LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
July 15, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lucille Desorcy, Rachel Lachnit, Mariele Nault and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Maloway). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Ninth
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as its Ninth Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, July 13,
1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee heard representation on
bills as follows:
Bill 30‑The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant une deficience mentale et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill Martin ‑ Canadian Mental Health
AssociationAllistar Gunson ‑ Association for Community Living (
Bill 31‑The Health
Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie
Theresa Ducharme ‑ Private CitizenAnna
Desilets and Mary Lamont ‑
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
chemins de fer provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois
Don Tennant ‑ United Transportation
Your committee has considered:
Bill 30‑The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant une deficience mentale et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
the following be added after section 5:
Supported
decision making 5.1(1) In this section,
"supported decision making" refers to the process whereby a
vulnerable person is enabled to make and communicate decisions with respect to
personal care or his or her property and in which advice, support or assistance
is provided to the vulnerable person by members of his or her support network.
Role
of supported decision making 5.1(2)
Supported decision making by a vulnerable person with members of his or
her support network should be respected and recognized as an important means of
enhancing the self‑determination, independance and dignity of a
vulnerable person.
MOTION:
THAT
clause 16(1)(b) be amended by adding ", the person for whom support
services are requested if not the applicant," after "applicant".
MOTION:
THAT
section 48 be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (a),
by renumbering clause (b) as clause (c) and by adding the following as clause
(b):
(b) whether the person for whom the
application is made appears to have a support network and reasonable efforts
have been made to involve the support network with the person; and
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 49(2) be amended by striking out "clause 48(b)" and
substituting "clauses 48(b) and (c)".
MOTION:
THAT
section 83 be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (a),
by renumbering clause (b) as clause (c) and by adding the following as clause
(b):
(b) whether the person for whom the
application is made appears to have a support network and reasonable efforts
have been made to involve the support network with the person; and
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 84(2) be amended by striking out "clause 83(b)" and
substituting "clauses 83(b) and (c)".
MOTION:
THAT
Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all section numbers and internal
references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 31‑The Health
Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
chemins de fer provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 39(1) be amended by adding "with a shipper" after
"enter into a contract".
MOTION:
THAT
proposed clause 46(3)(a) be amended in the English version by striking out
"contained" and substituting "contain".
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Eighth
Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Eighth Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, July 13,
1993, at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee heard representation on
bills as follows:
Bill 25‑The Public
Schools Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques
David Turner ‑
Bill 34‑The Public
Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les ecoles publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises)
Jean Allard ‑ Private CitizenDavid
Turner ‑ Manitoba Teachers' SocietyGeorge Wall and Gerald McConaghy ‑
Manitoba Association ofSchool SuperintendentsGilbert Savard ‑ Federation
provinciale des comites deparents (FPCP)Armand Bedard ‑ Commission
nationale des parents francophones(CNPF)Georges Druwe ‑ Societe franco‑manitobaine
(SFM)Alain Boucher ‑ Conseil jeunesse provincial (CJP)Estelle St‑Hilaire
‑ Association des directeurs et desdirectrices franco‑manitobains
(ADEFM)Guy Boulianne ‑ Educatrices et educateurs franco‑manitobains(EFM)Philippe
Le Quere ‑ Private Citizen
Your committee has considered:
Bill 25‑The Public
Schools Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 17(1), as set out in section 2 of the Bill, be amended
by adding the following definition in alphabetical order:
"chief
superintendent" means the person appointed as the chief superintendent of
the northern school division; ("surintendant en chef")
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 17(10), as set out in section 2 of the Bill, be amended
in the part preceding clause (a) by adding "or the chief superintendent,
as the case may be," after "area superintendent".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 34‑The Public
Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les ecoles publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises)
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
the French version of the proposed section 21.1, as set out in section 5 of the
Bill, be amended by striking out "ou qui recoit" in clause (b) of the
definition "ayant droit".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 21.15(2), as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out everything after "to attend" and substituting
"a programme d'accueil for a period of time determined by the board".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 21.30(2), as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "shared used" and substituting "transfer
or shared use".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 21.36(4), as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be
amended by adding "entitled" after "any other class of".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subclause 21.43(e)(iv), as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "21.37".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed section 21.47, as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by
renumbering it as subsection 21.47(1) and by adding the following as subsection
21.47(2):
Rights
of non‑designated teachers continued 21.47(2) If, before the end of the first year it
provides programs under section 21.5, the francophone school board hires a non‑designated
teacher who has lost his or her position with a provider school board because
of the transfer of francophone programs to the francophone school board, the
teacher is deemed to be a designated teacher for the purpose of 21.45, which
applies with necessary modifications.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
*
(1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Home Care
Program
Premier's
Intervention
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, we continue to get all kinds
of calls from individuals in different circumstances. Some have already been cut off home care.
I have here the case of a woman who is 95
years old who has not had a bath for two weeks, another woman whose spouse is
totally disabled and has not been able to get any home care supplies for six
weeks. The lists go on and on. These are individuals with no bank accounts,
as the Premier has led us to believe, people with no relatives in the
I would implore the Premier, today, to
please take charge of the Home Care Program and ensure that a rational,
compassionate system is in place so that seniors in our province and members of
the disabled community can live in their homes and in their communities with
dignity.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, all members of the House, all
members of the media, will recall last week when this member said she was
getting dozens and hundreds of calls about home care.
I challenged my honourable friend to give
me the list that day. That day she
delivered one name. In indicating that I
had received one name after accusations that there were dozens and hundreds,
the member for Kildonan, from his seat, said they were getting thousands of
calls.
Point of
Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe
the minister misquoted me. The thousands
was the minister's quote that I was quoting back to him, and he said thousands
were cut off.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happens
when you have a desperate opposition party wanting to create fear amongst the
people of
Now, with that one name that we have from
the member for St. Johns, we believe we have resolved that problem, Sir, and
that individual, I believe, is satisfied with the circumstances of care
provision.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have names or
allegations of circumstances of individuals.
If my honourable friend the member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) sent over a number of letters yesterday. I have sent over a number to the minister
today. Those seniors, not fearful of the
vindictive actions of this government, are coming forward and giving their names,
and we are getting them to this government as fast as possible.
Let me ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) about
the situation facing one individual, and I would like these letters to go over
to the Premier so that he can see these are real people. This woman, who has not had incontinent supplies
for two months, would the Premier agree to her request made to me yesterday to
call her? Her number is right on the top
letter. Call her. Walk one hour in her shoes where she has to
live without incontinent pads, has to live with feeling depressed because she
is worried about being offensive in terms of body odour and worried about
safety‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of
theatre my honourable friend engages in to advance her federal campaign,
nothing more, nothing less. If my
honourable friend was concerned about‑‑
*
(1340)
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the
minister, every time he stands, attempts to impugn the motives of members on
this side in asking legitimate questions.
Mr. Speaker, this is not theatre. The woman the member for
It is a legitimate question to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon), and the Minister of Health is out of order in impugning the
motives of the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, on the
same point of order?
Mr. Orchard: No, I want to continue to answer my
questions.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Flin Flon does not
have a point of order, but I would caution, again, the honourable Minister of
Health, to pick your words very, very carefully. You are very close there.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
his response.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to give you a flavour of
the kinds of complaints the member for
Last week, when she delivered one name,
after considerable pressure from me in the view of the cameras, we checked with
the minister who had allegedly phoned the member for
Now, Mr. Speaker, today, my honourable
friend‑‑and I have just received from my office these letters dated
July 15, some four of them, and I will go through them. But would it not advance the dignity of
resolving these individuals' problems if my honourable friend, instead of
playing theatre on television, would give staff a chance to review these and
provide equitable answers and/or solutions?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The minister makes our point. Manitobans should not have to go to their MLA
to get some action because they want to live in their homes and receive home
care.
Criteria
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the time available, which is not much, I
will try to ask a question about the concerned group of physiotherapists who
have also expressed concern for some guidelines and direction from this
government on how they are changing Home Care.
Would the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tell us
exactly what the criteria are for a person being able to obtain home care
services in the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly some of the
difficulty we have with this issue, because without any individual's
circumstance being attached, my honourable friend now alleges that my staff are
saying, sell your home.
My Speaker, if that circumstance, as
alleged by the member for
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend
keeps bringing these unidentified individuals up in the alarmist fashion she
does, but when she brings people's circumstances to us, we resolve them, and we
will continue to do that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has
one of two options. Last week‑‑it
was exactly seven days ago that I was promised dozens, hundreds, and from his
seat, thousands of names from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and by
today, I have received five, and four of them were today.
I do not know how my honourable friend can
live with herself, having those thousands of people live in the discomfort she
alleges, and she does nothing to pass their names on.
*
(1345)
Home Care
Program
Budget‑Winnipeg
Region
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, most of what the minister says
is utter pap and nonsense. By blaming
everyone, the minister fails to answer the questions.
Let us deal with what the minister
said. He has cut $3 million from the
Home Care budget, to homemaking services.
He has said thousands of people will be cut off, and he is saying no
names are coming to his attention. These
people are afraid to contact the office directly.
My question to the minister is: In addition to the $3‑million cutback,
in addition to raising nursing home fees by 74 percent, in addition to cutting
off thousands of people, will the minister also confirm or not confirm that the
Home Care budget for the city of Winnipeg region is down from $31 million last
year to $29 million this year?
Will he confirm that, and is that not
another reason why these people are concerned about‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I will confirm that figure if
and when I am able to put sense to that number, but I will give my honourable
friend‑‑because my honourable friend does not have good information
99 percent of the time.
My honourable friend has before him
information given in the Estimates process.
It would have been very informative if the member for
But, Mr. Speaker, what is changing is that
narrow focus of housecleaning and laundry which is now being universally
applied across the province. There will
be, particularly in
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan that the Home Care Program and the
assessment of need is the same as it was in 1985, the same as it was prior. It
is important that one knows there will be no individual who will be forced to
an institution because of any changes in the assessment of their home care.
Staff
Meetings
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, since the minister is saying he
is going to try to find those figures about the reduction, I would like to ask
him another specific question.
Will he confirm that the meeting scheduled
for July 12, 13 and 14 with all of the Home Care support workers‑‑the
letters we tabled last week that were going out saying their jobs are basically
being privatized‑‑are those meetings on hold and when are they
being rescheduled, or are they being cancelled totally?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as we speak, meetings are going
on with employees of the Home Care Program, because there are a lot of mixed
messages going out, compliments of many sources.
There is a lot of concern out there. Our phones ring with those concerns, and when
we explain the program, as I have done consistently in this House, in
Estimates, since the budget came down on April 6, the individuals are not as
concerned, because they get the impression from the questions of the member for
Kildonan and the member for St. Johns (Mr. Wasylycia‑Leis) that the
entire Home Care Program is being cut and reduced and dropped.
That is not accurate, Sir. I know it suits the political agenda of the
NDP in opposition to make that fear campaign rampant across the province. They tried it four years ago. They are trying it again today, but they will
not acknowledge that care services like bathing, dressing, other therapies and
nursing services are increasing again this year and increasing substantially.
*
(1350)
Public
Reassurance
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we know the budget in the
What assurances can the minister give
tonight to the disabled groups who are getting together to combat these
cuts? What assurances can the minister
give that their services will not be cut off, despite the fact that $3 million
has been cut from the homemaking services and the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I might table a news release
dated April 16, 1993, for the member for Kildonan and the member for
To answer the question of the physically
handicapped, on a radio program this week, I had the opportunity to deal with
the issue with one Mr. Burns, a young gentleman who is accessing home care
services. In the course of the
discussion with Mr. Burns, I asked him if he remembered the last time the NDP
raised this issue and had the physically handicapped of
Mr. Speaker, that answer applies today as
it did four years ago.
