LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
May 8, 1992
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its Fourth Report.
Your Standing Committee met on Tuesday,
November 13, 1990, at 10 a.m., in Room 255 of the
At the November 13, 1990, meeting, Mr.
Rick Cooke, president and chief executive officer, and Mr. Don Vernon,
chairperson, provided such information as was requested with respect to the
1989 Annual Report and business of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management
Corporation.
At the May 7, 1992, meeting, Mr. Rick
Cooke, president, provided such information as was requested with respect to
the 1989, 1990 and 1991 Annual Reports and business of the Manitoba Hazardous
Waste Management Corporation.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Reports of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation for the years
ended December 31, 1989, December 31, 1990, and December 31, 1991, and has
adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Sixth
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as their Sixth Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, May 7,
1992, at 10 a.m., in Room 254 of the
Mr. Jim Clarke, chairperson; Mr. Malcolm
Wright, president; Mr. Neil Briggs, vice‑president; and Mr. Cyril
Vickers, secretary provided such information as was requested with respect to
the Annual Reports and business of Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Reports for Manitoba Mineral Resources for the fiscal years ending December 31,
1990 and 1991, and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
* (1005)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the 1991 Annual Report of the
Public Utilities Board.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 83‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act (3)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 85‑The
Labour Relations Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 85, The Labour
Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail, be
introduced and that same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us
this morning, Mr. Noble Villeneuve, who is the MPP for Stormont,
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this morning.
Also with us this morning, we have seated
in the Public Gallery from
On behalf of all members, I welcome you
here this morning.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Economic
Growth Employment Statistics
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Last Friday statistics were produced by
Statistics Canada showing
Mr. Speaker, we have also seen the decline
in massive numbers of the number of people employed in full‑time jobs in
the
I would like to ask the Premier, as the
chair of the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet: Can he please advise us how we have lost and
where we have lost 17,000 full‑time jobs in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I know that the Leader of the Opposition
enjoys doom and gloom and enjoys putting the most negative face on
Since that point in time, we have had
announcements, for instance, of the transference later this year of two‑wheel‑drive
tractor manufacturing from
These are the things that we are working
on as a government, because we believe in the ability of
* (1010)
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we know that we are the
third best unemployment rate amongst the provinces today. We know that is not good enough. We know that we have to keep working to ensure
that we attract new investment, new job creation. We have done that in a variety of ways by
setting a more competitive tax regime, five straight budgets with no major
increases in taxes. We will compare that record to any province in the country,
and that is the way we are moving to create the opportunities for new investment,
new employment opportunities and new long‑term growth for this province.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, in the scripts that were written
for the Premier, unfortunately, his staff did not provide the bottom line
numbers in manufacturing, because a year ago there were 56,000 people working
in
Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier a
question about why we have lost 17,000 jobs, and the reason is that 14,000
people have dropped out of the labour force in the last 12 months in this
province, 14,000 people have quit looking for work and do not show up in the
unemployment percentage. That is the
reason why we have 17,000 people less working than a year ago. That is the reason. These people are in the food banks. They are in the welfare areas. They are rising every day.
I would ask the Premier, we have had a
drop out in the labour force statistics of a half a percent, nationally,
through the national recession. In
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the statistics
that were provided indicate that there was a reduction in the labour force in
every single province in this country in that same reporting period. This is not anything that is a phenomenon to
I might say, on a year‑to‑date
basis for the first four months of this year, January, February, March and
April, that
That is why Medox corporation have come to
The Economic Development Board is very
conscious not only of the need to revitalize our economic base but to diversify
into areas that we have never had before.
We believe that progress is being made.
We believe there is more work to be done. We are going to be working very, very hard to
ensure that is our No. 1 priority in
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about
My question to the Premier is‑‑and
he has not answered the question. There
is a .5 percent decline in the number of people in our labour force in
Can the Premier please advise Manitobans
why the despair rate in
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, as
I have said throughout the last 10 days or so, is concentrating on the
past. What he has to do is concentrate
on the projections for the future.
Since the 1st of April we have had three
forecasts from three separate banks, all of whom are saying that
* (1015)
Tantalum
Mining Corporation
Employment
Protection
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I think Manitobans realize that
this province has been on a toboggan ride downhill since this government took
office.
Nowhere has it been worse than in northern
I am wondering if the Minister of Energy
and Mines can tell us when the province knew that this operation was in
jeopardy and what it has done. What is
it doing to protect the 110 mining jobs that exist in that operation?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I was at
the same meeting that the member for Flin Flon was at and I in no way got the
reflection that he got, that there were any jobs in jeopardy from the president
of MMR. I would hope that he would come
to this Legislative Assembly with the truth once, so that he does not leave
false impressions with the people of
Mr. Speaker, there is no truth to what the
member puts on the record. There is work
being done there in a responsible manner by MMR and the companies involved.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to representatives
from the community who say that the minister is dead wrong.
Contract
Negotiations
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question is to Minister of Energy and
Mines. Can the minister explain how,
after being told at committee by the president of MMR, that they have no
contracts for the sale of tantalum after June 1992, that there is no problem?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, if I remember correctly, what was said by the president of MMR is that
he did not feel it was appropriate to put information as it related to
negotiations with the product from that mine.
He did not say that there were not going to be sales. ‑‑[interjection] They had no contracts,
but he said because of the‑‑the member is happy that they do not
have contracts and there could be difficulty.
That is where they get their satisfaction, is at the misery of
people. Shame on them!
What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the
president of MMR said because of the negotiations he did not feel it
appropriate to put it on the public record.
Employment
Protection
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, members on this side are happy
the government finally acknowledged, after denying it in the first question,
that there are problems. No contract
after June could constitute a problem.
The workers out there believe there is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Energy and Mines. Can the
Minister of Energy and Mines tell me what he has done to protect these 110 jobs
in Lac du Bonnet at the Tantalum Mining Corporation, what he intends to do, to make
sure that those jobs remain, the few mining jobs that are left?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the member that MMR, through its board of directors and
through its management, the president, and those people who have had the
responsibility for years for MMR, are carrying out their activities
responsibly, working to obtain longer‑term contracts, and to ensure jobs.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage
him to expand the opportunities in those communities which may take place as
well.
Economic
Growth
Employment
Statistics
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, as we have been talking about
the economy in this province, the government has taken to blaming it on the
recession, blaming the drop in this province on the recession. I would like to just make the Premier aware
of a couple of numbers. Between the day
this government took office and today, there have been 47,000 jobs lost; actual
employment has gone down by 47,000 jobs in this country. In
I would like to ask the Premier this
question: Why has 23 percent of the job
losses in this country been sustained by a province that has only 4 percent of
the population?
* (1020)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I guess the representative of
the Liberal Party is not aware of the various elements of our economy. He is not aware, for instance, that one of
the major elements of our economy is agriculture and that agriculture has
sustained tremendous losses as a result of an international grain trade war
that has depressed prices to levels in real terms that last year were lower
than they had been in their history, that saw the real income of farmers down
to one‑quarter what it had been a decade ago and so on.
The Liberal Party, of course, has no
knowledge of the agricultural sector of our economy, and so he is unaware of
it, but perhaps when he runs for the federal parliament, he will do a little
research to bring himself up to speed and broaden his horizons, Mr. Speaker.
The Liberal Party is also not aware of the
effect of depressed prices in the mining industry, how that affects mining
production and mining employment in this province, Mr. Speaker. He may want to
do some research when he runs for parliament on that because mining is a key
sector of the
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
that there is a recession. It is
worldwide. It affects Europe; it affects
This province is not doing what New
Democratic and Liberal provinces are doing by jacking up the deficit and
jacking up the taxes to discourage further growth and investment in their
province. This province is attracting
investment in new areas, in high technology areas, in aerospace, in medical
products, in pharmaceuticals, in all of those new growth areas for the future
because we believe in the ability of Manitobans to attract investment and
growth in those new areas, and we believe that Manitobans will respond
positively with new opportunities, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the difference is that 4 percent
of the population of this country is sustaining 23 percent of the job losses
under this Premier. That is the
difference.
Mr. Speaker, another impact of the
recession has been the conversion of full‑time jobs to part‑time
jobs. In
I would like to ask the Premier a very
simple question: Why?
Mr. Filmon: I would like to keep the answer simple so that
the member could understand it, Mr. Speaker, but it is a complex issue. The issue is that there are world forces at
play here, world forces that affect the income of our entire agriculture
community, world forces that affect the price of base metals and the mining
industry, world forces that have caused a recession that has damaged badly the
countries that are the greatest consumers of the goods that we produce and
export in this province, as well as this country.
There is a recession that has hurt every
province, every single province in this country, but this province has taken
steps to ensure that when the recession is over, we will be a prime place for
investment, job creation and growth.
This province, for five straight budgets, has not increased the major
taxes. This province, for five straight
budgets, has kept the deficit down. This
province has ensured that there is a climate here for investment in new
opportunities. That is why Trimel is
here; that is why Medox is here; that is why Apotex has made the investment
here. That is why we have the two‑wheel‑drive
tractor operations manufacturer being transferred from
Those are the good things that are
happening, and I would say that as an individual who intends to run for
parliament, I would hope that this member would have a much more positive view
of
Mr. Alcock: Well, Mr. Speaker, one day the Premier will
say, well, it is the recession and it is affecting everybody. Now he is saying, well, no, it is just
impacting Manitoba‑‑4 percent of the population, 23 percent of the
job losses in this country.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Osborne, put your
question.
An Honourable Member: Why are we in last place?
Mr. Alcock: Why are we so far behind is an excellent
question. Why is it that if we had the same proportion of the labour force in
Canada‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Filmon: As I have said, the important thing is to look
at what the economic forecasts are for this province. Three banks have recently upgraded their
forecasts for this year since the month of April. All three banks are suggesting that in‑‑[interjection]
* (1025)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Osborne has put his question already, and the
honourable First Minister is attempting to respond.
Mr. Filmon: All three banks are suggesting that for 1992,
1993 and 1994, this province will have growth rates that are in the top four
provinces in the country. Statistics
Health
Care Facilities
Bed Closures
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, the news yesterday of 150 bed
cuts at St. Boniface General Hospital is creating understandable concern among
patients and, given today's labour force statistics, justifiable anxiety among
hospital staff. Yesterday, the Minister
of Health said, as he keeps saying, that he is not reponsible for specific bed
cuts. Also yesterday, the Health
Sciences president Rod Thorfinnson said there is a government formula
identifying 240 beds to be transferred or closed at the two teaching hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: Who is telling the truth?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, not my honourable friend.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.
Another question on this very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. Who do we believe, the hospital
administrators at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface who say the bed cuts
are up to the Health ministry, or do we believe the Minister of Health who says
bed cuts are up to individual hospitals?
Who is telling the truth?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as we have discussed in Health
Estimates for a sizable portion of the last 52 hours, there is a budgeting
process of government wherein we established for the hospitals the level of
budgeting that we anticipate to be available this year. In the case of
Now, within the process of spending $53
million more, hospitals in the
When those plans are presented, decisions
are accepted and announced that that is when my honourable friend will have her
answer as to how the hospital system, the health care system, in
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: What do we believe, the Minister of Health
saying he cannot account for discussions of hospital boards about bed closures,
or the president of Health Sciences Centre, Mr. Thorfinnson, saying‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: ‑‑there is agreement dictating
that only the Health Minister Don Orchard can make announcements?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is concerned
one day that we study too much, the next day that we do not decide. I am a
little confused as to where my honourable friend comes from.
Mr. Speaker, let me just indicate to my
honourable friend that the budgeting process in
I will contrast the $102 million increase
in budget in the
Social
Assistance
Off-Reserve
Status Indians
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Family Services.
* (1030)
In response to my question on social
assistance for off‑reserve Status Indians, the Minister of Family
Services stated on April 21 and as reported in Hansard on page 2358, and I am
quoting, Mr. Speaker: "We have been
dealing with the federal minister responsible, Minister Siddon, on this. . . . We
are still in discussions with the federal government. . . . We are continuing
our dialogue with the federal government . . ."
Has the Minister of Family Services
received the letter from Mr. Siddon, the Minister of Indian Affairs, dated May
1, 1992, wherein the federal minister states:
"As you know, there are currently no discussions on this issue; . .
. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in accordance with
a federal Cabinet decision, has terminated payment for off‑reserve social
assistance as of April 1, 1992."
I will table that letter, Mr. Speaker.
My question to the minister is: Why is the Minister of Family Services
continuing to mislead this Legislature and the municipalities of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member for Brandon East is correct in that we are in dispute with
the federal government over this issue.
If we were to follow the lead of the member for Brandon East, we would
simply give in and pay the money. We do
not accept this decision, and we are continuing this dispute with the federal
government with the support of many Manitobans, including the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities, who have just written to the federal minister on April 30
indicating their support for us.
It says:
The UMM is in support of the position taken by the Department of Family
Services of
That has been our position for the last
year; that continues to be our position, and I regret the member for Brandon
East and his caucus feel that this is not an issue anymore and that simply
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, there are many municipal
leaders, including the mayor of
Will this minister acknowledge that Mr.
Siddon, the federal minister, stated in that same letter that he is concerned
that municipalities are being drawn into a federal‑provincial debate and
those municipalities may face financial problems if the province persists in
advising the municipalities to continue billing the Department of Indian
Affairs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I agree that the municipalities
are being drawn in here, because they realize the impact on
I would ask that the NDP maybe reconsider
their position. They have flip‑flopped from supporting us when I made my
statement in the House back in the early part of last year. Now they are simply saying we should cave in
to the federal government and flow this money.
We do not accept that. We are in
dispute with them, and we are going to continue to try and resolve this. We do have the support of UMM on this issue.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of
apprehension among municipal leaders in this province because of the attitude
and position of this government.
Will the City of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the City of
Foster
Care
Parental
Training Program
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, over a week ago, a five‑year‑old boy in foster care lost
his life. That death is being
investigated by the Department of Family Services, but what it has uncovered is
a number of very serious deficiencies within the foster care system. Number one of those deficiencies is the lack
of training for foster parents, often dealing with very troubled children.
Can the minister explain to this House why
we have a training program required by at least two‑thirds of the staff
at child care centres, but we have no compulsory training program for foster
parents in the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the delivery of foster care in
The training is an ongoing process, and as
new foster families come onto the scene, it is the responsibility of the agency
to give orientation to those foster families.
It is an ongoing process and a challenge that, I think, not only faces
the department but the agencies and the Foster Family Association to provide
that adequate training.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the words that the minister
uttered which is that the government sets the standards are the fundamental
words. This government does set the
standards, and one standard that does not exist is the compulsory training of
foster parents. Foster parents frequently
have children put in their care long before they have even begun a training
program or an orientation program because of such a desperate need for foster
parents. Mr. Speaker, why is this
government unwilling to set a standard in the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Those standards are there, and it is the
agencies' responsibility to meet with foster families and provide that
orientation and that training. As well,
agencies are required to do a monthly visit at the foster home to see that the
match that has been put in place is working.
As well, we have brought forward a plan
called the Structured Care Continuum that is currently being implemented with
foster families, whereby, when it is fully implemented, the foster parents with
the abilities to deal with the most difficult children will be matched with
children who have those difficulties.
This Structured Care Continuum was
introduced last year. There is some ongoing training with foster families and
discussions between the department and the Foster Family Association in
bringing this Structured Care Continuum into place.
Standards
Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the
minister does not even know his own standards.
It is not a monthly visit that is required. It is a visit every two months, and that
standard is not met. In most foster‑parenting
situations that standard is not met. All
he has to do is talk with child care workers and he will know that they have
caseloads so high that they cannot possibly visit foster parents in their homes
once every two months.
Will the minister examine his own
standards to ensure that there is appropriate care delivery in our community so
that tragic events such as the one which occurred some 10 days ago will be
averted?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I repeat
for the member that the standards and the responsibilities for the foster homes
lie with the agencies. We did discuss
this in Estimates some few weeks ago.
The member also knows from that Estimates process that an additional
$700,000 has been put into the budget to work with agencies on the issue of
workload relief.
Staffing ‑
Dauphin,
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of
Housing (Mr. Ernst), in response to my questions, stated in this House that
everything was going according to the plans that were put in place according to
the Civil Service procedures with regard to staffing procedures in the Dauphin
Housing Authority, and that things were going to go along fine there. I want to know if that is the case.
To the Acting Minister of Housing: Why have experienced personnel such as Judy
Hyde been terminated effective May 1, and not even considered for an interview
for the position that they were previously holding prior to May 1? Why have these positions been given to
inexperienced people who are not involved‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has already been put.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Acting Minister of Housing): Mr.
Speaker, the minister did answer questions in regard to the topic a week
ago. I will take it under advisement and
get some further update for the member.
* (1040)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this acting minister was the
minister that started this ill‑conceived takeover‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Plohman: Will the acting minister now admit that
because of his incompetence and the minister‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
Dauphin, Beauchesne's Citation 409.(6):
"A question must be within the administrative competence of the
Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the
House for his or her present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a
previous portfolio."
The honourable member for Dauphin, kindly
rephrase your question please.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, to the acting minister, will the
acting minister now admit that hard‑pressed contractors have not been
paid since March 15, that bills are stacking up in the Housing office in
Dauphin, that rent is not being deposited because no one knows how or where to
do it, that caretakers are opening invoices and rent cheques and pinning them
to files? There is absolute chaos in this office. Will he now‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Dauphin,
when he was in government, built bridges instead of houses.
I will take the question under advisement
for the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst).
Staffing ‑
Dauphin,
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I ask the Premier: Will the Premier now admit that his
government and minister were ill‑prepared for the transfer of authority
from the local housing authorities to the Manitoba Housing Authority,
especially with regard to staffing and staff training and procedures? Will he take steps now to order his minister
to remedy this situation?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the minister
responsible will ensure that all of those transitions that are taking place
will take place efficiently and effectively and that the saving of $2.5 million
to the taxpayer will be achieved.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I have leave of the
House to revert to Introduction of Bills.
I would like to introduce two bills, if there is leave of the House to
do so.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to revert to Introduction of Bills? [Agreed]
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 86‑The
Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), on behalf of the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 86, The Provincial Police Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Surete du
Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois) be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour, the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House.
I would also like to table the Lieutenant
Governor's message, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 87‑The
Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I would like to move, seconded by the
Minister of the Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 87, The Law Enforcement
Review Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquetes relatives a
l'application de la loi), be introduced and that the same now be received and
read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I
give a call of the bills, I would like to announce‑‑if I can find
it‑‑that the Standing Committee of Public Utilities and Natural
Resources will sit May 26 to consider the reports of the Manitoba Hydro‑Electric
Board, and once I find my paper, I cannot find it right now, I will give
specifically the hour of the day.
Mr. Speaker, would you call second
readings, Bill 71, to be followed by adjourned debate Bills 22, 49, 72, 10, 15,
and 21?
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
SECOND
Bill 71‑The
Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 71, The Retirement Plan
Beneficiaries Act (Loi sur les beneficiaries des regimes de retraite), be now
read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
* (1050)
Motion presented.
Mr. Manness: On behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), I am introducing a new Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act. This bill will make it clear that people may
designate beneficiaries for Registered Retirement Savings Plans and Registered
Retirement Income Funds by signing a specific form separate and independent of
a will. Specifically allowing Manitobans
to designate beneficiaries for the contents of RRSPs and RRIFs, Mr. Speaker,
the new act will repair a deficiency in the present legislation.
As many members may know, financial
institutions offering services such as insurance policies, pension plans, RRSPs
and registered retirement investment funds often invite people investing in
these instruments to complete a designation of beneficiary form which names the
beneficiary in the event of death.
However, a few years ago, the
Their report concluded that the Trust
Companies Association's concerns were well founded. In some cases, designations of beneficiaries
of RRSPs and RRIFs, other than by will, are of no legal effect. Mr. Speaker, in this matter, we are not
dealing with just a few people or a small amount in investing funds. In the 1987 taxation year, 136,570
The major provision of the bill can be
summarized briefly. First, it introduces a definition of designation with
respect to benefits payable under a plan.
Second, it expands the definition of plan to enable beneficiaries to be
designated under the act for both present and future RRSPs and RRIFs. An additional point of information in this
regard, Mr. Speaker, we have accepted a recommendation of the Law Reform
Commission in directing that these designations can be made on a permanent,
irrevocable basis if the maker so wishes.
Third, designations of beneficiaries by means of designation forms are
not automatically revoked or changed by future marriage or divorce. Forms for designating beneficiaries and
planned status reports will include a cautionary statement to investors drawing
their attention to this fact.
As a final point of information, the
intent is that this new act become law on Royal Assent, except for the section
requiring that a cautionary note be included in certain forms. This section will take effect on a date to be
fixed by proclamation.
We are confident that this legislation
will be welcomed by
I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the
new retirement plan, The Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act, illustrates the
benefit of having an arm's length body like the Law Reform Commission which
independently or on request can examine issues affecting our law.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Those are the few remarks that I have in
introducing this bill for second reading.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that debate on this matter be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I just
wanted to give details with respect to the Standing Committee: Tuesday, May 26, 10 a.m., Room 255, to consider
the 1991 Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro‑Electric Board.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 22, The Lodge Operators and
Outfitters Licensing and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les permis
relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et de peche et aux pourvoyeurs et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres dispositions legislatives,
standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to
stand this morning and make my comments on The Lodge Operators and Outfitters
Licensing and Consequential Amendments Act.
Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced
this bill some weeks ago, he had indicated that the bill was not a specifically
large and major legislation. It was more
of a bill that had to be brought in and there were concerns that lodge owners
and operators and outfitters were having problems. The minister felt it would be better that we
brought these lodge operators and outfitters under the jurisdiction of Natural
Resources and not under Tourism, as has been the case for many, many years now.
Well, Mr. Speaker, briefly, on the tourism
side of lodge owners and operators and outfitters, I would just like to make
comment that northern Manitobans, Interlake, and throughout Manitoba, we have
an industry‑‑the lodge owners, the outfitters, the tourism industry‑‑that
has spent millions and millions of dollars in this province, millions of
dollars that owners and outfitters and operators have spent, considerable
amount of their own monies, considerable amount of time promoting and enhancing
the tourism side of hunting and fishing.
Outfitters and lodge operators go to travel across the
* (1100)
When the Minister of Natural Resources
brought this bill into effect or brought it before this House, Mr. Speaker, I
was flooded with calls in my office, not only here at the Legislative, but also
in my office in Riverton. In fact, just
within the Interlake, there are some odd 30 to 50 lodge owners and operators
and outfitters within my constituency who are affected, along with the many
other hundred or so, or 200, who are in fact in place throughout this province.
The concerns were not just in specifics of
one or two items about the bill, but they are also issues that each and every
outfitter and lodge operator whom I have spoken to has concerns about this bill
right from start to finish.
Consultation, Mr. Speaker‑‑the lodge owners and outfitters
have said to me: Where is this
consultation? There has not been any
consultation by the minister's office to propose the changes in this bill. Input and advice would be sought from members
of the Lodge & Outfitters Association, so the minister states. Well, if that was the case, why were
outfitters and lodge owners throughout
Now, they say that the minister has
indicated that under Industry, Trade and Tourism issuing licences under the
current legislation has not the manpower or the will to enforce conditions
imposed by the licence. Well, Mr.
Speaker, I think on that note and what I get from the people whom I have spoken
to, the outfitters and lodge owners, is that there has been more than enough
manpower, will, to enforce conditions imposed by licence.
The claim that lodge owners, operators may
in fact exceed conditions of their licences without fear of retribution, and
this exceeding of the situation, of the condition under licenses, is creating
havoc within the resources that we are and do have here in this province, Mr.
Speaker, the fishing and the hunting and the different wildlife that is being
affected. I have been to, have seen and
have discussed with many lodge operators how they run their operations, and
what they do does not indicate that to me whatsoever. What I have seen in speaking with executives
from the different associations and groups, is that under the present system
they, and I have seen it, do control and do have a good handle on the way that
when tourists come out, people who want to hunt, fish and spend time in
Manitoba, under the direction of the operator and the guidance of the operator,
there is very good control.
