, you know, you have probably seen them, they go around in a power wheelchair and they cannot move their arms or their legs.

Now, currently if you have an injury through Workers Compensation Board and you need 24-hour attendant care, this is covered, so this is not something that is not done. We know of, just as an example, two people who were injured from out of province who do need 24-hour-a-day care, and it is provided through their Workers Compensation insurance. This will not affect people who are currently needing less than $3,000 a month in attendant care, because their attendant care is based on need.

So, for example, if all a person needs is somebody to help them get out of bed in the morning, then the rest of the day they are on their own and they are fine, this change in legislation will not affect that at all. There will not be any increased costs because their need is there and it is already provided for. This is only going to affect the people who have a limit of $3,000 and they need more care.

Now currently there are several ways that people have been trying to get around this, and one of them as you can read on page 2, is there is just the example there, there is one C4-quadriplegic who requires access to attendant care 24 hours a day. They get $3,124 from MPI's first insurer, and they have to be supplemented by the province of Manitoba's Continuing Care to be over $7,000 per month.

Now, that is fine as long as there is an office of Continuing Care and there is a home care program within the province. But it is not fine if they try and move out of province. They cannot move to Alberta, they cannot move to B.C., because they are stuck with their $3,000 limit, and as soon as they move out of province, they are in trouble. In other cases, there is a fellow who is living on reserve, and the band supplements his care to the tune of $4,000 a month. So, this is at the whim of other programs that exist, even though the reason that they need the personal assistance is directly related to a motor vehicle accident.

In terms of need, it definitely can be defined that these people have a need for assistance. It is directly related to the motor vehicle accident. It is not something that they want. It is something that they just need in order to get up and to function from day to day. The way it is now, there is no transportability. They cannot move out of province, and in fact, some of them cannot move out of their home because their parents might be providing them with some assistance, if they are young and they cannot afford to supplement the $3,000 that they are currently getting.

So, those are the reasons why it will have a small impact on the vast majority of claimants through Autopac. Given their track record of only nine people in the last four years, it is a small proportion and it will only continue to be a small proportion of the population. Yet, it is arbitrary upper limit which really does not make much sense when you are thinking about insured need. When these people bought their insurance, they probably asked the insurer, will this take care of everything in the event of an accident? They probably said, sure, it will take care of all of your needs but yet, it is not.

So, that is the end of my submission, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Cowley. We have 10 minutes of questions that we need to deal with. Mr. McCrae?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Act): I am sorry, I did not mean to interrupt.

Mr. Chairperson: I am wondering whether we might want to do the questioning on this person, and then adjourn for lunch or recess until three o'clock, or whether you want to continue hearing--[interjection] We hear the questions here, and then deal with--okay, thank you.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I want to thank the presenter, and I want to indicate that we certainly share the concern and would like to thank you for identifying the concern to us. I know my colleague, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), has been involved in getting an amendment drafted. I do want to acknowledge too that I know the minister is currently looking at this. I think what is particularly important is that the fact that Workers Comp has worked out a system that does not end up with this same result. I certainly want to indicate that as the critic from the official opposition, if we can work with the government to come up with a satisfactory conclusion, we certainly would be pleased to do that. If not, we have an amendment ready. As you said, it is not going to be a significant impact on Autopac, but can have a significant impact on the people involved. So, it is more a comment than a question, but we certainly support the concern and will be doing what we can to make sure that the bill is corrected.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Cowley, do you want to respond?

Ms. Cowley: No. I mean, I think it is--well, here I am responding. I mean, it is clearly a need the people have, and it is very large for those individuals, but not large in the context of the whole MPI insurance issue.

* (1220)

Mr. McCrae: I join with the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and all the members of this committee in thanking you for coming today, for waiting around, and for making your presentation.

As the honourable member for Thompson has said, we are attempting to deal with the main part of the issue that you are raising today. I have to say that unfortunately the amendment of the type that we are talking about does not solve the problem. The only way that this problem can be resolved is by looking at the policy between Manitoba Public Insurance and the Continuing Care division of Manitoba Health. As I understand the situation, we have the coverage set out in our schedule, which is comparable to coverage in provinces like Saskatchewan and B.C. However, there are those that you have referred to whose requirements go, in some cases, well beyond the coverage set out in the legislation.

It is indexed and it is up a little over $3,000 now. That amount combined with the amount that is ordinarily obtainable under Continuing Care would bring us to the levels that we need to be, except that the policy of Manitoba Health is to deduct the amount that MPI makes available, making the amount available to be about $5,200 tops. If they did not do that and they took the amount available from Manitoba Health, as well as the amount available from MPI, this problem would be wiped out for virtually all the people that you have been referring to.