Health
Care System Reform
Premier's
Intervention
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, the Minister of Health dismissed the concerns and the complaints of
the Manitoba Medical Association by saying they were the rantings of a union
leader.
Mr. Speaker, today, we have another two
groups joining the chorus of people who are saying they can no longer work with
the Department of Health and with the Minister of Health, the Manitoba League
for the Physically Handicapped and the Manitoba Society of Seniors, hardly
people who qualify as union leaders or people with an axe to grind with the
Minister of Health. They have joined
this chorus as people who are saying that health care reform, if it is going to
work, cannot work under the current administration.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier
(Mr. Filmon): Given that we now have
representative groups from virtually all of the professional groups that are
participating in the health care sector, as well as patients' groups, people
who represent people who are actually seeking services from the health care
sector, and seeing as they are now saying things like they now feel anxiety,
stress and panic, which is what the Society of Seniors said today, is it not
time for the Premier to step in and salvage what he can of this health care
action plan and put someone else in charge who can work with the people in the
community?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the salvaging of health care
reform would be the continued presence in this House of the former member for
The Maples who understood health care reform, supported it. The sudden departure of him has brought about
this sudden change in attitude by the Liberal Party.
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the issue
of fear as raised by the MMA yesterday.
In a concluding paragraph, Dr. Goldstine as president of the physicians'
union, said: Meanwhile, the human costs
escalate as waiting lists grow longer and services deteriorate.
Mr. Speaker, I took that accusation by the
president of the doctors' union very seriously, and I had the figures developed
for April and May of 1992. My honourable
friend the Liberal Leader will acknowledge that was before the reform document
came down, before downsizing at our two teaching hospitals.
I compared surgical caseloads in the city
of
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to flail
and defend himself.
An Honourable Member: Flail?
Mr. Edwards: He does.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health misses
the point. The point is, today, 14
months into his action plan for health care reform, the ship is sinking, and it
is sinking because the key participants‑‑and according to the
document he put out, which is correct, he needs those key participants. He says he must have their co‑operation.
He does not have their co‑operation. It cannot work as long as this minister is in
place because the fact is, Mr. Speaker, they do not trust him, and they do not
want to work with him on this.
My question for the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): Will he see the writing on the
wall and step in and salvage what he can of health care reform and make it
work, Mr. Speaker?
*
(1355)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested and
intrigued with my honourable friend the new Liberal Leader's saying I am
flailing at the issue when I present facts‑‑facts‑‑from
April and May of 1992 at our major acute care hospitals on the surgical
procedures done in April, May 1992, prior to reform, compared to April and May
'93, after the reform and presumably when all of these dire things have
happened, according to the president of the doctors' union. When surgeries are up, my honourable friend
the Liberal Leader says, well, that is flailing at the issue.
Mr. Speaker, some people would call that
presentation of fact. I do not expect my
honourable friend to use that fact, because it will not fit his political
agenda, but surely you must acknowledge that when information presented is not
accurate, no matter who is presenting it, whether it be a physician, a
president of a union, it ought to be corrected.
We have done that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the other issue of
physicians not co‑operating or not being consulted with health care
reform, I regret to say that the statement and the allegation made by the
president of the doctors' union is not correct, and in saying that, he is, in
effect, saying the many, many physicians in Manitoba who have worked in their
free time to help us develop programs of change, to analyze the issues, that
their input, because it does not have the blessing of the MMA, is not valuable. They find that offensive and so do I.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, not only did the Fraser forum
indicate last week that this province has the longest line‑up for access
to specialists, but let me tell you about another fact, and this is the key
fact for health care reform.
The key fact is, the Society of Seniors,
not union leaders ranting and negotiating with the Minister of Health, the
Society of Seniors, representatives of the people trying to use the health care
system, and the League for the Physically Handicapped‑‑this is the
fact. The fact is, they say their
members now feel anxiety, stress and panic that they will be unable to cope or
maintain a healthy and safe lifestyle.
They say that when the proposed changes to the health care system were
announced, they felt the goal was a good thing.
They felt they were going to be able to age in place with dignity and
independence, and they now feel anxiety, stress and panic.
That is the fact. The fact is health care reform cannot work
when the community feels that way about this minister, Mr. Speaker.
My question for the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): When is he going to step in and
put in place a minister who can build a co‑operative, consensus‑building
approach toward health care reform? This
minister may have many strengths, but that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, it is almost as if I wrote the
questions for the Liberal Leader, because it allows me to put fact again on the
record.
Manitobans would naturally be fearful when
they see news reporting which would indicate that referrals in Manitoba going
slow is an indicator that our system is not working and base that on this
report from The Fraser Institute, because if you go to the last three pages of
this report from The Fraser Institute, the headline and subheadline could have
read, Sir, waiting times for surgery in Manitoba decrease by 11 percent, 1991
over 1992, a decrease of 1.3 weeks on average in Manitoba, the greatest rate of
decrease in the five provinces compared.
One also could have read in this news
article that the number of people on waiting lists for surgery in Manitoba
dropped by the greatest amount of any province surveyed, 1991 over 1992, a
drop, Sir, of 11 percent compared to an increase in British Columbia of 6
percent, people on the waiting list, 32 percent in Liberal New Brunswick, 54
percent in Liberal Newfoundland and 4 percent in Conservative Nova Scotia.
Home Care
Program
Rural
Services
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the
Minister of Health.
In a meeting held on June 30 regarding the
government's cuts to Home Care, the minister's assistant talked about the
strong family and neighbourhood support network in rural
My question is, will the minister tell the
House today how he expects people in rural
*
(1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): I appreciate my honourable friend's read
question. Let me tell my honourable
friend that Manitobans in Selkirk under Howard Pawley and the NDP had their
housecleaning and laundry paid for by themselves. They were, in my honourable friend's
language, cut off from home care under Howard Pawley as the Premier and the MLA
for the area.
That was under a policy that Howard
Pawley, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), the member for
Now, if one concluded my honourable
friend's questions, and I might say not necessarily based on a great deal of
knowledge, if my honourable friend followed the logic of the last questioner,
he would say Howard Pawley gutted the Home Care Program.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it was the Schreyer NDP
government that established the Home Care Program in the first place.
In some cases, individuals who are
receiving home care have no other contact with the outside world. Why has this minister jeopardized the safety
of many seniors who have no family and depend on Home Care workers, not simply
for their meals or laundry but also as a contact to the outside world?
Mr. Orchard: The circumstances my honourable friend
describes, where they exist, those individuals generally get more home care
services either through home care attendants, nursing services or overnight
stays to keep them safely in their home.
Those individuals benefit from the changes
in the program because they get more care, not less care. That is what the program has been doing since
the policy change by the NDP, because of Support Services to Seniors brought in
by the Pawley government in 1984 and first implemented in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend again
refers to broad circumstances, no individuals' names attached, because no
individual names are so attached or could be attached because those
individuals, as he described, if those are accurate living circumstances, they
are the individuals that services increase for, not decrease for.
Cost
Analysis
Tabling
Request
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): The minister knows the services he is cutting
have allowed individuals to live independently in their homes and that cutting
those services will mean that people now will have to move into more costly
institutional care.
Will he table in the House today the cost‑benefit
studies he is using in making these decisions to cut these programs?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of
difficulty re‑explaining the answer to the member for Selkirk now, who I
believe has sat in every Question Period, heard the answer.
I want my honourable friend from Selkirk
to understand that this year, home care attendant services are going to
increase by 11 percent in hours purchased this year over last year. That means there will be 11 percent more
hours of service to help seniors get up in the morning and get dressed, to help
seniors be bathed, to help seniors live independently, because some of their
personal care needs are going to be looked after with 11 percent more hours
this year than last year.
Last year, the figure for increase in home
care attendants was something like 15 percent.
Mr. Speaker, this year's budget allows for almost 10 percent more
registered nursing hours to provide medical needs in the home in the Home Care
Program‑‑more support, not less support as my honourable friend
alleges. My honourable friend does not
base his questions on fact.
Ski Hill
Proposal
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the proposal for a ski hill in
My question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources. As the minister responsible
for wildlife protection, does he not see an obligation to protect this area
which is also in a park, and has there been any consideration or recommendation
from his wildlife branch to preserve this natural heritage?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, my department has been involved in the siting of a potentially
exciting new development in that part of the province, the Russell‑Roblin
area.
They have also worked with the proponents,
who I believe have done the right thing in getting reasonably good professional
advice as to the wildlife habitat that would be impacted by that development.
These kinds of recommendations will be
passed on, as you would expect, by my officials in my department to the
Department of Environment for consideration with respect to the application
before it.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, will this government consider
the economic and tourism opportunity of preserving this site and promoting it
as a bird‑watching area, which is one of the fastest growing recreational
opportunities and pastimes in the country?
Will they make that consideration rather
than wiping out this important habitat for wildlife?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I believe precisely that this is
the kind of consideration that will be taken.
They will take into consideration the many thousands of acres that are
just five, six miles away, that take up our national park, the
I invite the honourable member to come and
visit that beautiful part of
Again, that is not for me to say. These are the kinds of comments that will be
passed on to the Department of Environment for consideration with respect to
the application that is currently before that department.
Ms. Cerilli: Has there been a feasibility study done on
the economic viability of the proposed ski hill, given that other ski hills in
the area and in the province are having financial difficulty? Is this a viable operation?
Mr. Enns: With every respect to the honourable member,
it is not the function of my department to carry out feasibility studies on a
part of different proposals that are made from time to time.
My understanding is that the people
involved, the good people of Russell and the surrounding community who have
been working on this proposal for the last three years will be doing precisely
this kind of study.
Certainly, if they are hoping to access
some public funding that may be available through the Western Diversification
Program, that would be a requirement, Mr. Speaker.
Barley
Industry
Malting Barley Premiums
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Agriculture,
responding to a question taken as notice on your behalf.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): I would like to
respond to a question taken as notice yesterday by my Premier (Mr. Filmon), a
question from the member for
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make that
member aware that back in the period '85‑89, the malting barley premium
that the Wheat Board had for all farmers in western
The member worried yesterday about a
further reduction of $30 a tonne, and it is a legitimate question.
But I want to ask her, she has been
elected since 1990. Why did she not ask
this question in previous years? I have
asked the Wheat Board. I have written to
them asking, specifically, why is the premium going down?
Let me read, Mr. Speaker. This is relevant. This is very relevant. This has occurred primarily because the Wheat
Board has gradually reduced the price it charges for malting barley in the
domestic market due largely to impending changes, to restrictions on
Mr. Speaker, the spread between feed and
malting barley is also dictated by market forces and largely driven by the
amount and quality of malting barley.
The premium in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1410)
Multiculturalism
Cabinet
Committee Meeting Schedule
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Over the past couple of years, we have
seen many different documents, whether it is the Multicultural Secretariat, the
multicultural policy, multicultural education.
This government gives wonderful lip service to multiculturalism.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when it comes
to action, that is the problem. When it
comes to action, this government does not do a thing.
I have a couple of questions I would like
to ask the minister. The first one would
be, she talks about this cabinet committee dealing with multiculturalism. On this cabinet committee you have the
Premier (Mr. Filmon), Ministers of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer), Justice (Mr. McCrae), Labour (Mr. Praznik), Industry, Trade
and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey),
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst).
Can the minister tell us how often this
committee actually met during '92‑93, and if, in fact, she could table
the minutes?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, indeed, when there is an initiative that is ongoing that
deals with our multicultural community in the province of Manitoba, our cabinet
committee does get together and meet from time to time on issues.