Control where, in many lodges in northern
In fact, they are enhancing the
sustainable development, if you want to use that phrase, in keeping the
resources within our province and not being abused and destroyed. Mr. Speaker, in the proposal, it states the social
and economic benefits to this bill, and the legislation is going to enable the
province to deal more adequately with the increasing demands on the resource
base, as I have mentioned, with increasing demands.
Over the past few years, the past five or
so years that I have been in the Interlake myself and have been with lodge
owners and outfitters and have gone on some fishing expeditions to take a look
at their operations, I can tell you that with the lodge owners in the Interlake
and in northern Manitoba, there is not an increasing demand on the resource.
As I mentioned earlier, the owners and the
operators control that. They do not want
to see resources being taken away or resources being abused. If that occurs, no one will come back. There
will not be any of the big fish to catch; there will not be any of the hunting
available if the abuse, as the minster perhaps claims or perhaps suggests that
there is, will be exceeded. Once that
occurs, you will not see anyone coming back to that operator's lodge, back to the
area, back to northern
Some of the operators have indicated that
the bill that the minister has put forth‑‑and the minister had
claimed himself that it was a housekeeping change‑‑the outfitters
and operators are concerned that this is more than just a housekeeping change.
They are worried that this bill is a complete major overhaul of their industry,
an industry that I would remind you and this House that tourism dollar‑wise
is of enormous value to the province.
Really, Mr. Speaker, if there are problems
within the industry, the bill itself does not necessarily deal with the
problems and if there are problems, what problems are. This bill does not seem to want to basically
deal with the changes and the problems that the industry has. Indications, as I have previously spoken on
the other bills that the minister has put forth in this House, are that the
operators themselves are getting the feeling, have the feeling and see by going
through Bill 22, that this bill is a bill to be able to give the minister the
extra power to take over the industry.
Now you would think, Mr. Speaker, that if
there are problems, if there are needs for some changes in that, the minister
would in fact put forth a bill that would encourage the outfitters and
operators, that would encourage the industry itself by consulting with and by
making some amendments that will enhance the growth of this industry. The operators are in fear and have said
specifically and used the word specifically, fear, that they are afraid that
the minister will have so much power in this bill, that it will basically take
away the enhancement and the chance to grow within industry, that so much power
will be there that they will not be able to make any kind of a move without the
minister and his department jumping on top of them and taking away their
licences, taking away their privileges, taking away their rights.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact, and I
have been to a few shows here in
* (1110)
Lo and behold, a year or two later, I had
the opportunity of having some of these operators that I met down south as
constituents and got to know them a lot better and got to see their
operations. Let me say, Mr. Speaker,
that within my constituency, the outfitters and operators provide a tremendous
economic benefit to the Interlake, to the Arborg area, the Fisher Branch area,
Poplarfield, Riverton. There are more
than half a dozen outfitters and operators just within Riverton itself‑‑bear
hunting, providing for fishing expeditions, for deer and for duck hunting at
appropriate times of the year.
These people, these operators put in an
effort. They are afraid that this bill
is going to take that effort away from them, that this bill is not meeting the
goals that the industry wants to provide.
It is going to choke some of them, they feel. They are not going to be
able to make a move or a decision without the minister's overlying power on
their operations itself.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they are also worried
that through this bill the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), claiming
within the bill that he is going to protect the natural resources of the
province, can limit and allocate our licences to operate. Again, as one of the
fears that the outfitters have, the operators have, he can limit and allocate,
again a power that the operators are afraid of.
If before there was a problem in the issuing of licences to operate, if
there was a problem, then why was that problem not addressed without giving the
minister that much authority and power to control?
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
An Honourable Member: Because he is a good man.
Mr. Clif Evans: The honourable member from across the way
indicates that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is a good man. I have yet to indicate otherwise; I have not
indicated that he is not a good man.
However, perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources wants to be a better
man by having so much power and control that, again, he will be able to just
have at his whim the use of his power to be able to control this important
industry, an important industry.
Now, licensing, and getting back to the
fear of the licensing, the minister can cancel and suspend or refuse to renew a
licence under circumstances set out in the regulations. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
indicate that a fear there is just as in a previous statement that he can limit
and allocate. Further down, he says he
can suspend and cancel and refuse under circumstances set out in the
regulations. Here we have again a lack
of consultation.
The question from the Outfitters
Association is what are these circumstances and why are they being withheld
from the association, from the outfitters?
They want to consult, or at least wanted to be consulted with. I am sure and I am aware of the fact that the
minister has met with operators and with the association since the bill was
introduced, and I am sure that they appreciate that, and I am sure that the
minister will provide the opportunity to the outfitters, operators and the
association during committee to make their case at committee and will
listen. I am sure he will listen.
I am sure the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) appreciates being the good man that the Minister of
Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) has indicated and will appreciate
the fact that this industry needs the opportunity to be able to grow and grow
prosperously and properly. I hope that
the minister, in his consultation after the bill was introduced and during
committee, has listened and will listen to the association and to outfitters
and property owners across this province, will listen to them and take their
recommendations and take their amendments to heart.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in the licensing and
the powers‑‑and I will go over a few of the items in the actual
bill, but I just want to express my views and some of the views of the
operators that I have spoken to.
The Licensing Advisory Committee has now
only licensing powers. Before it looked
after all the aspects of new licences. Well, if the minister wants to again
have a certain amount of control as far as issuing licences, I am sure that the
operators would appreciate having someone from within their own industry on
this board so that their industry will be represented, so that if there are
going to be any types of issuing of new licences, granting of new licences or
wanting to take away permits and licensing that the industry will have
representation, as in others.
In other organizations, Madam Deputy
Speaker, there is representation on the fact that if licences are being issued
or licences being taken away or in fact if there is any sort of repercussions
to taking away of licences, the outfitters, the operators, they question the
fact, will they be represented. It is
their industry. It is their lodges. It is their outfitting businesses. They feel that if someone wants to renew, get
his licence, that he has in fact the opportunity to go before a board that
there is a member from his own industry within that board who will understand
the industry, and not just political or other appointees to the group and that
there is an opportunity for them to go before their peers.
Now, does the minister feel that with this
act and this bill he will in fact, and the industry will in fact be one that
will grow and be strong? The different
conditions that the minister has put into this act and wants to have the
control again that we say could in fact threaten, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
bill and threaten the operation of lodge operators and owners and outfitters.
Real partnership, I guess, is another word
to use, partnership in getting involved in Natural Resources so that they may
in fact be a part to work with Natural Resources or Industry and Trade and
Tourism, to maintain and sustain the economic development of our province. [interjection]
The Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger), as usual, is in a hurry to do something. We have time here to discuss this at whatever
pace that we may feel is necessary.
We want to be deliberate and intelligent
about this whole matter, as intelligent and deliberate as the proposals that
the operators have come to me with and have indicated as to their problems
here.
A tremendous concern that this bill is
bringing in, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is inspections and power of
inspections. Within the bill, the
minister states powers of inspectors, and I quote from the bill. "An inspector may, (a) at any reasonable
time, enter any premises and make any inspection that is reasonably required
for the purpose of enforcing this Act or the regulations;".
Enter at any reasonable time‑‑what
is reasonable? The inspections and
powers of inspectors‑‑the operators themselves have a great fear in
just exactly what powers and who this minister is going to give the powers
to. The power of the minister‑‑the
minister himself loves that word. He
loves that word "power." He
wants that power right up there on top, and then he wants to be able to pass
his power along down the road to be able to represent the minister in saying,
here, I have given you the power. The
minister loves power. We can tell, we
can see that.
* (1120)
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me get back to
inspections and power of inspections. I
have a difficulty and so do the lodge operators and owners throughout this
province about power of inspection. I
would say to the minister himself, would he, in fact, appreciate someone coming
to his operation, walking in on him and saying I have the power, the Minister
of Natural Resources has given me the power to come in, take whatever
documentation is necessary, take whatever is necessary because we have had some
sort of complaint or we have had some sort of problem with your operation, walk
in on him and say I have the power to take this?
Who would, in fact, really want to agree
with something like that? Just to walk
in and say, well, I have just enough power to say I am going to come in, and I
am going to examine your documents, take your documents, I will give you a
receipt for them‑‑that is terrific. But, I, Madam Deputy Speaker, and outfitters
throughout this province do not agree. I
hope that during the minister's consultations and meetings with the outfitters
and operators, he has listened to their concerns regarding the powers of
inspectors and the warrant to enter.
The other question on the inspection part
of it that we all have a problem with is a "reasonable time." The minister says, at a reasonable time. Madam Deputy Speaker, what time would the
minister decide? Is he going to have a
specific time, a reasonable time? Is he
going to say‑‑
An Honourable Member: Midnight.
The stroke of midnight.
Mr. Clif Evans: He will say, yes, we are going to come in
from 3:30 to 5:30 and come in and inspect and take away everything, or are we
going to come, Madam Deputy Speaker, are my inspectors, whom I have given all
sorts of power to, just coming in at any time?
An Honourable Member: They will skulk in at midnight.
Mr.
Clif Evans: They may skulk in at
midnight, or two or three o'clock in the morning and walk in and say: I have this certificate. I am an appointed inspector by the all‑powerful
Minister of Natural Resources. Here I am
at four o'clock in the morning, and I am going to take all your books and all
your documentation and all your facilities and all your equipment and
everything. I am going to take that.
That is what this minister is saying. He is going to come in and take the
livelihood of an operator right from beneath his nose, Madam Deputy Speaker. [interjection]
Well, hopefully not as far as that
goes. My honourable member has mentioned
certain ways that the minister can exceed his powers. We question the fact, and the minister is
worried about perhaps certain operators or certain ongoings that are not to the
approval of this minister.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, when and who
does? Does now a conservation officer
not have enough authority under The Wildlife Act to be able to come in up to an
operator's operation and say: As a conservation officer, I am representing the
Department of Natural Resources and the minister and his government, and we
would like to inspect and just look through your operation and make sure you
are doing everything in assistance. Now,
what if the so‑called powerful inspector comes in and there is a guide,
there is a staff person there, just walking in on this operation and saying,
here we go, here is your receipt; I am coming in, and I am taking everything?
We wonder here on this side of the House
and I wonder just where and how much, without the proper guidance, without the
proper assistance and consultation of this minister's department with the
operators, how much are we really going to benefit? The operators, how are they going to benefit
in promoting such an important industry within this province, an industry, as I
mentioned before, that has the opportunity to grow, needs to grow, needs the
support of the Industry, Trade and Tourism department, needs the support of the
Province of Manitoba, needs the support of the Minister of Natural Resources? Are they going to have that ability now?
The minister stated that he is going to
allot licences to inspectors‑‑a certificate. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, who is he going
to allow these certificates to be given out to?
Are they going to be trained? Are
they going to be summer students? Are
they going to be people through the Natural Resources' department? Are they going to be people who have some
sort of a knowledge?
If they do not have a knowledge of the
industry, are they going to be trained to have knowledge of this industry so
that when they do come in for their inspections, on behalf of the minister,
will they be knowledgeable? That is a
question that not only myself but numerous operators are indicating to me‑‑[interjection] the honourable member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is concerned, too.
I am sure that if he was in northern
Manitoba at some lodge that he would not want somebody walking off the street
as such with a suit on and a little certificate saying, I am an inspector,
coming in and taking his fish or his‑‑I am sure that the honourable
member for Niakwa would be outraged, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you imagine if the honourable member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, on the offences and
fines, the increase that the minister is putting in has again a tremendous
amount of concern for the operators. We
here on this side say, well, an offence is an offence, and if an offence is
made, then people, rightfully so, should be dealt with properly.
But they have a concern on Section 9(1)(a)
and (b): "in the case of an
individual, to a fine of not more than $2,000; and in the case of a corporation,
to a fine of not more than $20,000." Is the minister indicating here in
this section that there is such a problem out there that he should impose such
heavy fines, or is he indicating that he feels there is not a problem but
perhaps if the system is abused, if the licence is abused and the operator
abuses the system, he is sending a message out to them saying, well, I can be
well assured that there are no problems, but if there is going to be a problem
here is what you are going to be faced with, $20,000. Madam Deputy Speaker, the fees are already
increased to some operators that just will not be able to continue operation.