So what we have been doing is doing some negotiations with Manitoba Health and with the government and with Manitoba Public Insurance to do exactly what the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is asking or suggesting that we do, and that is to fix the problem. I believe by this amendment, without change at Manitoba Health, will ultimately not make the difference unless you just wiped out the arrangement altogether that we have with Manitoba Health and give an unlimited amount, which would be unique in North America with respect to insurance policy. So we are committed to fixing this problem, the one that you have identified and working with you and keeping you informed as to how we are doing it, but we simply cannot fix it under the present regimen by the amendment that is being recommended here today.

You made reference to people who leave the province. I do not think we can accommodate everything that you are referring to here today in that area. The response that I can make in that regard is the coverage that we have in Manitoba under MPI is comprehensive and compares very well with other public insurance situations in places like Saskatchewan and B.C.

Ms. Cowley: Well, thank you, but I do think that it actually might be a change in terms of public insurance legislation. Workers Compensation Board currently allows people to receive the required assistance up to whatever they need, and it might even include 24-hour daycare, which you are not going to get any higher than that.

So the legislation, I think, exists in order to cover people based on insurance on a needs-based system. I think that you are currently, the way I understand it, if MPI is the first insurer for medical expenses, then they can continue to use the office of Continuing Care within Manitoba to subsidize some of the costs for the attendant care and the personal assistance that is required, but nonetheless, if you made it a needs-based system, you would still be solving the problem. It would be a matter of negotiation with the office of Continuing Care as to how that is worked out while people are living in the province, and it would still allow them to go outside the province.

It might be more a matter of negotiation. There is just a different way of looking at it.

Mr. McCrae: I will indeed look at the way it is done at Workers Compensation. My concern is to address the issue that you are raising. I do not want to see people in catastrophically injured situations basically going begging for help that they need just to get through their normal daily lives. I look forward to working with you to make sure that this is resolved in a satisfactory way.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Just two questions to Ms. Cowley. First of all, I appreciate the chance to work with CPA often, and it has been a very rewarding relationship I have had for 30 years, I guess, working with various predecessors in the organization. CPA has achieved a marvellous record of advocacy and service and you have continued that tradition.

I understand the government is willing to try and solve this problem, but I want to ask Ms. Cowley two questions: one is whether she would agree, from her experience in the organization, that these very high-level, high-need cases are precisely the cases that used to go to tort law, to court, and they are also precisely the cases that resulted in the very large awards that would be sufficient to pay the kind of care that we are talking about. To a certain extent, do you see the problem we have here as a problem related to no-fault insurance where settlements and payments are capped without reference to the need of the person?

Ms. Cowley: In terms of being capped without reference to need, that is true. That is why we are recommending the change within Home Care. Yes, these probably would have been the people who would litigate and would have high costs of future care, because you would develop cost-of-future-care reports. So yes, they would have sued, and they would have had very high settlements if they were found according to fault. But it is limited right now in terms of cap and not limited by need, which is a shortcoming.

Mr. Sale: The second question, Mr. Chairperson, is that it seems to me there is a kind of prima facie injustice here, and that is that MPI claimants are people who have paid through the insurance process for coverage for hazards. It appears that in the current situation in Manitoba that coverage really has no effect, no effective help to the person receiving home care, because in effect, Manitobans are entitled to home care through Manitoba Health. They are entitled to home care through MPI, and Manitoba Health is treating MPI as a revenue source, rather than as an entitlement on the part of the person who is injured to add to the level that they would provide a Manitoban whether or not they had an insurance claim that would provide them with additional resources.

It seems to me that is kind of a strange situation for the province to want to be in where for some people in some situations their insurance is really of no benefit to them, because they would get the same care anyway up to $5,200 a month currently. Right now Manitoba Health says well, that is fine, we will still pay up to $5,200 a month; we will just take the $3,000 as revenue to our system.

That is the problem, but, I mean, that seems to me that is a kind of prima facie injustice, because people have paid for insurance, the proceeds of which are essentially confiscated.

Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has identified it along with the presenter today and ourselves. I think he is right, that there ought to be some benefit to being a policyholder, and that is what we are committed to addressing.

I do, though, want to add one thing. The honourable member's comments seemed to be made on the basis that under tort people did so much better, and, frankly, some people did, but some people did a lot worse. I think the honourable member forgot to mention that. Our presenter reminded him of that. That is why the no-fault was the right way to go, and I do not need to make a long speech about that.

I think that once in a while we should remind ourselves, though, of that point, that regardless of fault now, whatever levels of benefit are available are available to everybody.

* (1230)

Mr.