I indicated in the Estimates process‑‑and,
really, it is unfortunate we did not get to spend much more time in the
Estimates process. I know that several
years ago we spent some 33 hours on the Department of Culture. The majority of that time was spent on
multiculturalism, and we were able to have a good exchange at that time.
It is unfortunate there was not a little
more planning around the Estimates process, so, indeed, the member could have
placed those questions on multiculturalism and received a full answer.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, a relatively simple question to
the minister is: In the annual report,
'91‑92, my question was, how many times did, in fact, this particular
committee actually meet?‑‑the argument, of course, being this
government is doing nothing more than giving lip service to multiculturalism in
this province.
Antiracism
Strategy
MLA Cross-Cultural
Training
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
A recommendation that came forward
suggested to this minister that this minister needs to have a cross‑cultural
awareness day for elected officials.
Why is this minister refusing to provide
that cultural experience for all members of this Chamber?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Yes, there was a recommendation that came
forward from the Manitoba Intercultural Council that it would be very
beneficial for that kind of activity to occur.
Subsequent to that recommendation that
they made, the Manitoba Intercultural Council held a cross‑cultural
awareness day for all members of the Legislature, all elected officials
throughout the
We had a very good discussion, and I think
we have made major commitments in the area of antiracism. The community knows. Even though the
opposition does not understand or does not know, I know there are many members
of the community who do understand and do know that this government has made a
major commitment.
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister applauds the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, while at the same time she has withdrawn all the funding
for the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
If that is not hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is.
English as
a Second Language
Program
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Quiet, please.
I am sure the member for
One of the issues that we did have some
time to discuss in some detail, of course, was our funding for adult English
second language training.
The member for
Farming
Industry
Stress-Related
Problems
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
how he can stand in this House and talk about falling grain prices and support
things like the change to the continental barley market, change in the method
of payment, when these issues are going to increase farm problems and cause far
more problems for farmers in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have
given these figures to this member many times:
Over the latter 1980s, $365‑million‑a‑year net income
in the farm community. It dropped to 150
in 1990‑91, and through income programs like GRIP and NISA, we have
raised that back up to $350 million a year. That is a substantive
increase. That puts proper money in the
hands of farmers.
We all know grain prices are going
down. Farmers understand the reality of
the international marketplace, that prices have come down.
An Honourable Member: They have to diversify.
Mr. Findlay: They have to diversify, Mr. Speaker. They have to do other things‑‑increased
hog production, doubled in
That is what farmers need, new thinking,
new opportunities‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since many farm groups such as
the farm women's institute, the Canadian mental health institute, recognize the
stress that farmers are under and have asked for a stress line to be put in
rural Manitoba to offer supports for farmers since all services are being cut
out there, is this Minister of Agriculture going to support a stress line in
rural Manitoba as other provinces have done?
Mr. Findlay: Farmers are under stress. Yes, they are under stress. Everybody in society is under stress because
there is economic uncertainty in the future.
Farmers need to get on with doing things. They need to adapt to change and that creates
stress, but you can reduce stress by increasing incomes and creating jobs in
rural
I can tell you, the thousand jobs of the
PMU industry which that party wants to destroy, selectively and continually‑‑I
do not know what other industry they are going to attack to hurt Manitoba,
rural Manitobans, and that member, as one of their rural members, will not
stand up and speak up for farmers in her caucus.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows:
the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for the member for Riel (Mr.
Ducharme); the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer); the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik); and the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member
for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey).
Motion agreed to.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Norbert
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise before the
House today to salute the many Manitobans who are currently volunteering to
host the Pan American Junior Track and Field Championships in Winnipeg this
weekend. As well, I would like to
welcome visiting athletes, coaches and managers to our province.
As has been reported through the media,
this is the most prestigious track and field meet held in
The successful hosting of this event is
important in order to demonstrate the hosting abilities of our province and to
develop a friendship with our fellow Pan American countries. A favourable impression at this time will
bode well for
I would ask all members to join me in
recognizing the dedicated volunteers who have served the organization committee
for this event. This promises to be a
festival of sport and culture which is bound to once again put
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask if you could please call Bill 37, and we will have further
House business when we have completed this.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr.
Cummings), Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance
publique du Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autre
lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale). Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I just want to thank the member for Burrows,
who adjourned this matter on behalf of myself.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a number
of comments to the debate, because I think this is a debate that is going to be
very much characterized by discussion in committee. I think that is something that is appropriate
on what is a very significant shift in policy for the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that we
anticipate some pretty detailed discussion in committee. We also plan on bringing in an extensive
series of amendments, and for that reason, we will be making our final comments
today on the bill and passing it through to committee. We look forward to some fairly open‑ended
discussion in the committee.
I say that because‑‑and I will
get into this in a bit more detail in a minute‑‑I think the
question here is not so much the principle of the bill. The question here are the details, the
fairness of the new Autopac system that is being constructed by the provincial
government.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by echoing
the statements made earlier by our critic, the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), who indicated we very much support the principle of no‑fault
insurance. That should come as no
surprise. We appointed the Kopstein
commission, for example, that recommended no‑fault insurance. We brought in a whole series of petitions. In
fact, we had petitions as recently as this past year. We made it very clear once again that the
solution to some of the problems facing the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation, particularly the skyrocketing rates in terms of no‑fault
insurance.
I must say some of us on this side find it
rather interesting that the minister is now a born‑again supporter of no‑fault
insurance, because we remember his condemnation of the concept as recently, I
believe‑‑and the member for Brandon East can correct me‑‑as
recently as a year ago the minister was condemning no‑fault insurance,
saying you will never see that out of me.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Searching for viable alternatives.
Mr. Ashton: Searching for viable alternatives says the
minister. Perhaps it is something that
he might have looked to the Kopstein report for because this minister has had
that sit on his table for the last five years.
I find it interesting, now, five years later, we are dealing with it.
It is interesting too, because if one
looks historically, this minister was also the critic for MPIC when the
Conservatives were in opposition. So it
is not as if he was not unaware of the issues of Autopac rates at the
time. I think it is rather interesting
that now five years later, for whatever reason, the minister is now a convert
to no‑fault insurance. I would say
there is a very clear reason why the minister and this government are bringing
in no‑fault insurance.
It is not a commitment to the principle
per se, but it is a recognition of the skyrocketing personal injury claims that
are likely to double Autopac rates within the next six, seven years at the
current rate. The minister knows full
well that is and has been, since about 1987, 1988, what has been driving the
increases in rates. It has not been
claims for vehicle damage. It has been claims for bodily injury. As I said, absolutely no doubt we support the
principle of no‑fault insurance.
Then what do we have to say about the
specifics of this bill? Mr. Speaker, I
want to deal with some of the specifics, and I want to indicate that the debate
here is very much similar to what happens when you are dealing with workers
compensation. That was a no‑fault system that was brought in in many
jurisdictions at the turn of the century, eliminated tort law for injuries in
the workplace.
One set of rules, regulations and laws for
workers compensation is not another set.
As I said, it is very similar to the
debate we run into on workers compensation.
When we oppose the Conservative government's bill to roll back workers
compensation benefits for injured workers, Mr. Speaker‑‑and I was
the critic at the time when we fought the bill.
We fought it in committee. We
fought it in debate. It was not because
we do not support workers compensation.
It was because we did not support the efforts of this government to
limit the ability of injured workers that received compensation for injuries in
the workplace and, largely for political reasons, of capping and reducing
rates. It is the same thing here, and I
want to deal with some of our concerns.
The appeals process, we are concerned that
this government has not set up a fair appeals process. We are concerned that, when one is taking
away the right of appeal under law in the tort system, we do not have a
satisfactory substitute. That has a
direct parallel with workers compensation.
Over the years, that has been one of the concerns expressed, and there
have been various changes in terms of ensuring the proper appeal process. I
would like to point out in particular the need for proper advocates in place
for those who have concerns about their adjudication in terms of their claims.
Take workers compensation. One of the initiatives of the previous New
Democratic Party government in this province was to bring in worker advisors
that provide direct advice and assistance to workers compensation claimants and
are independent of the Workers Compensation Board. Our critic, the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans), has pointed out the need for a similar protection of the rights
of the individuals in this particular case.
I know one matter of concern: not only in this particular case is there no
setup of that nature, but we are finding that, once again if someone was to
bring in outside advice, an outside advocate, perhaps a lawyer, once again it
would be totally at their own cost, and they could face a significant financial
penalty in trying to get advice on their rights, even within this system, Mr.
Speaker, because there will still be certain rights in terms of justice and due
process.
I want to indicate a number of concerns in
terms of the onus of proof. Once again,
it has a direct relationship with the Workers Compensation Board where there is
at least technically supposed to be presumption in the bill that an injury or
sickness or death is work related, unless proven otherwise. That can make a very big difference in those
grey areas where you might have some medical advice suggesting that it is work
related and some that it is not in terms of adjudicating fairly for those who,
under the Workers Compensation system, have no ability to appeal to a court and
have to deal directly with that body.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing in terms
of this current bill. It can make a very
big difference in terms of the onus of proof, and I believe that the onus of
proof in this particular case should lie with Autopac, particularly given the
removal of the right of appeal to the court system and the elimination of the
tort system in terms of adjudication.
Very clearly there has to be protection in place for those who have claims
with Autopac.
Other questions we have raised, we will
bring amendments in to deal specifically with the benefit structure, because no‑fault
is one thing, but our concern in a number of specific examples is that this
government may be establishing a no‑benefit policy for those who, under
the current system, are entitled to some benefits. I want to indicate that there are a number of
areas of difficulty. One is in terms of‑‑and
we are going to seek specific answers‑‑students, seniors,
homemakers.
There are many people in society whose
contribution to their families and the society is not measured by income alone,
and that has been increasingly recognized, even by Statistics Canada. There was recently an international
conference held in
*
(1430)
So in fact it is not simply possible to
easily measure the lost contribution, the lost value of that contribution, say,
from an accident in an automobile, particularly given the fact that the
payments for pain and suffering are being eliminated, which, under the tort
system, might have provided a higher income base, a higher payment to
claimants. In this particular case, that
has been eliminated. That can
potentially impact on those whose incomes are not in the range of up to $55,000
covered under this bill.
As I said, it can affect seniors, it can
affect students. What about the second‑year Arts student? Who knows what potential income that student
would have had? We are concerned, for
example, about the potential loss to that individual. I think that is important, Mr. Speaker, and
we will deal with that in committee.
Also, our critic just pointed out the 10‑day
period in terms of income replacement, the waiting period, once again the lack
of fairness for that. Obviously, it will
impact on people, and we will be raising those concerns in committee.
But let us recognize the bottom line
here. This government for political
reasons is bringing in this bill. Not
only did they not support no‑fault insurance in the past, they have not
supported Autopac. The member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) will remember the protests on the steps of the
Legislature. I remember as a teenager
watching politics closely in this province.
The Conservative members of the day wearing black arm bands, I believe,
saying it was a black day for
It is interesting because over the years
the Conservatives have been able to dismantle aspects of Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation, in particular, the general insurance division. But they have not been able to deal with Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation's main mandate, Autopac, because it is popular,
because it works, because it provides far more cost‑effective and fair
insurance to Manitobans than any other system in place in this country.
I want to indicate that we are extremely
cynical of the Conservative motives when we see a $200,000 advertising campaign
talking about, we do not want to see higher Autopac rates. We know that is the issue, we have been
saying that. The Kopstein report has
been saying that for five years. We know
there is a strong element of politics driving this issue, but, you know, this
is where some of the concerns come in.
I use the example of Autopac and I use the
example of the Workers Compensation Board.