I would like to get back again to the
inspectors and the inspection parts of this bill. Some of the operators that I have discussed
this bill with have indicated to me that a warrant to enter should be enough to
accommodate what the minister indicates when it comes to inspections, that a
justice with an application that there is reasonable grounds could enter, that
a peace officer would be able to take such action to go and enter a premise to
inspect and to in fact perhaps deal with it properly.
Assistance to inspectors, the person in
charge of premises referred to in subsection (1) and any person found on those
premises shall give the inspector reasonable assistance to enable the inspector
to carry out his or her functions under this act. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that could put a burden on the operation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what if there is
someone there who has brought supplies and this inspector with a certificate,
this all‑powerful inspector, says:
I want you to assist me to come in to the operator's lodge and whatnot
in office and say, let us load up on your truck or on your car, let us load up
the whole situation; let us take everything.
I have the right, and I can say to you, by having the right, that I can
ask the bread delivery man, I can ask the milk delivery man to come‑‑[interjection]
* (1130)
That is what it says here‑‑[interjection] Well, I hope that the
honourable member for
I want to offer my statements to the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) that this is not coming directly from this
honourable member. This is coming from
the hundreds of operators who have read through this and who have indicated
their fear that things like this just may indeed happen. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can make all
kinds of implications that this will happen, that will not happen, but again,
the operators have a fear that this bill is going to put so much control, so
much overcontrol, on them that some of them will not be able to operate as they
have before and operate with well‑meaning operations according to all the
regulations.
If there is an internal problem within the
operators and the lodge owners, they through the assistance of the government,
deal with their peers on their own.
These operators realize that where there is abuse within the system, it
is going to destroy the potential growth of their industry. If there are one or two operators within the
system who are not doing and providing what is supposed to be done under
regulations or under the benefit for the province of Manitoba for its tourist
dollars, they deal with it. They have
the input to be able to deal with such a problem if the problem does occur.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like
to in closing‑‑I know that I have touched on a few of the issues
and situations in this bill, but I hope that during committee and before
committee, the minister has, in fact, dealt with this bill and with the
operators on‑‑and I am sure, as the honourable Minister of Highways
(Mr. Driedger) has indicated that the goodness that the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) has in him‑‑I would certainly hope that the
minister does go through the bill and in committee hear and listen to the
suggestions and the changes that the outfitters and the operators and the
Manitoba association has for the minister.
We will be there. I will be there
to hear the presentations and to hear what the minister has to say.
The way this bill reads right now, I do
not feel that the minister is being fair and just to the outfitters that we
have in this province. It is an
important part of our tourism dollar and an economic benefit to this
province. I wish that this minister
will, in fact, listen to the operators so that this industry may continue at
the very, very best of quality for all our tourist dollars and for the benefit
of the economics of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the
second reading of Bill 22. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 49‑The
Environment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 49
(The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson? [Agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill represents another
effort, in our view, by this government to get around what they say they
believe in respect of environmental assessments. It is another effort to sever and undercut,
in our view, a legitimate, credible, full environmental review process in this
province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister started
his comments by saying that he felt this bill dealt with some technicalities.
Far from it, this bill does not deal only with technicalities; rather, in our
view, it represents a concerted effort and part of the theme that has marked
this government's concerted efforts to, as I have indicated, over time
generally undercut the environmental review process, while at the same time
maintaining the image of a full, thorough, credible, independent review.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is
important to look at the history of this government's efforts in that
regard. In the area of environmental
reviews, this minister was the co‑author of a position put forward by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment some years ago in which they
stated as one of their chief objectives to stay out of court, they said, we do
not want to be taken to court as governments, oftentimes the major proponents
of these projects which require environmental review. We want to stay out of
court and not have judges telling us what to do and how to do it.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is,
courts only get involved and only make rulings against governments when
governments have broken the laws they enacted in the first place. The fact is, anybody who has been watching
environmental process in the last number of years knows that the only people
who have taken the time to read and understand what the laws are have been the
courts, and they have, whether it is the Oldman River or Rafferty‑Alameda
or Hydro in Quebec, universally told Canadian governments, provincial and
federal, look, if you pass this legislation, you have to live by it. You must respect the environmental process
which says, think first, study first, build later.
Throughout this country‑‑and,
of course, we have the notable culprits in Saskatchewan and Quebec, and
Manitoba to a lesser extent, but I think our turn is coming with Conawapa‑‑there
have been notable governments that have cut deals behind doors in attempts to
get out of the environmental process‑‑[interjection]
The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
talks about Liberal governments. The
member for Kildonan should read the comments of February 24 of this year of the
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) on environmental assessments. The member for Point Douglas had one theme in
his comments on Bill 10, which was build now, build big, do not look at it, do
not worry about it, the banks on this river, on the Nelson River, are
high. What do we need an environmental
study for? That is what the member for
Point Douglas said in his comments. He
does not care; he wants construction, the bigger the better, the sooner the better,
and the member for Kildonan talks from a party that built Limestone, the biggest
development in this province, $1.6 billion, and did not do an environmental
study.
Now, they brought in the Environment Act
in 1988. They started building Limestone
in 1985, so Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] That is right, my friend the member for
It has been consistent with what they have
done in legislation earlier, approximately a year ago, when they brought in
legislation massively increasing ministerial discretion in the area of
environmental assessments, in particular joint panel assessments with the
federal government specifically to deal with Conawapa and the north central
transmission line. It is a consistent
theme.
* (1140)
The Minister of Environment wrote that
communique on behalf of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
saying he wanted to stay out of court at all costs. Since then that is all he has done, is bring
forward legislation to attempt to buttress that position, a higher level of
ministerial discretion, a higher level of insulation from a thorough review
which can actually stop projects.
The only reviews which can put the lock on
the door of a project is a review by the court.
The federal court has done that across this country. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my suggestion
that the people of this province have supported their actions. In
The same principle that the member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) spoke about back in February, that is the view. Building is always better and the sooner the
better and the bigger the better.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly
backward from the way that the people of this country want us to go on
environmental reviews. The people of
this country want us to think first and build later, and if it takes us a while
to do it, then we will have to start thinking ahead. We will have to start thinking and putting
the environmental review into place before we want to build. You do not wait until you are actually
putting the shovel in the ground to start the environmental review. That is what this legislation calls us to
do. It calls us to do that study and do
it thoroughly without the pressure, without the bias that is inherent in having
already committed money.
How do you suggest that a government is
neutral and can be the orchestrator of a neutral review when they have
committed themselves financially already to the project, committed dollars that
will be lost if the project does not get an environmental licence? How do you suggest that they are neutral or
unbiased when they have tied themselves, like this government has in Conawapa,
to massive penalties to the
If we ever have to go back on Conawapa,
this province through Manitoba Hydro is going to lose millions and millions and
millions of dollars. That is the penalty
clause they tied themselves into, and yet they are telling us that they can
have a neutral unbiased review.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that
actions speak louder than words and the fact is that they have a financial
incentive to get the right result. That
is what Bill 10 is about when they are asking for increased borrowing money for
Hydro. That is what this bill is about
when the Minister of Environment is asking for the ability to grant licences in
stages.
Let me just explain that. What he is trying to do here is say, we take
a project like Conawapa, we take a global project and we divide it up into a
number of different stages‑‑[interjection]
That is right.
As the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) says, we only want to build part of the dam. They say, okay, let us hive off part of this
project. Let us say we only want to
build the roads in, we want to build the infrastructure. We get a licence for that. Then they say, and no more, that is all we
are studying here, just the initial stage, and we will commit the money
necessary to do that. You look at the
initial stage and say, okay, the panel says fine, go ahead with the initial
stage. Well, you go ahead and you spend $50‑‑$100 million, whatever
it takes, you build it. Then you go back
for the second stage. You build
that. You go back for the third stage. You build that.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
divide and conquer. That is what it is all about, because like the federal
court said‑‑the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench said on the
Rafferty‑Alameda case‑‑why did they not say that the
government of
But the court said at this point it would
not be fair to force them to go back.
Why? Because they had already
spent so much money. They said,
No, no, essentially the decision was based
on the fact that because they had breached the law for so long, the court would
not send them back to square one. It was
divide and conquer‑‑break up the project and you can spend the
money, which, if you ever lose or if you ever are forced to modify or go back
or be turned down by environmental panel, you can always say, look, you cannot
kill this project; we have already spent all this money. That is the principle behind it.
That is the principle behind the
ministerial discretion which is built into this bill to create stages of
licences. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
regressive legislation in the extreme on environmental issues, and the people
of this country are calling us to respect the principles we espouse.
It is an interesting thing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that like in many areas in this House, all three parties say the same
things when it comes to what we believe in, what we want. We all know the platitudes. We all know the catch phrases: stakeholders;
we believe in full environmental review; we believe in hearing the public,
respecting what they say. We all say
that.
But the fact is that when push comes to
shove‑‑look at the legislation that the government has put before
this House. It is consistently
legislation that moves away from listening to the public, that moves away from
having been bound to respect the decisions of neutral panels, and it is
consistently towards staying out of court at all cost, not obeying the
regulations in the legislation that we put into place and being willing to pay
the price if we do not. No, the
legislation is designed as this is, to get around the back door when we could
not get in the front. That is what this
is about.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result, our
party will be opposing this legislation, because we cannot stand by and let
this government subvert (a) the legislation itself and the intent and purpose
of it, both at the provincial and federal levels, but (b) let this government
get away doing something they say they are not doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I simply want to ask
the government why they cannot simply accept the principles of environmental
assessments and live by them, rather than devise methods of getting around
them. They are very good at doing
that. They have been plentiful in coming
up with ways to get around doing what is really intended and required by full
independent environmental assessments, and it need be stated no clearer than to
think first and build later.
You do not start a project, you do not
spend the hundreds of millions of dollars before you know the full impact of
the full project. By staging, by
breaking them up like that, it is a fiction.
You go to the panel and you say, just look at this, but that is
redundant. It is irrelevant, that
particular part of the project without looking at the whole project, because
the only reason for the partial construction is as a part of the whole. What
sense does it make when going to environmental reviews to say we are only going
to look at the part and then we will build it?
It is one thing to say the process is
going to look at the whole and in terms of the environmental review process, we
will divide it into stages and at the end of the day we will come to a
conclusion. It is quite another to say
as we divide it in stages and approve it, you can build it. Madam Deputy Speaker, that is getting through
the back door. That is getting to a
point where you put pressure on the panel, you put pressure on the government,
you give the government that ability to say at the end of the day, yes, we
failed at the end of the day. We did not
get environmental approval. It is going
to be an environmental disaster, but we cannot turn back now, because we have
spent all this money.
* (1150)
We should not allow the government to get
away with that as the Devine government did in
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to
other parts of this bill, I note that the quorum provisions for the CEC are
reduced from four to three. I am not
clear, and I do not see from the minister's comments, the need for that
change. I am not saying today that I
necessarily agree or disagree with it.
What I am asking the minister is for some justification for that at the
committee stage.
My first instincts are that the safeguard
of the old provision, that the number before, and the further safeguard with
respect to transcripts being put before the next CEC meeting were legitimate
and valid. I look forward to some
discussion about that at the committee stage, should this bill ever make it to
the committee stage.
I, of course, hope it will not, because
the major part of this bill, and it slips through the door on the back of some
other which really are minor technical changes, but the gist of this bill, the
dangerous part of this bill cannot be allowed to go forward, in our view,
unchallenged, and we will challenge it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition there is
a provision, as I have indicated, that the certified copy of the transcript of
evidence which is taken at a CEC meeting that did not have a quorum has to be
placed before the next CEC meeting, and the minister is taking that out. The intent may be that no meetings will be
held where there is no quorum, I do not know, but there is no provision stating
that. If that is the intent, that you
cannot have a meeting without a quorum, then that is a different matter.
If the intent is rather that you can have
a meeting without a quorum and now you do not need that transcript to be put
forward in front of the next full CEC meeting, then I do not think that is a
progressive change, because it makes sense that if you are going to allow
meetings without quorums, you have the CEC itself, with a quorum, review it at
the next meeting, so I look forward to some discussion on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Part 5 of this bill
deals with alterations to projects and gives the minister the right to
determine whether an alteration is a minor or major alteration, and the right
to determine if alterations can go ahead without going to a study. This again is the minister attempting to
increase ministerial discretion on critical issues of environmental
accountability and environmental review.