When Conservative governments get elected, they tend to try and compress
workers compensation rates for political reasons. They attempt to bring down the rates of
workers compensation. (interjection)
The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) knows how they do it. It is by restricting the rights of injured
workers, by restricting payments, by making it more difficult for people to
qualify for workers compensation. That artificial political pressure on rates
leads to reduced benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we have to be very careful in
this case that no‑fault insurance does not do the same. There are enough savings within the system by
the elimination of the adjudication of the courts and legal fees that one does
not have to reduce benefits significantly for Manitobans who would be injured
in an automobile accident.
I suspect what is happening is that the
same sort of political timing, and pressures are going to be used to reduce
rates. No‑fault not only should
not be, it must not be, "no‑benefit." We want a fair system in this province. We can have reasonable rate increases over
the next period of time. There are enough savings potentially in the system.
There does not have to be a headlong rush
into the elimination of benefits for many Manitobans to provide fairness in
terms of Autopac rates.
Mr. Speaker, that is why our position is
very clear. We support the principle of
this bill. We always have supported the
principle of no‑fault insurance, but as for its contents, as in the case
of workers compensation, a workers compensation system administered by a
Conservative government under Conservative legislation is not a fair
system. Look at this government's
record, its poor record in terms of workers compensation.
We do not want to see Manitobans who are
potentially going to be injured in automobile accidents to be in the same
situation now where we have a lack of fairness in a system administered by a
party that does not believe in the concept to begin with.
I want to say that I think that
distinguishes us, from my understanding, from the Liberal position. I look forward to the input from the member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), who I know is listening intently to my remarks
now. We will be interested to see, in
terms of the Liberals, whether they support the principle or do not. My understanding is that they will be
opposing this bill on second reading, because of disagreeing with the principle
of no‑fault insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is something
that is worthy of debate. I think this
will be one of the better debates in this Legislature. I think this will be one of the better debates
I have seen, because there are some very clear differences of principle here,
no‑fault or no no‑fault, in the type of benefit structure that one
has. There is the whole balance of that
and other possible options. Other
options could have been followed, although I feel the analysis of the minister
is quite correct and that is that this was the preferable option.
Mr. Speaker, this opposition party, this
New Democratic Party, is not going to give carte blanche to this government on
Autopac or give carte blanche to Autopac itself. Whether it be a political agenda or a
corporate agenda, quite frankly, I do not trust this minister and this
government to be able to implement a system that is going to be fair to Manitobans. There is too much politics, there is too much
ad hockery here, and there is too much haste.
After sitting on the Kopstein report for
five years, Mr. Speaker, now they are in a rush to pass this bill through. Why are they doing that? For political reasons. Are they seeking the fullest input from the
members of the public?
Mr. Speaker, they announced no‑fault
insurance a couple of months before they had the details of the bill. The bill has been introduced now going on a
couple of months. It is a very detailed
bill. How many Manitobans have full and
complete information on this bill? Very,
very few people.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Are you
saying we should pull the bill?
Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs said,
do we think we should pull the bill. Mr.
Speaker, the minister and this government could have acted four or five years
ago. If they had acted earlier on in the
session, this bill could have been passed through on second reading and could
have been out to members of the public with far more time for access to the
opinions of the public than we currently have.
We are at day 102 today, Mr. Speaker. We are already over the average sitting
time. The average sitting time in this
House is 90 days. I would suggest that
any objective analysis might say that whether we are here for days or weeks or
months in addition, we are over the average length of a session.
Mr. Speaker, I really say to the
government, could they not have come up with a better system? To the Minister of Northern Affairs, we are
not suggesting pulling the bill. We do
not know when this government is going to be coming back into session. They
have given no commitment. There is no commitment
of a fall sitting, for example, which could have allowed this bill to be dealt
with then. We do not want to risk
putting off the discussion and debate on no‑fault insurance to a later
point in time. We need that discussion
within the next number of months, although it did not have to be done in the ad
hoc, PR, political way it was done.
Mr. Speaker, we have a number of other
speakers, actually, I know who would like to speak on this particular
bill. I know the Liberal critic will be
speaking, I believe, probably tomorrow.
I look forward to those comments.
I think the real debate is going to be in
the committee. The real debate is going
to be out there with members of the public, Mr. Speaker. I will predict now that I feel most Manitobans
will support no‑fault insurance.
That has been my contact with Manitobans. Most Manitobans do support no‑fault
insurance, but I can tell you, many Manitobans do not trust this government to
implement it fairly. That is really the
issue with this bill.
I think one of the signals, in the sense
of wanting to get some level of fairness, will be in committee, because our
critic I know is working on literally dozens of amendments currently and will
certainly have a significant number of amendments at committee.
I think if there is an interest in
fairness, this government will listen to members of the public making
presentations and will listen to our amendments. Surely, in a case where there is some
agreement on the principle, there can be a more constructive way of dealing
with this issue.
That is what we want, Mr. Speaker. Yes, no‑fault, its time has come. It cannot be ignored for any longer, but we
want a fair no‑fault system, and quite frankly, as it is currently
structured in this current bill, there are some very severe doubts on behalf of
our caucus as to whether this is a fair system.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I know
there are perhaps a couple of other members who wish to speak, but we are quite
prepared after the debate today to have the matter go to committee and hear the
members of the public. Thank you.
*
(1440)
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, when I insure my car under
Autopac, I like to have a personalized licence plate. I like my plate to say I FORGOT. I like that because when I get into an
accident under the present system and if the policeman would ask me what my
licence plate is, I can tell him, I forgot.
Under the present system, Mr. Speaker, if
you are an uninsured driver you have no protection, and it is not a just
system, especially for the victim of the accident. Under the proposed Bill 37, we are going from
a mixed system of tort with a certain portion which is no fault, into a truly
no‑fault system. Under the new system that we are going into with this
proposal, the principle is simple and basic.
Whoever is injured, the injured victim must be compensated for the
injury, no questions asked. As long as
he proves the injury and the damage, the person who is the victim of the
accident must receive that compensation to repair the damage.
The situation under the present system is
not too good for those people who are without resources. If you are without resources and you get into
an accident and somebody claims that you are at fault or not at fault, this is
a very difficult legal issue that has to be thrashed out in courts. The present system is adversarial in
nature. One of the parties to the suit
will have to prove the other is at fault.
The other will have to defend he is not at fault, it is the other's
fault.
Therefore, whatever resources are
available to compensate the victim of the accident, part of those resources are
diverted from compensating the victim to using it in the cost of the
proceedings, calling in witnesses, paying advocates and lawyers, diverting the
resources that should rightfully go to the victim of the accident, the injured
person himself, in order to accommodate the cost of all these proceedings.
In the end, if there is any award that is
made, the lawyer is of course entitled to a portion of that award for his legal
services in debating the very issue of who is at fault, who is negligent and
who is not, which is irrelevant actually when you look at the victim himself
who should receive all the compensation that he needs in order to compensate
him and repair his damage. Therefore, we
are saying in principle, we have always advocated and favoured the principle of
a no‑fault system, because it is just as a principle that we award the
compensation. Whatever limited resources
there are to be, the source of that compensation should primarily go to the
victim himself, the victim of the accident.
The no‑fault system simplifies the
procedure therefore, and the system itself, because the determination of the
facts of the accident will be an administrative determination. Whoever is the victim of the accident will
present all the proof, all the evidence necessary to an administrative
authority in order to determine whether or not he has been injured. That is the only question. Have you been injured? Have you been damaged? If the facts support the claim that a person
has been injured, almost automatically the victim will be entitled to the
compensation that is needed in order to take care of the injury that has been
caused him as a result of the accident.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
No one wants to be injured. No one actually seeks to be injured in order
to get compensation because compensation is simply to repair the damage that is
done to the victim. Therefore, the present tort system is unfair in the sense
that if you do not have any money to fight a lawsuit, you cannot even start at
the beginning to assert your claim.
Only those with resources can fight it
through all the delays, the judicial proceedings, all the appeal processes,
until at the end you finally end up in which you either win or lose the
case. But that is limited to those
people who have the necessary resources in order to assert their claim.
People who are normally ordinary citizens
in the province, especially if they are at the lower level of the socioeconomic
hierarchy, will have no resources to pay for a lawyer to pursue the
proceedings, to pay all those needed judicial contests at every level of the
judicial process, and therefore will have less right than those who have enough
resources to fight any suit or case.
Under the present system it is
simple. You prove that you are
injured. You prove that you have been
damaged. When the proof is in, the administrative
authority will examine the facts, and they will award the compensation. There is no need to hire any advocate; there
is no need to hire any counsel; there is no need to hire any lawyer. There is no need to share the award that you
will get with any other who was not injured.
The system, therefore, will work better as
a matter of principle, but it does not mean that everything is perfect,
everything is acceptable, if it works unfairness to some classes of
citizens. The proposed system of pure no‑fault
system has four fundamental principles.
Let us analyze what they are.
First, it is a universal system. It applies to all Manitobans. Under the present system, if you are not a
driver or an owner of a motor vehicle and therefore have no policy or coverage
by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, you are not covered. You have no insurance.
If you happen to be the victim, a
pedestrian, and somebody runs over you, you are not insured at all, whereas
under the system because you are a resident of
Again, the benefits that are given under
this proposal will be fully indexed benefits.
An Honourable Member: Are you for it or against it?
Mr. Santos: I am trying to analyze the system. In principle it is a good system. You have to be objective and analytical
before you make a judgment. You get all
the facts. You evaluate all the facts.
The compensation is supposed to be for
real economic loss. Real economic loss means your salary if you are a salaried
employee. It means your worth in terms
of money. If you are a self‑employed
person what you make for the year, that is your economic worth. One defect of the system, to my way of
thinking, is that if you are a homemaker, a housewife‑‑I use the
word "homemaker" because it could be that the husband is the one who
is the homemaker if it is the wife who is employed‑‑and therefore
somebody who has no employment, but is a homemaker regardless of gender, if
that somebody happened to be the victim of the accident, by simple logic under
the present proposal there is no economic loss because he has no salary. The homemaker has no salary. Is that really a fair system?
In our society, the children are taken
care of and reared in the home. Somebody
must stay in the home, especially if the children are young and need some kind
of care and attention. The one member of
the family who is earning the salary will be out working in some business or
some employment. The one who stays in
the home is the homemaker, regardless of whether it is the wife or the
husband. If you really analyze that
situation, I say that the homemaker is contributing economically to the support
of the family even if no money is passing in his or her own hands. In other
words, she has some economic value and worth as part of the family, although he
has or she has no salary.
*
(1450)
Therefore, the system, in the sense that
it is proposed now, is defective in that sense because it will ignore the
economic value of the homemaker simply because he or she happens to have no
salary. To tell you the truth, the head
of the household who earns the money in terms of employment will not earn that
money unless he has or she has the assistance of the homemaker, because the
homemaker has full worth and value sometimes much more than the salary of
people who are employed outside the home.
The economic value of the homemaker
relates to the future of the children as well‑‑to their education,
to their upbringing, to their rearing.
Who can claim that this is not economic value? Somehow the law has to be
cognizant of this fact and must recognize the economic worth of the
homemaker. It is unfortunate that in our
society homemakers do not receive any kind of compensation or salary.
It used to be that we have the children's
benefit, the children's cheque. The
children are given cheques because they are members of the family and they are
children, but the homemaker has not been recognized in our system and that is
not fair to her or to him, whoever is the homemaker. Therefore, there should be some attribution
of economic value to the homemaker who happened to be the victim of the
accident. Somehow, a formula or a system must be devised in order to recognize
that economic value which, if the homemaker should be injured or should be
killed in an accident, has to be replaced.
It should be recognized as compensation
for real economic loss because it is a real economic loss, although not in
monetary terms. Not all economic value
can be measured in monetary terms. It is
only part of our institutions that people who work outside the home are paid
and those who work inside the home are not paid, and that system itself, to my
way of thinking, is not really fair.
The fourth principle of this proposed
system is that compensation must be given regardless of fault. Fault means negligence. Negligence means you have a duty to take care
and you failed in performing that duty.
By the very definition, an accident is something that happened beyond
the control of people who are involved in the accident.
Let me tell you a story about a driver who
hit someone. He hit the pedestrian so
hard that the pedestrian was thrown six feet away, and then the driver sued the
one whom he hit in the accident. What
were the grounds? Leaving the scene of
the accident. That should not happen at
all. Compensation should be given to the
victim of the accident, regardless of fault.
Fault is sometimes attributed to people
who are without fault. Under the present
system, many, many who are involved in an accident will say: I thought I was not at fault, and then I get
a letter from MPIC saying I was 50 percent at fault, or I was 100 percent at
fault, but I know that I was not at fault.
So the fault there was really a misapprehension of what really happened
because the adjuster in the Autopac system is merely relying on the testimony
of those people who are involved in the accident. Some of those people will, of
course, be promoting their own self‑interests by saying things that will
promote their claim, whether they are the victim or the one who was
instrumental in the accident.
Therefore the present system is sometimes
unfair in that it attributes fault when there is no fault, because fault is
simply in the conclusion that is drawn from the set of facts that are reported
by people who are involved in the accident.
This no‑fault system has been in
existence in
It is the genius of our federal system
that among the sister provinces, social experiment can be undertaken in one of
the provinces in order to ascertain whether a particular scheme or a particular
system will work or not in the real world.
Some of the social schemes may be too idealistic. They have to be tested by experience. The no‑fault system has been in
operation for the last 15 years in the
Among the different political parties in
charge of all this policymaking, if they differ at all among themselves, it is
a difference in views. It is a conflict
of views, a conflict of what the government ought to do. It is a conflict as to the means. Although there might be some congruence in
the desirable ends that they want to achieve, mostly it is ideological
differences as to how best the means can be designed in order to pursue some
desirable social ends.
The question all the time is, if you are
confronted with a problematic system, you ask, what should be done? How can we design a program that will best
deal with the particular problem at hand?
How can we design a system that is workable? Is this design, the program that we design,
feasible? Is it practical? Is it
workable? There are too many aspects of
that feasibility.
First of all, you ask, is it economically
feasible, is it cost effective? When you
determine that economic feasibility, you ask the next question: Is it politically feasible? Can it be done politically without too much
risk or hassle? Apparently, because of
the priority that political parties give to the desire to be the governing
party, they will have sometimes to sacrifice their ideological views. This is a good case in this particular
situation of the no‑fault system.
The present majority government in this province
had, from the very beginning, opposed this system. It is contrary to all their conceptions of
the primacy of the private sector. This
is a public program that will ensure social programs. Yet they turn around because they find it
politically attractive; there is no other way because the economic fact is that
there is an escalating cost in the pattern of expenses in the matter of
injuries. It has been escalating across
the years. In the last five years there
has been an increase of 160 percent in this pain‑and‑suffering
sector of the compensation system under the present system in
*
(1500)
Because they would like to control the
cost, and because they would like to get the sympathy and vote of the general
public, they turn around and espouse a system that is the very contradiction of
their ideological beliefs, because it is pragmatic and practical. We only regret that it is not this political
party that sponsored this, but it is the very party that opposed the system in
all these years.
Life is full of golden opportunities to do
what we do not want to do, and this is one of those cases where they took the
opportunity to do what they disliked to do because it will mean that they will
have a better prospect and probability of winning the next election.
But they are designing a system that is
good in principle and yet needs some more changes and modification because the
present system as it is being proposed is not fair.
As I have stated before, there are people
and segments of our citizens who have economic values that are not being
recognized and, in case they become the victim of an accident there is no
economic loss that can be replaced. It
is simply a matter of luck.
If you happen to be unemployed‑‑your
normal employment, you are regularly employed; it just so happened that your
company is trying to retrench in a particular time period and you are
temporarily laid off‑‑and then you happen to get into an accident
at the time you are unemployed. That
means you have no economic salary. Does
it mean that you have no economic value?
Not necessarily so, because it is just a temporary situation.
You are an employed person. You work for a company; you work for the
government. You decide that you will
quit your job for a period of time so you can go full time and pursue, let us
say, a program of professional training in a university. There are people who gave up their lucrative
salaries in order that they may finish what they have dreamed in life, let us
say to be a lawyer or to be a medical doctor.
So they gave up the salary and they went full time to pursue a
particular program of study.
Supposing that you get into an accident
during the time that you were without any employment, but you are a full‑time
student. Do you have an economic
value? Of course. In fact, you are trying to augment and
increase that economic value and yet you have no salary. But under the present system, because they
rely solely on the fact of your salary, that will mean that you have no economic
loss to be replaced. Is that a fair
system? It is not.
Supposing you are a senior citizen. You have all the experience and all the
training and all the skills. Then you
happen to choose early retirement. A day
or two after you retire formally from your employment you get into an
accident. You have no salary at the
time. Is there an economic loss? Of course there is, speaking strictly. But you do not have any salary. So under the present system you will have no
salary to be replaced. They will say you have no economic loss.
We have a no‑fault system that has
worked so well in our sister
What are then the various factors at work,
whether or not the outcome of that experience in
The Progressive Conservative Party is the
majority party, and they have the necessary majority power to pass the
legislation, regardless of its defects.
So there is that factor already, power in the government of the day, to
adopt a good system, and it can be done.
The next question is: Do they have the necessary technical knowledge
of the details of the program design? Of
course, you will say, most likely, because the Autopac corporation has been in
existence in this province since the NDP introduced the system here. They must have accumulated a kind of
knowledge, expertise and experience in all kinds of systems. Indeed, the people in Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation have started all kinds of possible alternative ways of
cutting costs of accidents.
They look at all the various types of
insurance systems. They look at the add‑on system; they look at the
modified system, as it is in
The third question: Does the province have the resources, the
money, the personnel, in order to make the system really work? The province, of course, will have the
personnel, limited though it may be, and the province has the money and the resources
to pay the salaries of people who will be needed to run the new system once it
is adopted.
Is there technical feasibility in the
sense that the new no‑fault system will likely achieve its intended
purpose? The intended purpose is to
compensate all and any victim of accidents.
No one should be without any protection; no one should be without any
coverage. If that is the purpose of
universality, then the purpose will be achieved, because every Manitoban will
be covered. There will be no such thing
as an uninsured driver anymore under the no‑fault system.
The next question is, we must also
consider the buyer preferences of the decision‑makers. The decision‑maker would rather prefer
that this automobile insurance be in the hands of the private insurer. But they cannot face the reality that, if
they insist on doing so, the escalation of the premiums will simply be
inevitable. It will be inevitable, and
therefore they have not forgotten what happened in 1986 or '88 when the
previous government, because they escalated premiums, made their debacle in the
election.
I am not saying that the system is not
desirable. The no‑fault system is
desirable. What we are saying is that
the way it will be implemented needs some more improvement and some more
modification.
*
(1510)
An Honourable Member: You are really . . . on the fence on this one.
Mr. Santos: I am not sitting on the fence. I analyze the system the way it should be.
The real question is, can we transport,
hook, line and sinker, the no‑fault system in
It can be transported and it can be made
practical and operational in the
However, the system may work unfairness
because of the fact that there are people who could be a victim of an accident
who have economic value but, because they have no salary, will suffer in the
sense that they cannot have any income replacement because there is no income,
but they have economic value and economic worth that will not be replaced. I have cited the case of housemaker,
homemaker. I have cited the case of
students. I have cited the case of
senior citizens who may have no salary, but, certainly, they have economic
worth and economic value that need to be replaced in case they meet an
accident.
Therefore, this Bill 37 needs to be
amended in a number of ways in order to recognize this fact. Sometimes an attribution of economic worth
has to be made in a particular case in order to prevent injustice, and a law
that will not recognize the economic worth of individuals simply because they
have no salaries will be an unfair and unjust law. We do not want to create laws that are not
fair because we cannot in conscience say that we are promoting the public
interests of this province.
Let me therefore summarize. The new system being proposed is good in principle. It seeks to compensate whoever is injured,
and the compensation is mostly being concentrated in the hands of the person
who is injured. There will be no
diversion of that compensation because there will be no necessity for
litigation. The only thing that is required for the injured person to do is to
produce proof and documentation that he has been injured, and this being proved
in an administrative way, there is no need for litigation that can divert those
resources into other costs such as the cost of the proceeding, the cost of
advocates, the cost of appeals, and other costs necessarily entailed in any law
and litigious system of determination of compensation.
The tort system, as we know it today,
benefits those who are the practitioners in that part of law. It is adversarial in nature. They divert some of the resources that should
rightfully go to the victim. The
resources go to people who are not injured, to people who have really no moral
claim to those resources that should go to the party who is the victim of the
accident, rightfully, morally, legally.
Only the victim of the accident should have the lion's claim to that
compensation, to those resources. Nobody
else in our society should make any other claim in order that the victim may be
fully compensated, despite the fact, under the present proposal, only 90
percent of the salary value of the victim will be given to him for some reason
or another.
However, the no‑fault system is a
simple down‑to‑earth system.
There is no need for litigation or argument. It is an administrative determination on the
facts. The only caveat on this matter is
that the administrator may become so arrogant in the implementation of this so
we have to take care of the appeal system.
Under the proposal, the appeal can be made only on questions of
jurisdiction or questions of law, just like a similar kind of system in the
workers compensation system.
We know for a fact that sometimes the
factual determination, including the medical determination in the workers
compensation system, may not inure to the very best interests of the victim of
the accident. Why? Because of this, again, tort system that is
built in to the workers compensation system.
You have to argue whether or not the accident was due to or in the
course of employment. That phrase again
will introduce the litigious argument or the kind of position whether it is or
it is not in the course of employment.
That has to be removed.
In this system, there will be no more
argument: Are you at fault? Is the plaintive at fault? Is the defendant at fault? Because it will be
a no‑fault system. Nobody wants to
be injured simply because they want to be compensated. Accidents happen because they are
unforeseeable. They cannot be
foreseen. They cannot be predicted. They are not welcomed by the people who are
involved in an accident.
This system can be implemented in this
province because we have the suitable institutions, we have the suitable
processes and we have the suitable resources.
There is this power in the majority government in our parliamentary
system that, regardless of opposition, if the party in power, the party in
government decides a new system is to be installed, it will be done because
they have the political power to do it.
But political power cannot be exercised as
naked political power. Political power
in order to be exercised must be exercised in a legitimate manner. It must be justified by some legitimacy and
morality. The morality that we are
trying to inject into this system is that those people with some economic value
but with no salary should be recognized as having suffered also some economic
loss even if they have no salary to prove it.
I have cited the situation of the
homemaker. No person will deny that the
homemaker contributed to the building up of the economic value of the family
even if only one of them is working outside.
We have not recognized that fact, and we should recognize that situation
just because it is fair and just. A law
that is not fair, a law that is not just, is to that extent less than a law,
because by definition a law has to be just and fair.
This is a good bill. I commend those people who are trying to
implement this, although I question the timing, because the timing is, of
course, part of the whole political process.
This is a four‑year cycle‑‑a more or less four‑
or five‑year cycle in every turnaround in our parliamentary system. They will time it such that when the time
comes they will have the condition such that they can even reduce the premium
and therefore gain the acceptance of the general population when the time of
general election comes around. This is
the wisdom and the genius of the party in power, which is a known fact.