To the extent that it expands ministerial discretion further without the
necessary input of environmental review, it again represents a step backward
and is regressive.
The final part, Part 7, allows the cabinet
to make regulations concerning intervener funding. Now, I have spoken previously and will speak
again in favour of intervener funding, and it being allowed through the CEC at
these hearings. If the CEC is ever to be
the credible, independent body which has the universal respect of the community,
then we must provide that. I am not
saying that the CEC is not now doing a fine job.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): They should not take our
tainted money, then.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Natural
Resources says they should not take our tainted money, but the fact is in these
cases the proponent, it is proposed, pays the bulk of those costs and that is
positive.
It is one thing to say that the
Legislature should not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of a
result, and that is what I have said. It
is quite another, as the Minister of Natural Resources suggests, that the
government should have no role to play in financing a full review. Quite the contrary, if you want to have a
thorough independent review, you must allow those who present to have some
resources to put forward the information, do the research, put forward the
facts in a useful way, in an organized way, and in a sophisticated way. The way you do that is to put the decision making
into the hands of someone other than the government or the proponent. The way you do that is you set up a body,
whether it is an independent panel, a subpanel of the CEC or the CEC itself. You give them the ability and discretion to
decide who receives funding and in what amount.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask the
minister to give us draft regulations at his committee hearing, in the event
that this bill gets to it, as he did with the joint review panels last
year. I would like to see what the
details of the intervener funding are.
He has given himself the power to set those regulations. I have no problem with that, if we can see
the regulations.
I would prefer it was in the legislation
itself, rather than in the hands again of cabinet discretion, but I do tell the
minister that I would like to see the regulations at the committee stage or
even sooner, if he has them, if this bill indeed does go to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those are my
comments at this time. I look forward to
the comments of other members of this House, in particular other members of the
government, who, I know, will have an interest in this bill. I see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) has some thoughts on it. I look
forward to his comments. Thank you.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, inasmuch as my friend,
noted parliamentarian, the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
recommends this measure having to do with Manitoba Hydro to the House, I know
that he would only do so if it were indeed in the interests of all
Manitobans. I urge speedy acceptance of
this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
Bill 72‑The
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 72
(The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act; Loi sur la reforme du droit
(modifications diverses)), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Kildonan.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise with pleasure to
deal with the recommendations on Bill 72 submitted by the minister, with
respect to The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act. I notice it is becoming a matter of course
that I follow the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) with respect to my
comments. I only regret that I do not
have an opportunity to deal with some of his ill‑founded comments with
respect to the previous bill.
However, we are dealing with The Law
Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, which I can see from the rapt attention
of members opposite has all eyes riveted on the consequences and the ultimate
resolution and ultimate passage of this particular amendment.
As was the case and as is the case in
other bills introduced by the Minister of Justice, this is an omnibus
bill. While I was critical in my last
comments dealing with the minister's submission of an omnibus bill, I recognize
in this case that these are a series of recommendations made dealing with the
overall, and I put in quotation marks "concept of law reform" in the
province of Manitoba, which amounts to, in many cases, a tidying up or a
clarification or a bringing in to line a legislation in the province of
Manitoba. So I am not as critical‑‑or
not in fact critical of the minister with respect to the omnibus provisions
contained in a bill or an amendment of this kind.
However, I again urge of the minister
something that I have also stressed on other occasions when I have had an
opportunity to rise on bills of this kind, that members on this side of the
House, and I sure all members, would appreciate a form of a spreadsheet or
explanatory notes with respect to bills of a legal‑‑all bills of
course are of a legal nature, but bills with consequences that are wide ranging
and perhaps complicated and technical in nature. That generally applies to the kind of bills
that are brought in the omnibus fashion that the minister has.
* (1200)
So I stress as a matter of course, and a
recommendation again to the minister that a spreadsheet be considered with
respect to the provision of bills like this kind that would assist all members
of the House interpreting the consequences and the effect that these bills will
have on the statutes of the province of Manitoba, and in effect, on the way
that Manitobans conduct themselves in terms of their business dealings and in
many activities of their life dealing with the sections in this act.
This Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments)
Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, deals with amendments to The Bulk Sales Act; it
deals with amendments to The Law of Property Act; it deals with amendments to
The Liquor Control Act; as well, it deals with amendments to The Mercantile Law
Amendment Act; and finally, it deals with amendments to The Wages Recovery Act,
all wide ranging, but primarily prompted, if I could gather from the gist of
the comments of the Minister of Justice, by recommendations and study by the
Law Reform Commission, which prompts me to indicate, and I recognize the
political context in which I am making these statements.
I personally am very much in favour of law
reform commissions, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am not certain in our society whether or not we have enough methods of
change or vehicles in our society to deal with the law, and bringing the law
into the modern day, if I could put it in those terms. We need bodies of this kind to review our
laws as well, and not only to review our laws and update them, but they also
provide a useful device for legislators and parliamentarians to look at new
innovations and new laws and the effect they may have on society, as well as
allowing an independent third‑party body deal with many perhaps
controversial or otherwise issues.
It certainly provides an opportunity for
some innovation, for some review, for some positive change, and potential
change to society, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So what I am tangentially doing in my comments dealing with these
reforms, is suggest that‑‑many of them suggested by the Law Reform
Commission. I am simply suggesting that
I find the work of bodies of this kind‑‑personally, I find them
quite useful and quite necessary in our society.
In fact, one may make the argument as
government downsize and reduce the agencies and bodies available to review
matters, Law Reform Commissions could become even more important in our modern
society, providing us with an opportunity of an independent body with some form
of expertise to look at many of the fast changes that are occurring in our
pluralistic society and also to take a step back and provide some independent
advice to many of the issues and the consequences of those issues on our
everyday life.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister is
proposing that we deal with changes to The Bulk Sales Act, and these changes
can be termed nothing short of extensive insofar as the changes recommended by
the minister amount to a repeal of The Bulk Sales Act.
This change arises out of a recommendation
of a Law Reform Commission in 1989, Madam Deputy Speaker. The act, which is a long‑standing act,
protects creditors from business people selling off their inventory and running
and, in some cases, absconding without paying their debts. I can indicate, for the most part, it appears
and I agree with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, as well as
the comments of the minister, that in fact developments in terms of credit
reporting, other legislation, and other statute or law in our society, has for
the most part rendered The Bulk Sales Act redundant.
I do note, as I recall from the bar
admission course, which is a requirement for all lawyers who are hoping to be
called to the Bar, in the commercial section, quickly being reminded by those
who were providing us with instruction at that time that we should not, in the
context of all of our review of laws and all that we had learned and studied in
that area, forget the long‑standing Bulk Sales Act and that it always
should be considered. So in terms of the
law, it obviously was on the books and required attention, required review, but
like many laws that govern our affairs, particularly our commercial
transactions the last 80 to 90 years, this one has become redundant. Clearly, I do not think we have any problem
whatsoever in the repeal of this particular act.
There is also a number of consequential
amendments that have occurred as a result of the repeal of this act dealing
with The Cooperatives Act, The Credit Unions Caisses Populaires Act, The Farm
Machinery and Equipment Act, as well as The Natural Gas Supply Act and The
Retail Sales Tax Act, all of which have a bearing on this particular
amendment. They are also dealt with under
the provision of the repeal of The Bulk Sales Act.
Moving on then, knowing full well that
members are sitting in a good deal of attention and anticipation as to the
comments that are going to follow dealing with the subsequent amendments. We are now also faced with the amendments to
The Law of Property Act, changing liability provisions‑‑if I
understand the comments of the minister as well as my reading of the act‑‑changing
liability provisions for dealing with the term waste and how equitable waste
and waste by tenants is applied in terms of their consequences.
Now, there is also another amendment to
The Law of Property Act which deals with the Rule in Shelley's Case, and I will
deal with that amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my subsequent comments. At least at this point, I am going to focus
entirely on the amendments to The Law of Property Act.
The proposed Section 12 would clarify the
liability of life tenants and would, as I understand it, bring the law into a
similar state as that in other jurisdictions of this country. As well, it would make tenants for life
liable for permissive waste as much as those tenants on fixed term which only
seems fair. In the context of our modern
society, probably the distinction does not make any sense. So members on this side of the House do not
have any great deal of difficulty in dealing with this particular amendment,
Madam Deputy Speaker, or the consequences of it.
* (1210)
When the minister first proposed this bill
and indicated that the Rule in Shelley's Case would be abolished, I was tempted
to review my studies, because I specifically recall spending time in law school
in the wills section dealing with the Rule in Shelley's Case. In all honesty, I had totally forgotten the
consequences of the Rule in Shelley's Case, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I note
that in the minister's comments when he introduced the bill that he outlined
the effect of the Rule in Shelley's Case which is one of the interesting
consequences often of a judicial interpretation and one of the consequences of
the contradictions as they occur in our modern society.
It is an interesting debate, Madam Deputy
Speaker, when you consider that much of our statute law has been brought about
to clarify the effects of judicial interpretation and judicial review and the
precedent set. Shelley's Case is one of
those in a longstanding, hundreds of years of judicial review and the
precedents set, and Shelley's Case is one of those in the long‑standing,
hundreds of years of judicial interpretation of wills and their effect. The consequences of those particular rulings,
Madam Deputy Speaker, has been the judicial tradition. [interjection]
I note that the member for Lac du Bonnet
(Mr. Praznik) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) are having a debate on
the side about private schools, which is something they are not prepared to do
in the public but are prepared to do from their seats in the Chamber on a
regular basis. That speaks volumes about
this government's approach to public issues and how they debate public issues, as
the member for Lac du Bonnet and the member for
But I do diverge, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] and my friend on the
other side is reminding me, and the honourable member is reminding me that he
is waiting for further discussion and review of the Rule in Shelley's Case‑‑long
standing, in fact, if memory serves me correctly, probably goes back to the
1700s. I am quite sure that members opposite will agree with me that this kind
of an amendment and this kind of a provision in change in the‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Chomiak: I am glad that members are greeting the change
in Shelley's Case with the same kind of enthusiasm that I am.
It is, indeed, a fact that the Rule in
Shelley's Case, in the jurisdiction, in the province of Manitoba will now be
abolished, Madam Deputy Speaker, and only serves to indicate that there are
instances and there are methods by which we, in terms of statute law, can
expedite and simplify the procedures for individuals and for citizens in the
province of Manitoba, and particularly when we deal with matters of a regular
importance. That is the signing and
making of wills, something that most individuals are urged to do and in fact do
do in our society, which is relatively significant and just shows that there
are laws and there are means by which we can, in this Legislature, affect
change to make interpretation of these wills far simpler.
I would only hope that we could continue
to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, for it still, at present, is far too
complicated a process and should be brought to the public in a much simpler and
less complicated fashion. I note that we
are one of the jurisdictions, for example, that allows the making and provision
of holograph wills. Those, therefore,
allow for individuals to write their own wills completely in their own
handwriting.
That, I think, is a very positive change
and a very positive commitment that allows citizens to do their own will
making, particularly in instances where an individual may not have the
wherewithal, or more importantly, may not have the, in the cases of elderly
people for example, relatives in our fast‑paced and changing society, who
can act as executors or who can act as representatives for them to assist them
in will making.
So we have in this jurisdiction the
ability to make hologaph wills for all members of our society, and I am sure
members opposite are very pleased about that particular provision of the law in
the
I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that another
provision of the act calls for an amendment to The Mercantile Law Amendment Act
as well as an amendment to The Wages Recovery Act. The minister indicated The Mercantile Law
Amendment Act clarifies arrangements for settling debts and makes agreements,
which were common law binding, and clarifies provisions of the act.
While I have not had a good deal of
exposure or dealings with that particular act, it strikes me, and certainly in
our thorough review of matters of this kind in caucus we certainly do not have
any opposition. We have no difficulty
dealing with the provisions of those amendments and certainly welcome the
amendments that deal with The Mercantile Law Amendment Act.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Also, Mr. Acting Speaker, I note that the
act also calls for an amendment to The Wages Recovery Act, to repeal, in fact,
The Wages Recovery Act, and I basically agree with the comments of the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) when he introduced this legislation, that in fact The
Wages Recovery Act has been largely made redundant by advances in labour law
and advances in legislation in a number of areas of the law.