I question that political opportunism. Even if it is political opportunism, if the
outcome is for the good of Manitobans, that will be a good system.
However, we will fight that this be a fair
system. It will be a fair and just
system through the process of amendments. Thank you.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
*
(1520)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): It has been moved by the honourable member
for Osborne, seconded by the member for
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): No?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Acting Speaker, if I may, I understand that the member has adjourned debate,
but I think there would be leave to allow the member for Elmwood to complete
his remarks, and then we would go on with further House business. I think we would grant leave for that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave to allow the honourable member
for Osborne to adjourn debate on Bill 37 and then allow the honourable member
for Elmwood to finish his statements on Bill 37? Is there leave? (agreed)
It has been moved by the honourable member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), seconded by the honourable member for
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Acting Speaker, now that we have resolved
this issue, I am very pleased today to be addressing this bill. I have looked forward to this for some time.
This is an issue that I have been
interested in since I was elected and actually before I was elected to the
House, one of several issues that I came into this House very interested in
doing something about. It is with some
slight regret that I find the Conservative government taking the initiative in
this area, similar I suppose to what they did in the area of The Business
Practices Act. While I was not in the
end absolutely happy with them watering down the business practices
legislation, I still, on balance, felt that it was a progressive and
appropriate thing to do at the time to bring in business practices legislation.
I am one of those who would like to see
the government bring in good legislation and am prepared to support it when
they do. Having said that, I would still have rather that we be the government
and that we be taking initiative such as this.
Life is such that we do not always have things the way we want to.
Unlike other legislative initiatives
before this House such as the rentalsman's bill to allow landlords to keep the
rental deposits they take and use them as their own, a bill that we
affectionately refer to over here as the bail‑out‑Arni bill in
reference to problems that Tory fundraisers have had‑‑and another
bill, the bill that requires Manitobans to get safety checks on cars is clearly
written by, designed by, fomented by the car dealers' association led by Bob
Kozminski, another fundraiser of the Tory party.
So unlike the bail‑out‑Bob
bill and the bail‑out‑Arni bill, this bill, I would have to say, is
one that is clearly thought out to be acting in the best interests of
Manitobans.
I can tell you that regardless of what
government was in power at this point, that government would be faced with
doing the same thing this government is doing right now, because the public is
not prepared to accept the escalating costs associated with the Autopac system.
We recognize that. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) and other people in our caucus recognize that, that coming out of the
Kopstein report of five years ago, the cornerstone of the Kopstein
recommendation, was the implementation of a no‑fault system. This government wiled away two or three years
bringing in minor recommendations of the Kopstein commission and leaving out
the very tenet, the very basic component of the Kopstein report.
To that end, our caucus spent a
considerable amount of time over the last three or four years, on radio shows
and in newspaper articles, and I just happen to have a few of them here,
advocating the adoption of a no‑fault system similar to
In fact, I was on a radio show last year
with the minister, and at that time, he was making statements about the current
system being in great shape and that it was the best of all systems. As a matter of fact, in a Free Press article
last year, the minister once again supported the status quo.
So it is with some element of‑‑or
as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) often says, it is passing strange that
the Conservative government, just a year later, after saying it would not touch
the current system, would holus‑bolus be introducing the very system it
criticized only a year before. What
happened? (interjection) The Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) said, well, we changed our minds, and,
obviously, they did. The question is,
what happened in that one‑year period to cause them to change their minds
and see the light?
Mr. Speaker, what happened is exactly what
is happening in other jurisdictions across the country. The public is simply unwilling to accept
double‑digit increases in their car insurance rates, and as this
government looked at the corporation's results, what it saw happening was, it
saw a virtual doubling of the bodily injury claims that the Public Insurance
Corporation had to deal with. It saw
itself, Mr. Acting Speaker, in a no‑win situation where it would be
bearing the brunt of the public's fury over these continuous increases. So what they did was they did a study, and
the study did some comparisons and looked at several options.
They rightly opted to take the no‑fault
option. In fact, had they taken the no‑fault
option that did not allow for unlimited medical benefits and rehabilitation benefits,
I think that they would be justly criticized as wanting to maximize the savings
on the system of the $68 million that such a system would allow, but they did
not do that.
They were fair. Their cabinet was, I believe, fair in the way
they assessed the situation, and they decided to take the $20 million and put
it into unlimited accident benefits and rehabilitation. But why did they do all of this? They could have maximized their return out of
the no‑fault by capping the medical payments, but they did not.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the reason they did
not do it is obvious. They see a lot of
political hay to be made here, and what I believe they are hoping to do is to
pass this legislation through the Legislature, go back to the Public Utilities
Board who have since gone‑‑the MPIC has gone to the Public
Utilities Board a couple of months ago asking for a 9 percent rate
increase. What I predict they will do is
that in September they will go to‑‑the MPIC will be directed to go
back to the Public Utilities Board and say, we do not need a 9 percent rate
increase anymore. In fact, we want a 5
percent decrease.
That is what they are going to ask
for. They are going to take the $50
million that they expect to save on the no‑fault system. They are going to take $30 million of that,
and they are going to send that back to the motorists of
You know, Mr. Acting Speaker, if they pull
this off, it will certainly be a feather in their cap, but what I say is that
this is the reason they are doing it.
They are not doing it because of any fundamental belief in the no‑fault
system. They are doing it for short‑term
political expedience and in fact, any of the negative features of the bill, any
of the problems associated with the bill are not going to show up before the
next election.
*
(1530)
The new system will take effect March 1
next year, and any negatives associated with, any deficiencies associated with
the system will not show up perhaps for a year or so down the line, at which
time this government hopes that it will be home free and well into its next
term.
So that is, I believe, the political
reasoning behind what they are doing. It
was born out of necessity because Manitobans are not willing to accept the vast
increases that are being anticipated in Autopac rates.
Now, this problem has come about over the
years for a number of reasons. But one
of them is, I believe, the perhaps oversupply and overabundance of new lawyers
in the system. It is a known fact that
there are excess numbers of doctors in society. Unlike
So we have to do something to keep the
lawyers busy, and, God knows, there is enough new areas developing in law all
the time to keep the lawyers busy. But I
believe that with the advent of advertising on behalf of the lawyers‑‑I
mean what we have seen in the States is an increase in the public's willingness
to litigate and to sue, partially because of the public's awareness as a result
of the advertising that the legal firms do on the TV.
As a matter of fact, if any of you have
been in the States, you turn on the TV and you see lawyers advertising their
wares to sue, sue on any basis imaginable, and sue anybody. I mean that is the general approach. I say that atmosphere of "you have a
problem, sue somebody" has spilled itself over the border, and is taking
hold in
I know that 20 years ago people were happy
to walk away from minor car accidents.
They routinely went down and signed the releases to Autopac, and it was
viewed as the proper thing to do. Today
you are regarded as a fool if you do something like that. Everybody manages to find a lawyer somewhere,
and the next thing you know there is another suit that the corporation has to
deal with.
In fact, we have seen almost an industry
develop. We have seen almost an industry
develop here, where I believe it was last year we had a case where there was
one fellow, Armarjeet Warraich. He was
well covered in The Winnipeg Sun, but he was involved in a multitude of
accidents, some of which he was not even in the car, and so I say a veritable
industry has developed here, aided and abetted by a number of interest groups
and just a general view of society at the present.
Whatever government was in power, we are
going to have to deal with this situation.
To tinker with the system, to come in with the various deductible
options and other options that were threshold options that are being discussed,
those were rejected by the government, I believe, for sound reasons. That is, when you have a threshold system,
what you essentially have in our deductible system is that you have the lawyers
attacking the threshold so that the claims become exaggerated and increased to
exceed the deductible or exceed the threshold.
That is the problem that
So the system that they decided to follow
was the system that is in place in
I think what the corporation wanted to do
was look at systems, not the systems that were just in place for one, or two or
three years and modified, but they wanted to take an example of a system that
had been working somewhere and had been unassailable or had worked quite well
for a number of years. When they looked at
I know that is a question that has been
asked by the Liberals here, and the minister has responded that the
corporation's revenues cannot be brought into general revenues. I agree with the law the way it stands, but
the Liberals are drawing at all sorts of straws to put in some element of doubt
about this program. I can tell the
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who supported no‑fault, supported the
bill, supported no‑fault during his recent leadership loss, that his
Leader, the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), any member in this House, if
they want to pick holes in this bill, they can pick holes in it. In fact, any member in this House can pick
holes in any bill, but you have to decide on balance whether it is a worthy
bill to proceed with.
In our caucus, we have had no difficulties
whatsoever accepting the principle of this bill. We will always argue that an amendment here
or an amendment there will be in order or that it should be looked at at a
certain point, but we do not have and never have had any fundamental
disagreement with the contents of this bill and the intent of this bill.
I will tell you why. Unlike the Conservatives who have become
recent born‑again converts to no‑fault, Mr. Acting Speaker, unlike
the Conservatives who just discovered no‑fault because they are
approaching an election and they have a big problem with the rates, unlike
these opportunistic Conservatives who we see opposite here, we have a long
history in this party of supporting the concept of a no‑fault system.
Back in 1973 to '75, the previous
government of Ed Schreyer did a study‑‑(interjection) The member talks about Howard Pawley. Well, let me tell you, to the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who really supports this bill but who does not have the
guts to come out and say so, is going to zip his lip and vote with his Leader
because his Leader tells him so‑‑but he knows his constituents want
this bill. His constituents want no‑fault,
but he is going to stick with the Liberals and their
Where were the Liberals in the 1970s when
we were doing a study on the
What we wanted and what we want is a
system similar to
*
(1540)
You take the tort out of not only auto
insurance, but you further take it out of the other areas where it is involved
right now, because tort is an inequitable way to be dealing with accident and
sickness in any jurisdiction. When a
person has an accident, when a person gets sick, it has to be dealt on the basis,
on the concept, of no fault. We do not
want to be running around holding people responsible, involving the legal
system, involving lawyers, proving people at fault to a certain percentage here
and there.
That is why, to the member for
Where could a worker afford a hundred
years ago to hire a lawyer to sue for an accident at work? The employer who had all the money could
fight the case for years and years, and the employee could be dead before he
got any money. So government stepped in,
and they were probably Conservative governments and Liberal governments over
the years, but they did the right thing.
They stepped in and changed a system that was inequitable and a system
that would not work. That is a
fundamental question here.
So the provinces set up the corporations
across the country, one after the other, and one can argue about whether they
are efficient or not, whether the people get the proper benefits. I know when the left‑leaning
governments come in they loosen up the rules a bit. Then the Conservatives come in and tighten up
the rules.
That is what has happened in
People should not be profiting from the
misery of others. That is the theory behind it, that if you get sick or you
have an accident, you have immediate attention and you have immediate compensation
and the compensation should be adequate to solve your problem. You should not make a profit out of it, but
it should be adequate compensation. So
that is the reason for a no‑fault system.
The tort system is an inequitable system
that we have here. It depends on the lawyers.
I know of a lot of cases that I have heard about over the years, but I
know of cases of people where two people were involved in the same car
accident, a one‑mile‑an‑hour car accident, and both people
went to a lawyer. Neither one was hurt at all, to my knowledge. The one lawyer got $3,000; the other lawyer
got $8,000. So what was the difference? The difference was how good your lawyer was. Right. If you knew the lawyers, you could predict
which one would get the best settlement.
The doormat lawyer got the $3,000, but the aggressive lawyer, the lawyer
who was going to stick with it and argue that black was white and pink was yellow‑‑that
lawyer managed to get $8,000.
So do not tell me about the legal
profession being able to do the job on the tort system and get equity for the
aggrieved party, because it depends on how good the lawyer is. (interjection) Well, the member for
He wants to talk about insurance agents in
this system. Let me tell him that I
should be on the side of the lawyers, because I should tell him that the
insurance agents' commissions are based on premiums, and if the premiums double
by the turn of the century in the next eight years, as the studies project, the
insurance agents' commissions will double, so I am arguing and voting against
my self‑interests. I am glad the
member for
I do not know why the insurance agents are
not lined up with the lawyers on this one.
I know that one insurance agent‑‑I do not have the article
here, but it appeared in the last edition of the insurance agents' monthly, or
whatever it is called‑‑called this a socialist idea. He said that the government had lost its moorings. That person's name is
Mr. Creek is the guy who phoned me last
year and proudly took credit for fixing the cap on agents' commissions. He said, oh, no, it was not the member for
Riel (Mr. Ducharme) who did it. He said,
it was me, I did it. He wrote an article
for the paper, and he calls this socialism of the worst kind, that this government
would do.
To the extent that the insurance agents co‑operate
with the no‑fault system, they are doing so for the good of the public at
large and a recognition that there has to be some common decency in society,
and that you cannot go on sucking and bleeding the system forever, that there
has to be some reason and some balance.
I am sure they could argue their own arguments; but, as you can see, I
have told you they are more than likely split on the issue.
There is a time and a place to just do the
right thing. The Liberal Party may
recognize this before this debate is over, because if they do not recognize it
before the debate is over, they are going to recognize it in the election. The public are not going to be happy with
Liberals who want to raise the Autopac rates.
There are some Liberal seats that I think I have my eye on, that I may
be in there doing some door knocking, reminding those voters how the Liberals
sat on this issue.
So I hope that I answered the question to
the satisfaction of the member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, I do want to deal with
some of the areas of the bill that we do feel there should be some changes
to. We have, I believe, a number of
amendments that are in the can right now that will be brought out at an
appropriate time that will tighten up the bill in certain areas. We would hope the government‑‑I
do not have a lot of faith in the government accepting our amendments, but my
new department there, Urban Affairs‑‑I am critic for the Urban
Affairs department, and I was quite pleasantly surprised that the Minister of
Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) did accept an amendment to Bill 38 to ban library fees
or disallow library fees. Perhaps he had
it in mind all along, I do not know. It
is certainly a different experience than I have had dealing with the other
ministers whom I have had to deal with over the last eight years. I have not had a speck of initiative on the
part of any of the other ones. This one
at least showed some, but the others normally would come in and stick to their
guns and just vote the way they were told and disallow all of the amendments.
So perhaps if this minister is more on the
line of the Urban Affairs minister, perhaps we will be successful in getting a
few amendments through the House. I
would not hold my breath with most of them, however.
I see you have changed, you are a new Mr.
Acting Speaker. Perhaps you could tell me how many more minutes I have. (interjection) Thank you. I am told I have 10 minutes.
*
(1550)
The last speech I made on this topic was
under the guise of Bill 8, The Insurance Act, and I have not had a chance to
fully review all of the points I was making at that point. Some things, of course, have changed since
then.
We want to deal with a number of issues on
the amendment side of things that have been brought to our attention by a
number of people, including the Law Society in Manitoba, and to that extent,
provided it does not change, the fundamental intent of the bill‑‑I
mean, you cannot have a no‑fault bill and then bring back tort through
the backdoor. As long as the amendments
they are proposing are designed to improve the bill, to improve on the principle
of the bill, I do not see where the government should have a major problem
accepting the amendments.
We have listened to representations from a
number of groups and a number of people on this issue, and we have taken their interest
to heart. We have amendments we will be
bringing through that, once again, hopefully, the government will accept.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the other issue, I
guess, and I dealt with it briefly before, was the area of the
I do not know that this government‑‑I
am positive this government would not go that far. What we would like to do, if we are
successful in coming to power in the next election, is to expand on the no‑fault
program being brought in by this government.
We would like to expand on that program, and we would like it to be a
universal accident and sickness program for all Manitobans.
How that would work, what we would have is‑‑we
currently have a very inequitable system, as I pointed out with the whole argument
about fault, and so regardless of fault, everyone would be covered for their
accident and sickness. We would have a situation
where people who are not currently covered would in fact be covered under a no‑fault
system.
For example, under the current system if a
person is a homemaker or a person is a student, a person cannot go out and buy
an accident policy on the private market with Great‑West Life or Paul
Revere or one of the other accident companies, because they are only interested
in covering people who are earning an income‑‑and by the way, they
are interested in white‑collar jobs, they are not interested in workers.
Those sorts of plans right now are quite
piecemeal. The wording depends on the
company, it depends on how expensive a plan you buy, and people are not really
very enlightened on how those plans work.
So some people can buy these plans but
other people cannot buy any plan. Those
are the housewives and those are the students.
What the universal accident and sickness
would do, in addition to taking the tort out of the system, is cover all the people
who currently cannot be covered. It
would cover the homemakers, it would cover the students. It would cover them for all accidents, not
just the accidents caused by auto insurance but any accidents that they have
around the house.
It would lead to some pain on behalf of
the insurance industry, but what it would do, in the interest of the public, is
it would allow for the collapse of all the group plans and private plans that
we have right now, on top of what we are currently collapsing.
We are currently changing, we are
developing a system right now to a pure no‑fault in the auto business,
and what we are saying is, that is fine so far as it stands but let us look at taking
it further. Let us not just stop
there. Let us set up a central accident
corporation. Let us collapse Workers Compensation
into it. Let us collapse the no‑fault
auto benefits that we are talking about with this bill. Let us collapse all the group plans and the
individual plans and cover everybody in the province anywhere they are on an
accident basis.
That system once again was brought in by a
Conservative government in
Governments and premiers are not
remembered long unless they do something.
There is a saying that you cannot make an omelette unless you scramble
some eggs. Any Premier or any government
that takes direct action, takes initiative and brings in a comprehensive
system, such as a central
So we will not give up. When this no‑fault system is in place,
we will be pushing for the next step in a universal program. Then we will see how socialistic this
government can become.
We will see this government, Mr. Acting
Speaker, reverting back to their old ways, because this government is simply an
opportunistic government, a government that understands how to keep power. Certainly it understands how to keep high on
those polls. It really has sort of lost
its ideological moorings I think, because it wanders from one idea to the other
and a Conservative theorist would have a real problem. (interjection) Now the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
says they are driven by ideological convention and over the long haul they may well
be, but they certainly take the odd detour when it suits them. I guess most governments and most people can
be accused of that situation.
Now I wanted to also point out that
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
One other interesting argument that I
heard from the legal profession, I do not know whether the members opposite
have heard this argument, but they are saying, perhaps we should privatize workers
compensation and have a compensation system similar to the United States where
the workers pay and the companies have to pay workers compensation premiums
five times what they are in Canada. Can
you imagine having a business and wanting to relocate to a jurisdiction, to an
American state where the compensation rates are five times what they are under
workers compensation in
Why is that system the way it is? It is because lawyers use that system and
every time someone has an accident under a system like that, bingo, they have
themselves a legal beagle who goes after the employer or whoever he is going
after and that has driven compensation claims through the roof. We have liabilities. We have product liability loss in the States
where the lawyers have just been running amuck.
They have been running amuck in the States.
In the States where they have taken the
product liability to astronomical heights, there is a case of American plane manufacturers,
aircraft manufacturers, I believe somewhere in the midwestern
*
(1600)
I do not fault the lawyers. If I was a lawyer I would perhaps be
supporting their arguments, but we have to be reasonable. Even lawyers will sit down and tell you‑‑the
reasonable lawyers among them, and there are some‑‑that the system
has gotten out of hand, that something has to be done. So it is about time; it should have been done
after the Kopstein report five years ago.
We would have done it. If they
did not do it now, Mr. Speaker, they know that we would be doing it in six
months when we become the government, so they are preempting us, and more power
to them on that point. We intend to hold
them accountable. We intend to make sure
that they deal with the amendments that we proposed in a proper fashion. We are going to hold them accountable to make
certain that people are dealt with adequately.
We are also going to keep an eye on the
Liberals. We are going to keep a close
eye on that diminishing, vanishing breed known as the Manitoba Liberal
Party. We are going to keep an eye on
them, and we are going to be helping out on this issue and make certain that
they are held accountable for their actions on this bill and on this issue in
the House in the next election.
Mr. Speaker, before I lose my voice here,
how much time do I have?
An Honourable Member: Ten seconds.
Mr. Maloway: I have been told I have 10 seconds here, but
my House leader tells me my time has just‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are running out of material.
Mr. Maloway: Well, the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
As previously agreed, this matter will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
* * *
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you could please
call in this order, Bills 46, 43, followed by Bill 24.
Bill 46‑The
Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes
criminels, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries
Compensation Amendment Act, is a bill that we will not and cannot and should
not support. Unlike some of the other legislation that this government has introduced
in the House, there is from my reading of the bill and the minister's remarks
on second reading, no redeeming feature to this piece of legislation.
The minister says that the purpose is to
effect an adjustment to The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act and to bring it
in line for fiscal '93‑94 with some of the economic realities that have already
resulted in the reduction of services and programs across government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this piece of
legislation certainly does do that. It
certainly does adjust The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. What this bill does, in essence, is to remove
the indexing of compensation provided to victims of crime. The current legislation allows for the
victims of crime to have their compensation indexed as it is indexed under The
Workers Compensation Act.
I am sure that the reason this was
originally put in The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act is there was a
recognition that in many cases people who are victims of crimes, who are innocent
victims of crimes, need to have the financial comfort to be able to live with a
reasonable standard of living, just as people who are innocent victims of
accidents at the worksite are compensated and adequately compensated through
the idea of indexing.
That was the intention of the
legislation. A very conscious decision
was made by the government to parallel those compensations, because it was seen
that the situations were not different and were in fact comparable in
particularly this instance.
The minister in his comments goes on to
say: Clearly, this change is regrettable
for current and future crime victims injured during the course of a crime, but
the changes will provide a fair and comprehensive approach to cutting costs.
Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we agree
with the minister that this change is regrettable for current and future
victims of crime. We feel that
"regrettable" is probably the least word that could be used and there
are many more damaging words that could be used.
This is a reprehensible piece of
legislation. It is a reprehensible piece
of legislation because, like the government's actions since its election in
1988, it is designed to cut costs, to make changes in policy and programming
that reflect not on the wealthy and the able in our society, but like other
changes that this government has made, supposedly in response to economic changes
and situations, changes that have affected women, children, the poor, seniors,
the disabled, the aboriginal community, northerners, farmers, schools and
people who work in schools, hospitals and people who work in hospitals,
students who go to school, patients who are forced to use hospitals, home care,
social services, services for children‑‑the list could go on for
more than even the 40 minutes I am allotted, Mr. Speaker.
This is in the same vein as all of those
other changes that have been made by this government in the last five
years. This is not regrettable, this is
reprehensible and should not be allowed to be undertaken. It is not a commitment to a fair and equitable
approach to the economic problems that face the people of
No, Mr. Speaker, the only people that are
going to share the pain in this piece of legislation are the people who are
victims of crime. What group of people
in our society bears less responsibility for what happens to them than victims
of crime, I ask you. They are absolutely
blameless. By definition, they are not
able to access the resources under The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. Not only are they victimized the first time, and
in many cases they are extremely victimized.