We have fortunately in this country brought
about some positive and very progressive changes to labour legislation to
protect working people and individuals.
It is unfortunate that the governments of various political stripes,
mostly Conservatives, are seeking in many jurisdictions to roll back many of
the gains made by working people in this country with respect to labour
legislation. It is unfortunate, and in
fact we have seen the same in
So we are concurring with that particular
amendment, we are concurring with those particular changes. If there are any problems we have with this
bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, they are contained in the amendment and the provision
of The Liquor Control Act. This act, The
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, this bundle of changes to a variety
of acts, mostly of a commercial nature and most recommended by the Law Reform
Commission, as I understand it from the comments of the minister, contained
within that is an amendment to The Liquor Control Act.
Mr. Acting Speaker, Section 183 of The
Liquor Control Act is a liability section.
That particular section indicates, and I am quoting from that section of
the act, the section that is going to be repealed by the government: "Where any person drinks liquor to excess
and, while in a state of intoxication from that drinking, comes to his death by
suicide or drowning, or perishes from cold or other accident caused by that
intoxication, the person who furnished or gave the liquor to the person when in
a state of intoxication, or on whose premises it was obtained by the
intoxicated person while intoxicated, is liable to an action for a wrongful act
and as a personal wrong, and the action may be brought under The Fatal
Accidents Act, and the amount that is recovered as damages shall not be less
than $100. or more than $1,500."
* (1220)
Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister indicated
in his comments, when he introduced the amendment, this bundle of amendments
contained in The Law Reform Amendment Act indicated that the provisions in this
act have been superseded by judicial interpretation, by judicial ruling and I
believe specifically by the Supreme Court of Canada. He also indicated, if I recall correctly,
that the provisions are simply not adequate, and individuals who feel wronged
in any fashion as a result of the excessive drinking of intoxicants and
resulting damages to themselves or others have legal recourse through various
other statutes and more importantly through the provisions of the common law in
order to obtain remedy.
As I recall, also, from the comments of
the critic of the Liberal Party, he made reference‑‑and I am going
from memory‑‑to the fact that the liability provisions and the
damage provisions were perhaps not sufficient in terms of that particular amendment,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
Largely, I have to indicate that we, in
the official opposition, are of the opinion that perhaps there is an argument
that would suggest that this particular amendment should stay in The Liquor
Control Act and should not be removed, while a legal argument certainly can be
mounted and a reason can be mounted for stating, yes, this law is redundant
based on other provisions and other acts, and certainly that argument has been
made with the other recommendations made in this act, The Law Reform Act.
Nonetheless, we would suggest, from
members on this side of the House, that there may be at the very least a
symbolic reason, Mr. Acting Speaker, for maintaining within this act a notice
and an observation and a symbol for all those involved in the industry, and
notice that the provisions of an excessive amount of liquor to an individual or
individuals could amount to some form of liability falling upon the head of the
individual responsible.
Mr. Acting Speaker, certainly the damages
provision, which are stated in Section 183, shall not be less than $100 or more
than $1,500 in our modern society, are wholly inadequate and clearly
inadequate. If anything, perhaps an
amendment to Section 183 could be introduced that would make the liability
section more onerous rather than less.
Again, even if it is for symbolic reasons‑‑and
there may be instances‑‑I do not purport to be a legal expert with
respect to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, there could be a reason or an occasion when this section of
the act could be invoked.
More importantly, and above all with
respect to this provision, The Liquor Control Act, there is the question of
symbolism, and there is the question that all of those who are involved in the
industry, all of those who provide beverages in the industry are aware of this
act, Mr. Acting Speaker. I am sure they
do not have opportunity to read the 1974 Supreme Court ruling on a regular
basis or indeed have provision to note it, but it has been our experience and
certainly my experience that those individuals involved in this industry are
quite familiar and quite aware of the provisions of The Liquor Control Act.
Even if this serves of a symbolic nature to those individuals to advise them of
the consequences of providing intoxicants to someone who is already
intoxicated, even if it serves as notice to them, then it has served its
purpose.
Now, I, by these comments, am not meaning
to suggest that most of those involved in the industry are not responsible and
are not clearly doing their job, but there are instances. We all know there are instances, Mr. Acting
Speaker, when the law itself or any other provisions, be it the common law or
be it the provisions in various acts, are not followed and when individuals are
served in excess.
So
we, on this side of the House, in a positive and co‑operative fashion,
while we have no opposition and no difficulty generally with any of the other
amendments made by the government, do have some concern about this particular
amendment as it relates to The Liquor Control Act. Mr. Acting Speaker, we suggest that the
government reconsider removal of this particular amendment, that is Sections
183 of The Liquor Control Act, and perhaps rethink the desirability of removing
this section.
It appears to us that some symbolic, some
notice provision at least could be served by notification and general
acknowledgement in The Liquor Control Act, that those who are involved in the
industry and those who serve beverages do have a responsibility to the
consequences. I again reiterate my
earlier comments that this is not to suggest that most of those involved in
industry are not responsible and do not fulfill their duties not only within
the letter of the law but within some of the general guidelines and provisions
that we, as a society, have demonstrated.
One only needs to look to some of the
positive steps taken by owners of many establishments to deal with the serious
problem of drunk driving and impaired driving, Mr. Acting Speaker. There have been very many positive steps
taken by those involved in the industry as well as by society in general. But only for symbolic purposes or perhaps‑‑I
should not say perhaps‑‑I should say if notice and provision in
this particular act should serve to notify only one individual or only one
owner of an establishment or only one server, if it hammers home the message on
only one occasion, perhaps one tragedy could be averted. If it seeks to prevent one tragedy, then
simply these words, that are very, very clear on paper, have served their
purpose. For that reason we on this side
of the House are suggesting that the government maintain this provision in The
Liquor Control Act.
As one looks at the act and one studies
it, one sees very clearly there is a subtitle, Mr. Acting Speaker. Subtitles are placed in statutes for very
good reasons, and they are: those
subtitles are placed in legislation in order to draw attention to significant
and important aspects of that piece of legislation. When one looks at this
particular subtitle, it says and I quote, "Liability for death."
This section draws attention to the very
serious consequences that can flow from an individual or individuals who do not
pay attention to our provisions and to our laws, Mr. Acting Speaker. Members on
this side of the House urge the government that it reconsider this section of
the act, that it reconsider and maintain perhaps Section 183 in The Liquor
Control Act for the reason cited earlier‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Kildonan will have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 12:30, this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30. * (1130)
That is what it says here‑‑[interjection] Well, I hope that the
honourable member for
I want to offer my statements to the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) that this is not coming directly from this
honourable member. This is coming from
the hundreds of operators who have read through this and who have indicated
their fear that things like this just may indeed happen. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can make all
kinds of implications that this will happen, that will not happen, but again,
the operators have a fear that this bill is going to put so much control, so
much overcontrol, on them that some of them will not be able to operate as they
have before and operate with well‑meaning operations according to all the
regulations.
If there is an internal problem within the
operators and the lodge owners, they through the assistance of the government,
deal with their peers on their own.
These operators realize that where there is abuse within the system, it
is going to destroy the potential growth of their industry. If there are one or two operators within the
system who are not doing and providing what is supposed to be done under
regulations or under the benefit for the province of Manitoba for its tourist
dollars, they deal with it. They have
the input to be able to deal with such a problem if the problem does occur.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like
to in closing‑‑I know that I have touched on a few of the issues
and situations in this bill, but I hope that during committee and before
committee, the minister has, in fact, dealt with this bill and with the
operators on‑‑and I am sure, as the honourable Minister of Highways
(Mr. Driedger) has indicated that the goodness that the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) has in him‑‑I would certainly hope that the
minister does go through the bill and in committee hear and listen to the
suggestions and the changes that the outfitters and the operators and the
Manitoba association has for the minister.
We will be there. I will be there
to hear the presentations and to hear what the minister has to say.
The way this bill reads right now, I do
not feel that the minister is being fair and just to the outfitters that we
have in this province. It is an
important part of our tourism dollar and an economic benefit to this
province. I wish that this minister
will, in fact, listen to the operators so that this industry may continue at
the very, very best of quality for all our tourist dollars and for the benefit
of the economics of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the
second reading of Bill 22. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 49‑The
Environment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 49
(The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson? [Agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill represents
another effort, in our view, by this government to get around what they say
they believe in respect of environmental assessments. It is another effort to sever and undercut,
in our view, a legitimate, credible, full environmental review process in this
province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister started
his comments by saying that he felt this bill dealt with some technicalities.
Far from it, this bill does not deal only with technicalities; rather, in our
view, it represents a concerted effort and part of the theme that has marked
this government's concerted efforts to, as I have indicated, over time
generally undercut the environmental review process, while at the same time maintaining
the image of a full, thorough, credible, independent review.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is
important to look at the history of this government's efforts in that
regard. In the area of environmental
reviews, this minister was the co‑author of a position put forward by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment some years ago in which they
stated as one of their chief objectives to stay out of court, they said, we do
not want to be taken to court as governments, oftentimes the major proponents
of these projects which require environmental review. We want to stay out of
court and not have judges telling us what to do and how to do it.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is,
courts only get involved and only make rulings against governments when
governments have broken the laws they enacted in the first place. The fact is, anybody who has been watching
environmental process in the last number of years knows that the only people
who have taken the time to read and understand what the laws are have been the
courts, and they have, whether it is the Oldman River or Rafferty‑Alameda
or Hydro in Quebec, universally told Canadian governments, provincial and
federal, look, if you pass this legislation, you have to live by it. You must respect the environmental process
which says, think first, study first, build later.
Throughout this country‑‑and,
of course, we have the notable culprits in Saskatchewan and Quebec, and
Manitoba to a lesser extent, but I think our turn is coming with Conawapa‑‑there
have been notable governments that have cut deals behind doors in attempts to
get out of the environmental process‑‑[interjection]
The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
talks about Liberal governments. The
member for Kildonan should read the comments of February 24 of this year of the
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) on environmental assessments. The member for Point Douglas had one theme in
his comments on Bill 10, which was build now, build big, do not look at it, do
not worry about it, the banks on this river, on the Nelson River, are
high. What do we need an environmental
study for? That is what the member for
Point Douglas said in his comments. He
does not care; he wants construction, the bigger the better, the sooner the
better, and the member for Kildonan talks from a party that built Limestone,
the biggest development in this province, $1.6 billion, and did not do an
environmental study.
Now, they brought in the Environment Act
in 1988. They started building Limestone
in 1985, so Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] That is right, my friend the member for
It has been consistent with what they have
done in legislation earlier, approximately a year ago, when they brought in
legislation massively increasing ministerial discretion in the area of
environmental assessments, in particular joint panel assessments with the federal
government specifically to deal with Conawapa and the north central
transmission line. It is a consistent
theme.
* (1140)
The Minister of Environment wrote that
communique on behalf of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment
saying he wanted to stay out of court at all costs. Since then that is all he has done, is bring
forward legislation to attempt to buttress that position, a higher level of
ministerial discretion, a higher level of insulation from a thorough review
which can actually stop projects.
The only reviews which can put the lock on
the door of a project is a review by the court.
The federal court has done that across this country. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my suggestion
that the people of this province have supported their actions. In
The same principle that the member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) spoke about back in February, that is the view. Building is always better and the sooner the
better and the bigger the better.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly
backward from the way that the people of this country want us to go on
environmental reviews. The people of
this country want us to think first and build later, and if it takes us a while
to do it, then we will have to start thinking ahead. We will have to start thinking and putting
the environmental review into place before we want to build. You do not wait until you are actually
putting the shovel in the ground to start the environmental review. That is what this legislation calls us to
do. It calls us to do that study and do
it thoroughly without the pressure, without the bias that is inherent in having
already committed money.
How do you suggest that a government is
neutral and can be the orchestrator of a neutral review when they have
committed themselves financially already to the project, committed dollars that
will be lost if the project does not get an environmental licence? How do you suggest that they are neutral or
unbiased when they have tied themselves, like this government has in Conawapa,
to massive penalties to the
If we ever have to go back on Conawapa,
this province through Manitoba Hydro is going to lose millions and millions and
millions of dollars. That is the penalty
clause they tied themselves into, and yet they are telling us that they can have
a neutral unbiased review.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that
actions speak louder than words and the fact is that they have a financial
incentive to get the right result. That
is what Bill 10 is about when they are asking for increased borrowing money for
Hydro. That is what this bill is about
when the Minister of Environment is asking for the ability to grant licences in
stages.
Let me just explain that. What he is trying to do here is say, we take
a project like Conawapa, we take a global project and we divide it up into a
number of different stages‑‑[interjection]
That is right.
As the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) says, we only want to build part of the dam. They say, okay, let us hive off part of this
project. Let us say we only want to build
the roads in, we want to build the infrastructure. We get a licence for that. Then they say, and no more, that is all we
are studying here, just the initial stage, and we will commit the money
necessary to do that. You look at the
initial stage and say, okay, the panel says fine, go ahead with the initial
stage. Well, you go ahead and you spend $50‑‑$100 million, whatever
it takes, you build it. Then you go back
for the second stage. You build
that. You go back for the third stage. You build that.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
divide and conquer. That is what it is all about, because like the federal
court said‑‑the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench said on the
Rafferty‑Alameda case‑‑why did they not say that the
government of
But the court said at this point it would
not be fair to force them to go back.
Why? Because they had already
spent so much money. They said,
No, no, essentially the decision was based
on the fact that because they had breached the law for so long, the court would
not send them back to square one. It was
divide and conquer‑‑break up the project and you can spend the
money, which, if you ever lose or if you ever are forced to modify or go back
or be turned down by environmental panel, you can always say, look, you cannot
kill this project; we have already spent all this money. That is the principle behind it.
That is the principle behind the
ministerial discretion which is built into this bill to create stages of
licences. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
regressive legislation in the extreme on environmental issues, and the people
of this country are calling us to respect the principles we espouse.
It is an interesting thing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that like in many areas in this House, all three parties say the same things
when it comes to what we believe in, what we want. We all know the platitudes. We all know the catch phrases: stakeholders;
we believe in full environmental review; we believe in hearing the public,
respecting what they say. We all say
that.
But the fact is that when push comes to
shove‑‑look at the legislation that the government has put before
this House. It is consistently
legislation that moves away from listening to the public, that moves away from
having been bound to respect the decisions of neutral panels, and it is
consistently towards staying out of court at all cost, not obeying the
regulations in the legislation that we put into place and being willing to pay the
price if we do not. No, the legislation
is designed as this is, to get around the back door when we could not get in
the front. That is what this is about.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result, our
party will be opposing this legislation, because we cannot stand by and let
this government subvert (a) the legislation itself and the intent and purpose
of it, both at the provincial and federal levels, but (b) let this government
get away doing something they say they are not doing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I simply want to ask
the government why they cannot simply accept the principles of environmental assessments
and live by them, rather than devise methods of getting around them. They are very good at doing that. They have been plentiful in coming up with
ways to get around doing what is really intended and required by full
independent environmental assessments, and it need be stated no clearer than to
think first and build later.
You do not start a project, you do not
spend the hundreds of millions of dollars before you know the full impact of
the full project. By staging, by
breaking them up like that, it is a fiction.
You go to the panel and you say, just look at this, but that is
redundant. It is irrelevant, that
particular part of the project without looking at the whole project, because
the only reason for the partial construction is as a part of the whole. What
sense does it make when going to environmental reviews to say we are only going
to look at the part and then we will build it?
It is one thing to say the process is
going to look at the whole and in terms of the environmental review process, we
will divide it into stages and at the end of the day we will come to a conclusion. It is quite another to say as we divide it in
stages and approve it, you can build it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is getting through the back door. That is getting to a point where you put
pressure on the panel, you put pressure on the government, you give the
government that ability to say at the end of the day, yes, we failed at the end
of the day. We did not get environmental
approval. It is going to be an
environmental disaster, but we cannot turn back now, because we have spent all this
money.
* (1150)
We should not allow the government to get
away with that as the Devine government did in
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to
other parts of this bill, I note that the quorum provisions for the CEC are
reduced from four to three. I am not
clear, and I do not see from the minister's comments, the need for that
change. I am not saying today that I
necessarily agree or disagree with it.
What I am asking the minister is for some justification for that at the committee
stage.
My first instincts are that the safeguard
of the old provision, that the number before, and the further safeguard with respect
to transcripts being put before the next CEC meeting were legitimate and
valid. I look forward to some discussion
about that at the committee stage, should this bill ever make it to the committee
stage.
I, of course, hope it will not, because
the major part of this bill, and it slips through the door on the back of some other
which really are minor technical changes, but the gist of this bill, the
dangerous part of this bill cannot be allowed to go forward, in our view,
unchallenged, and we will challenge it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition there is
a provision, as I have indicated, that the certified copy of the transcript of evidence
which is taken at a CEC meeting that did not have a quorum has to be placed
before the next CEC meeting, and the minister is taking that out. The intent may be that no meetings will be
held where there is no quorum, I do not know, but there is no provision stating
that. If that is the intent, that you cannot
have a meeting without a quorum, then that is a different matter.
If the intent is rather that you can have
a meeting without a quorum and now you do not need that transcript to be put
forward in front of the next full CEC meeting, then I do not think that is a
progressive change, because it makes sense that if you are going to allow
meetings without quorums, you have the CEC itself, with a quorum, review it at
the next meeting, so I look forward to some discussion on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Part 5 of this bill
deals with alterations to projects and gives the minister the right to determine
whether an alteration is a minor or major alteration, and the right to
determine if alterations can go ahead without going to a study. This again is the minister attempting to increase
ministerial discretion on critical issues of environmental accountability and
environmental review. To the extent that
it expands ministerial discretion further without the necessary input of
environmental review, it again represents a step backward and is regressive.
The final part, Part 7, allows the cabinet
to make regulations concerning intervener funding. Now, I have spoken previously and will speak
again in favour of intervener funding, and it being allowed through the CEC at
these hearings. If the CEC is ever to be
the credible, independent body which has the universal respect of the
community, then we must provide that. I am
not saying that the CEC is not now doing a fine job.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): They
should not take our tainted money, then.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources
says they should not take our tainted money, but the fact is in these cases the
proponent, it is proposed, pays the bulk of those costs and that is positive.
It is one thing to say that the
Legislature should not have a direct financial interest in the outcome of a
result, and that is what I have said. It
is quite another, as the Minister of Natural Resources suggests, that the
government should have no role to play in financing a full review. Quite the contrary, if you want to have a
thorough independent review, you must allow those who present to have some
resources to put forward the information, do the research, put forward the
facts in a useful way, in an organized way, and in a sophisticated way. The way you do that is to put the decision
making into the hands of someone other than the government or the
proponent. The way you do that is you
set up a body, whether it is an independent panel, a subpanel of the CEC or the
CEC itself. You give them the ability
and discretion to decide who receives funding and in what amount.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask the
minister to give us draft regulations at his committee hearing, in the event
that this bill gets to it, as he did with the joint review panels last year. I would like to see what the details of the
intervener funding are. He has given
himself the power to set those regulations.
I have no problem with that, if we can see the regulations.
I would prefer it was in the legislation
itself, rather than in the hands again of cabinet discretion, but I do tell the
minister that I would like to see the regulations at the committee stage or
even sooner, if he has them, if this bill indeed does go to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those are my
comments at this time. I look forward to
the comments of other members of this House, in particular other members of the
government, who, I know, will have an interest in this bill. I see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) has some thoughts on it. I look
forward to his comments. Thank you.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, inasmuch as my friend,
noted parliamentarian, the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
recommends this measure having to do with Manitoba Hydro to the House, I know
that he would only do so if it were indeed in the interests of all
Manitobans. I urge speedy acceptance of this
bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
Bill 72‑The
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 72
(The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act; Loi sur la reforme du droit
(modifications diverses)), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Kildonan.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I rise with pleasure to deal with the recommendations on Bill 72
submitted by the minister, with respect to The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments)
Act. I notice it is becoming a matter of
course that I follow the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) with respect to my
comments. I only regret that I do not
have an opportunity to deal with some of his ill‑founded comments with
respect to the previous bill.
However, we are dealing with The Law
Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, which I can see from the rapt attention
of members opposite has all eyes riveted on the consequences and the ultimate
resolution and ultimate passage of this particular amendment.
As was the case and as is the case in
other bills introduced by the Minister of Justice, this is an omnibus
bill. While I was critical in my last
comments dealing with the minister's submission of an omnibus bill, I recognize
in this case that these are a series of recommendations made dealing with the overall,
and I put in quotation marks "concept of law reform" in the province
of Manitoba, which amounts to, in many cases, a tidying up or a clarification
or a bringing in to line a legislation in the province of Manitoba. So I am not as critical‑‑or not
in fact critical of the minister with respect to the omnibus provisions
contained in a bill or an amendment of this kind.
However, I again urge of the minister
something that I have also stressed on other occasions when I have had an
opportunity to rise on bills of this kind, that members on this side of the House,
and I sure all members, would appreciate a form of a spreadsheet or explanatory
notes with respect to bills of a legal‑‑all bills of course are of
a legal nature, but bills with consequences that are wide ranging and perhaps
complicated and technical in nature.
That generally applies to the kind of bills that are brought in the
omnibus fashion that the minister has.
* (1200)
So I stress as a matter of course, and a
recommendation again to the minister that a spreadsheet be considered with
respect to the provision of bills like this kind that would assist all members
of the House interpreting the consequences and the effect that these bills will
have on the statutes of the province of Manitoba, and in effect, on the way
that Manitobans conduct themselves in terms of their business dealings and in
many activities of their life dealing with the sections in this act.
This Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments)
Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, deals with amendments to The Bulk Sales Act; it
deals with amendments to The Law of Property Act; it deals with amendments to
The Liquor Control Act; as well, it deals with amendments to The Mercantile Law
Amendment Act; and finally, it deals with amendments to The Wages Recovery Act,
all wide ranging, but primarily prompted, if I could gather from the gist of
the comments of the Minister of Justice, by recommendations and study by the
Law Reform Commission, which prompts me to indicate, and I recognize the
political context in which I am making these statements.
I personally am very much in favour of law
reform commissions, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am not certain in our society whether or not we have enough methods of
change or vehicles in our society to deal with the law, and bringing the law
into the modern day, if I could put it in those terms. We need bodies of this kind to review our
laws as well, and not only to review our laws and update them, but they also
provide a useful device for legislators and parliamentarians to look at new innovations
and new laws and the effect they may have on society, as well as allowing an
independent third‑party body deal with many perhaps controversial or
otherwise issues.
It certainly provides an opportunity for
some innovation, for some review, for some positive change, and potential
change to society, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So what I am tangentially doing in my comments dealing with these
reforms, is suggest that‑‑many of them suggested by the Law Reform
Commission. I am simply suggesting that
I find the work of bodies of this kind‑‑personally, I find them
quite useful and quite necessary in our society.
In fact, one may make the argument as
government downsize and reduce the agencies and bodies available to review
matters, Law Reform Commissions could become even more important in our modern society,
providing us with an opportunity of an independent body with some form of
expertise to look at many of the fast changes that are occurring in our
pluralistic society and also to take a step back and provide some independent
advice to many of the issues and the consequences of those issues on our
everyday life.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister is
proposing that we deal with changes to The Bulk Sales Act, and these changes
can be termed nothing short of extensive insofar as the changes recommended by
the minister amount to a repeal of The Bulk Sales Act.
This change arises out of a recommendation
of a Law Reform Commission in 1989, Madam Deputy Speaker. The act, which is a long‑standing act,
protects creditors from business people selling off their inventory and running
and, in some cases, absconding without paying their debts. I can indicate, for the most part, it appears
and I agree with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission, as well as
the comments of the minister, that in fact developments in terms of credit
reporting, other legislation, and other statute or law in our society, has for
the most part rendered The Bulk Sales Act redundant.
I do note, as I recall from the bar
admission course, which is a requirement for all lawyers who are hoping to be
called to the Bar, in the commercial section, quickly being reminded by those
who were providing us with instruction at that time that we should not, in the
context of all of our review of laws and all that we had learned and studied in
that area, forget the long‑standing Bulk Sales Act and that it always
should be considered. So in terms of the
law, it obviously was on the books and required attention, required review, but
like many laws that govern our affairs, particularly our commercial
transactions the last 80 to 90 years, this one has become redundant. Clearly, I do not think we have any problem
whatsoever in the repeal of this particular act.
There is also a number of consequential
amendments that have occurred as a result of the repeal of this act dealing
with The Cooperatives Act, The Credit Unions Caisses Populaires Act, The Farm
Machinery and Equipment Act, as well as The Natural Gas Supply Act and The
Retail Sales Tax Act, all of which have a bearing on this particular
amendment. They are also dealt with under
the provision of the repeal of The Bulk Sales Act.
Moving on then, knowing full well that
members are sitting in a good deal of attention and anticipation as to the
comments that are going to follow dealing with the subsequent amendments. We are now also faced with the amendments to
The Law of Property Act, changing liability provisions‑‑if I
understand the comments of the minister as well as my reading of the act‑‑changing
liability provisions for dealing with the term waste and how equitable waste
and waste by tenants is applied in terms of their consequences.
Now, there is also another amendment to
The Law of Property Act which deals with the Rule in Shelley's Case, and I will
deal with that amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my subsequent comments. At least at this point, I am going to focus
entirely on the amendments to The Law of Property Act.
The proposed Section 12 would clarify the
liability of life tenants and would, as I understand it, bring the law into a similar
state as that in other jurisdictions of this country. As well, it would make tenants for life
liable for permissive waste as much as those tenants on fixed term which only
seems fair. In the context of our modern
society, probably the distinction does not make any sense. So members on this side of the House do not have
any great deal of difficulty in dealing with this particular amendment, Madam
Deputy Speaker, or the consequences of it.
* (1210)
When the minister first proposed this bill
and indicated that the Rule in Shelley's Case would be abolished, I was tempted
to review my studies, because I specifically recall spending time in law school
in the wills section dealing with the Rule in Shelley's Case. In all honesty, I had totally forgotten the consequences
of the Rule in Shelley's Case, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I note that in the
minister's comments when he introduced the bill that he outlined the effect of
the Rule in Shelley's Case which is one of the interesting consequences often
of a judicial interpretation and one of the consequences of the contradictions as
they occur in our modern society.
It is an interesting debate, Madam Deputy
Speaker, when you consider that much of our statute law has been brought about to
clarify the effects of judicial interpretation and judicial review and the
precedent set. Shelley's Case is one of
those in a longstanding, hundreds of years of judicial review and the precedents
set, and Shelley's Case is one of those in the long‑standing, hundreds of
years of judicial interpretation of wills and their effect. The consequences of those particular rulings,
Madam Deputy Speaker, has been the judicial tradition. [interjection]
I note that the member for Lac du Bonnet
(Mr. Praznik) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) are having a debate on
the side about private schools, which is something they are not prepared to do
in the public but are prepared to do from their seats in the Chamber on a
regular basis. That speaks volumes about
this government's approach to public issues and how they debate public issues,
as the member for Lac du Bonnet and the member for
But I do diverge, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] and my friend on the
other side is reminding me, and the honourable member is reminding me that he
is waiting for further discussion and review of the Rule in Shelley's Case‑‑long
standing, in fact, if memory serves me correctly, probably goes back to the
1700s. I am quite sure that members opposite will agree with me that this kind
of an amendment and this kind of a provision in change in the‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Chomiak: I am glad that members are greeting the change
in Shelley's Case with the same kind of enthusiasm that I am.
It is, indeed, a fact that the Rule in
Shelley's Case, in the jurisdiction, in the province of Manitoba will now be
abolished, Madam Deputy Speaker, and only serves to indicate that there are instances
and there are methods by which we, in terms of statute law, can expedite and
simplify the procedures for individuals and for citizens in the province of
Manitoba, and particularly when we deal with matters of a regular
importance. That is the signing and
making of wills, something that most individuals are urged to do and in fact do
do in our society, which is relatively significant and just shows that there
are laws and there are means by which we can, in this Legislature, affect
change to make interpretation of these wills far simpler.
I would only hope that we could continue
to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker, for it still, at present, is far too
complicated a process and should be brought to the public in a much simpler and
less complicated fashion. I note that we
are one of the jurisdictions, for example, that allows the making and provision
of holograph wills. Those, therefore,
allow for individuals to write their own wills completely in their own
handwriting.
That, I think, is a very positive change
and a very positive commitment that allows citizens to do their own will
making, particularly in instances where an individual may not have the wherewithal,
or more importantly, may not have the, in the cases of elderly people for
example, relatives in our fast‑paced and changing society, who can act as
executors or who can act as representatives for them to assist them in will
making.
So we have in this jurisdiction the
ability to make hologaph wills for all members of our society, and I am sure
members opposite are very pleased about that particular provision of the law in
the
I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that another
provision of the act calls for an amendment to The Mercantile Law Amendment Act
as well as an amendment to The Wages Recovery Act. The minister indicated The Mercantile Law
Amendment Act clarifies arrangements for settling debts and makes agreements,
which were common law binding, and clarifies provisions of the act.
While I have not had a good deal of
exposure or dealings with that particular act, it strikes me, and certainly in
our thorough review of matters of this kind in caucus we certainly do not have any
opposition. We have no difficulty
dealing with the provisions of those amendments and certainly welcome the amendments
that deal with The Mercantile Law Amendment Act.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Also, Mr. Acting Speaker, I note that the
act also calls for an amendment to The Wages Recovery Act, to repeal, in fact,
The Wages Recovery Act, and I basically agree with the comments of the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) when he introduced this legislation, that in fact The
Wages Recovery Act has been largely made redundant by advances in labour law
and advances in legislation in a number of areas of the law.
We have fortunately in this country
brought about some positive and very progressive changes to labour legislation
to protect working people and individuals.
It is unfortunate that the governments of various political stripes,
mostly Conservatives, are seeking in many jurisdictions to roll back many of
the gains made by working people in this country with respect to labour
legislation. It is unfortunate, and in
fact we have seen the same in
So we are concurring with that particular
amendment, we are concurring with those particular changes. If there are any problems we have with this
bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, they are contained in the amendment and the provision
of The Liquor Control Act. This act, The
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act, this bundle of changes to a variety
of acts, mostly of a commercial nature and most recommended by the Law Reform Commission,
as I understand it from the comments of the minister, contained within that is
an amendment to The Liquor Control Act.
Mr. Acting Speaker, Section 183 of The
Liquor Control Act is a liability section.
That particular section indicates, and I am quoting from that section of
the act, the section that is going to be repealed by the government: "Where any person drinks liquor to
excess and, while in a state of intoxication from that drinking, comes to his
death by suicide or drowning, or perishes from cold or other accident caused by
that intoxication, the person who furnished or gave the liquor to the person
when in a state of intoxication, or on whose premises it was obtained by the
intoxicated person while intoxicated, is liable to an action for a wrongful act
and as a personal wrong, and the action may be brought under The Fatal
Accidents Act, and the amount that is recovered as damages shall not be less
than $100. or more than $1,500."
* (1220)
Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister indicated
in his comments, when he introduced the amendment, this bundle of amendments contained
in The Law Reform Amendment Act indicated that the provisions in this act have
been superseded by judicial interpretation, by judicial ruling and I believe
specifically by the Supreme Court of Canada.
He also indicated, if I recall correctly, that the provisions are simply
not adequate, and individuals who feel wronged in any fashion as a result of
the excessive drinking of intoxicants and resulting damages to themselves or
others have legal recourse through various other statutes and more importantly
through the provisions of the common law in order to obtain remedy.
As I recall, also, from the comments of
the critic of the Liberal Party, he made reference‑‑and I am going
from memory‑‑to the fact that the liability provisions and the
damage provisions were perhaps not sufficient in terms of that particular amendment,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
Largely, I have to indicate that we, in
the official opposition, are of the opinion that perhaps there is an argument that
would suggest that this particular amendment should stay in The Liquor Control
Act and should not be removed, while a legal argument certainly can be mounted
and a reason can be mounted for stating, yes, this law is redundant based on
other provisions and other acts, and certainly that argument has been made with
the other recommendations made in this act, The Law Reform Act.
Nonetheless, we would suggest, from
members on this side of the House, that there may be at the very least a
symbolic reason, Mr. Acting Speaker, for maintaining within this act a notice
and an observation and a symbol for all those involved in the industry, and
notice that the provisions of an excessive amount of liquor to an individual or
individuals could amount to some form of liability falling upon the head of the
individual responsible.
Mr. Acting Speaker, certainly the damages
provision, which are stated in Section 183, shall not be less than $100 or more
than $1,500 in our modern society, are wholly inadequate and clearly
inadequate. If anything, perhaps an
amendment to Section 183 could be introduced that would make the liability
section more onerous rather than less.
Again, even if it is for symbolic reasons‑‑and
there may be instances‑‑I do not purport to be a legal expert with
respect to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Nonetheless, there could be a reason or an occasion when this section of
the act could be invoked.
More importantly, and above all with
respect to this provision, The Liquor Control Act, there is the question of symbolism,
and there is the question that all of those who are involved in the industry,
all of those who provide beverages in the industry are aware of this act, Mr.
Acting Speaker. I am sure they do not
have opportunity to read the 1974 Supreme Court ruling on a regular basis or
indeed have provision to note it, but it has been our experience and certainly
my experience that those individuals involved in this industry are quite
familiar and quite aware of the provisions of The Liquor Control Act. Even if
this serves of a symbolic nature to those individuals to advise them of the
consequences of providing intoxicants to someone who is already intoxicated,
even if it serves as notice to them, then it has served its purpose.
Now, I, by these comments, am not meaning
to suggest that most of those involved in the industry are not responsible and are
not clearly doing their job, but there are instances. We all know there are instances, Mr. Acting
Speaker, when the law itself or any other provisions, be it the common law or
be it the provisions in various acts, are not followed and when individuals are
served in excess.
So
we, on this side of the House, in a positive and co‑operative fashion,
while we have no opposition and no difficulty generally with any of the other
amendments made by the government, do have some concern about this particular
amendment as it relates to The Liquor Control Act. Mr. Acting Speaker, we suggest that the
government reconsider removal of this particular amendment, that is Sections
183 of The Liquor Control Act, and perhaps rethink the desirability of removing
this section.
It appears to us that some symbolic, some
notice provision at least could be served by notification and general
acknowledgement in The Liquor Control Act, that those who are involved in the industry
and those who serve beverages do have a responsibility to the
consequences. I again reiterate my
earlier comments that this is not to suggest that most of those involved in
industry are not responsible and do not fulfill their duties not only within
the letter of the law but within some of the general guidelines and provisions
that we, as a society, have demonstrated.
One only needs to look to some of the
positive steps taken by owners of many establishments to deal with the serious
problem of drunk driving and impaired driving, Mr. Acting Speaker. There have been very many positive steps
taken by those involved in the industry as well as by society in general. But only for symbolic purposes or perhaps‑‑I
should not say perhaps‑‑I should say if notice and provision in
this particular act should serve to notify only one individual or only one
owner of an establishment or only one server, if it hammers home the message on
only one occasion, perhaps one tragedy could be averted. If it seeks to prevent one tragedy, then
simply these words, that are very, very clear on paper, have served their
purpose. For that reason we on this side
of the House are suggesting that the government maintain this provision in The
Liquor Control Act.
As one looks at the act and one studies
it, one sees very clearly there is a subtitle, Mr. Acting Speaker. Subtitles are placed in statutes for very
good reasons, and they are: those subtitles
are placed in legislation in order to draw attention to significant and
important aspects of that piece of legislation. When one looks at this
particular subtitle, it says and I quote, "Liability for death."
This section draws attention to the very
serious consequences that can flow from an individual or individuals who do not
pay attention to our provisions and to our laws, Mr. Acting Speaker. Members on
this side of the House urge the government that it reconsider this section of
the act, that it reconsider and maintain perhaps Section 183 in The Liquor
Control Act for the reason cited earlier‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Kildonan
will have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 12:30, this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30.