The people who are able to access this compensation are people who are
not victims of minor offences, these are true victims in every sense of the
word. Now they are doubly victimized by
the actions of this government in introducing Bill 46.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), who
talks about the zero tolerance for violence in our society, who talks about the
fact that we have to ensure that women and children are protected in our
society, is the same minister who introduced Bill 46. I would like to ask, and I will ask the
Minister of Justice rhetorically here and face to face certainly in committee
and in third reading how he can justify in his own heart of hearts and with his
colleagues and with the people of Manitoba, on the one hand espousing a zero
tolerance for violence, and on the other hand perpetrating an economic violence
on people in this province who can least afford to pay for and who should not
be asked to pay for this government's lack of economic strategy and lack of any
kind of program to assist those most vulnerable in our society.
*
(1610)
Mr. Speaker, I will not take any more time
except to say that we on this side of the House are unalterably and unanimously
and completely opposed to this dreadful, dreadful piece of legislation and hope
that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) rethinks his position on this and
perhaps looks at some of the recipients of the Workforce 2000 grants, like Bob
Kozminski, for assistance, in adding revenue to the province of Manitoba
instead of taking it from victims of crime.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment
Act. I have raised this matter in Question
Period previously with the Minister of Justice.
I think honourable members in all parties will know that I and our party
are opposed to this legislation.
Very simply and very quickly, the reason
for that is that this bill proposes to deindex compensation payments to victims
of crime. I do not know how many times
and how many hours I have listened to the Minister of Justice over these years
pontificate at great length, with great flourish about his commitment to the victims
of crime. This action flies in the face
and undercuts all of that. What he is
doing is punishing the victims of crime by withdrawing their ability to keep up
with inflation in the income replacement payments they receive.
One has to understand the Criminal
Injuries Compensation Board to understand this bill. The criminal injuries compensation scheme
compensates victims of crime. The crime
has to be proven first‑‑nothing that was invited, through no fault
of their own.
People are assaulted or injured one way or
another as a result of a crime and, if the crime is proven, then they have the right
to apply not for millions of dollars for pain and suffering, not for large
amounts of money, extravagant sums, but for their loss of income‑‑provable
loss of income. There is no compensation
for future prospect for income increases.
If a person at the time of the crime is not making an income, they do not
get to apply. If their income is low,
they do not get paid for what it would have increased to in the future. There is none of that. All they get is what they actually lost based
on what their rate of pay was at the time of the assault or of the crime. It is not a lot.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme
simply incorporates the Workers Compensation Board scheme essentially. It incorporates the same standards, the same
criteria, the same meat chart, if you will, in terms of dealing with how badly
an injured person is or how badly injured they are and how much they stand to
be compensated.
Now, it is not a lot of money. It is the bare minimum, I think, that we, as
a society, owe to the blameless victims of crime, and there are many of
them. We sat here in this House last
week and heard from the City of
Mr. Speaker, has the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
deindexed the increases in salary for his staff? Is he providing for them in severance
payments in the same way that he is providing for victims of crime? No, on the contrary, there are quite substantial,
in many cases, lavish severance arrangements provided for. There are pension funds that are being paid
into at the rate of 12 and 13 percent as opposed to 6.5 percent in the normal
civil service.
The government chooses to be kind to those
in positions where they can well afford to be deindexed, but who is
deindexed? It is the victims of
crime. This is part of the overall
package of legislation this session, and I build into that the Student Social
Allowances Program. I build into that
the Home Care cuts. This is part of the
overall legislative agenda of this government, which pretends to be about
fiscal responsibility, pretends to be about fiscal restraint. It is far more than that. The reality is that the fiscal agenda is now
well and clearly a social agenda, and it is being worked out on the backs of
those who can least afford to pay. The
victims of crime is one of those groups.
We are not deindexing the CEOs of the
Crown corporations. We are not choosing
to cut in places where the public simply does not need or not require those
services. We are cutting people who,
through no fault of their own, have been assaulted and now cannot work. That is where the fiscal agenda is being
worked out in the daily lives of Manitobans.
It is a social agenda, and it is one fundamentally of privilege and
elitism.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a perhaps small
but very significant sign that that is indeed the case. All of the rhetoric, five years of it in
fact, from the this minister about the victims of crime, mean nothing when confronted
with this type of heartless legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will be
opposed by our party every step of the way.
It should be. It shows the
hypocrisy, the elitism of the government of the day, and it is another example,
in my view, of how this government has well and clearly gone off its tracks and
is now pretending to talk about the good of the community in terms of fiscal
restraint, which we all agree with, but the fiscal restraint is being
selectively applied to the people who this government thinks either do not
count, do not matter, did not vote for them last time, will not next. It is a political agenda. It is driven by elitism. It must be opposed. I believe that in time
the people of this province will oppose it because they do not believe in
that. Apparently, this government does. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion? All those in favour of the
motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 43‑The
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation (Mrs. Mitchelson),
Bill 43, The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine des loteries
et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
comments will not be lengthy on this legislation, as well, but I do want to put
a few words on the record because, while this bill appears perhaps harmless, it
changes the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation to a corporation, it belies an
approach of this government to lotteries which must be opposed.
That approach, I believe, is that we
expand lotteries as far and as quickly and as much as we can and never, never
do we consult the public. That is the
agenda of the Minister responsible for Lotteries. It is an attempt to take lotteries into a
very fundamental form of taxation in this province. Again, that results in
being a form of taxation on the poor and middle‑income Manitobans.
*
(1620)
So when this government says that they are
not imposing any new taxes, well, a hundred million dollars in lottery funds
which are now being put into the general revenues of the government is indeed a
tax on those who choose to gamble. It is
not tourism that gambling is about.
Gambling is about local Manitobans spending their money and, in a sense,
sending it off to the government.
Mr. Speaker, the Lotteries corporation,
which it will be, was established initially to control gambling almost as a
necessary evil in society. It was akin
to the government controlling cigarettes, controlling alcohol, and the idea was
that the profits from that would be spread amongst the community into things
that we could not afford otherwise. They
were sort of frills. They were to be
spent on the Sports Federation or the arts and culture. That was the idea behind lotteries.
Lotteries has now become an essential part
of this government's fiscal agenda. They
are now diverting those lottery funds into general revenues.
The thing that distinguishes lotteries
today from liquor, from cigarettes, from other such things is that our
government is also, through this foundation, going to be a corporation, spending
millions and millions of dollars promoting it, telling Manitobans to gamble
more. Come on down, they say. Gamble more.
Send your money to the government.
Now the government of this province
represents the people of this province, and through them, they are promoting
gambling in our society. That is unlike
liquor, and that is unlike other sin taxes.
That is this government directly becoming involved in promoting gambling
in our society.
That is why I and the Liberal Party have
said, this slide into what the government now faces, which is it having become,
really, the biggest addict in the province to gambling, should be stopped.
We are not saying rip out every VLT
machine at this point. What we are saying is put a moratorium on the expansion
until we have had a time to have a public debate about gambling in this province. That is the only responsible thing to
do. That is what the people of this
province are crying out for.
I asked the minister responsible for the
Manitoba Lotteries Foundation (Mrs. Mitchelson), which we own, by the way‑‑the
people of this province own that foundation‑‑to produce the five‑year
plan of that foundation. They have
written it. She confirmed they have got
it. They update the minister all the time. Will she release it? No.
That is what she told me; she would not release it.
Mr. Speaker, what is she hiding? Why can we not see the plan of the Manitoba
Lotteries Foundation? What is so secret
that it has to be hidden? They have a
monopoly. There is no argument here that
it would play into the hands of our competitors. They have a monopoly on gambling in this
province. There is no competitor that
could abuse that information. What is
the secret?
We are the shareholders of this new
corporation. We, the people of this
province, created that foundation. Why
do we not get a chance to see the five‑year plan? What are they hiding?
The people of this province want an
opportunity to stop, to consult, to understand how much gambling is going to be
enough for this government. I suspect
that five‑year plan says, how much is enough is when the people riot at
the Legislature.
Public tolerance will be the only limit on
this government's addiction to gambling.
They will push and push and push because there is no plan other than,
let us get as much as we can, as quick as we can.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is part of that
process towards the turning of lotteries and gambling in this province into an enterprise
which the government is going to increasingly rely on for its general revenues.
It feeds on the poor in our society, and
it is grossly irresponsible, in my view of government, to be promoting gambling,
spending millions of dollars selling gambling to our own people.
What have we become as a society when our
government, the government we own and we represent, is out flogging gambling to
the people of this province? I do not
understand it. I do not accept it, and I
do not think the people of this province do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to
speak on Bill 43, The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act.
I will be the only speaker on behalf of
our party on this particular piece of legislation as we are anxious to send
this into committee to listen to the views of Manitobans on this particular
issue, something that we on this side of the House have been calling for, for a
number of years now, where we feel that the government really has, as the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) just mentioned, no plan.
Did you have any type of a policy in terms
of gaming in this province, or simply to expand and expand until the market is saturated? We are witnessing that now, whereas I believe
two, maybe three years ago when we first raised the issue of video lottery
terminals in this Chamber with the minister‑‑and at the time she
was very hesitant in her response. She
said, well, we are reviewing it but there are no plans to move towards VLTs at this
stage, not until we have a chance to further assess the impact upon our society
or some other such statement, Mr. Speaker.
Then, we found out, it was no great
surprise, a few months later, of course, the video lottery terminals were
introduced into rural
Well, unfortunately, they betrayed
Of course, the biggest expansion will be
the wholesale expansion into the city of
It was fairly obvious that what they did
then was that they completely underestimated the revenue potential of this type
of gaming initiative, and as such, they took the revenues and they are now
using the revenues for the activities of the government opposite. It is unfortunate, of course, as their
economic policies have failed so miserably over the past number of years, that
the only growth industry they have in this province is revenues that they
receive from different gaming initiatives, Mr. Speaker.
So naturally, again, we feel that this
government should pause and reflect upon where they are going with gaming initiatives,
with other gaming activities here in the province. We feel that, by passing
this particular piece of legislation, it would give the Lotteries corporation,
as it would be called, a free hand to seek out new gaming initiatives and to
expand present gaming initiatives.
There is no denying that they have been
very successful in their activities, Mr. Speaker. Projected revenues for the year, say from
Lotteries itself, from break‑open tickets, $46 million; from VLTs,
approximately $40 million; bingos, $10 million; casino, $18 million, other $1
million. When you add them all up, it
totals around $116 million.
Now once they introduce VLTs into the city
of
*
(1630)
Mr. Speaker, so as such, as the minister
mentioned in her opening comments, when she introduced the legislation, she
said that the amendments will enable Manitoba Lotteries to assess corporate
capabilities in the context of its strategic plans and to identify corporate
requirements in terms of marketing, organization and information systems. She goes on to say, "These amendments
are necessary to ensure Manitoba Lotteries continues to meet its goals to
maximize long‑term economic returns to the people of
Well, there is no denying that they are,
as I mentioned earlier, maximizing the long‑term economic goals, Mr.
Speaker, as they have expanded gaming initiatives. As I mentioned, they have the potential this
year of realizing $140 million to $150 million in revenues for the
administration.
What we are suggesting is that the
government really stand back, reflect upon the actions of the Minister of
Lotteries and the members opposite to really review what is going on in
We are proposing that the government put a
moratorium upon itself, really place it upon itself to cease further gaming initiatives
and allow Manitobans to be consulted on this particular issue, go out into
Manitoba, to rural Manitoba, to northern Manitoba where right now a number of
their revenues are received from rural and northern Manitoba, go out there and
ask the individuals in these areas what they think about the government's
current plans and future plans in terms of gaming initiatives.
You would find that there would be, I
imagine, mixed reviews on the government's performance so far in terms of
revenues, because there is no denying again that Manitobans utilize the services
offered by the Minister of Lotteries as she actively promotes the gaming
activities in this province.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen again, as I
mentioned, a series of broken promises by this government in terms of
VLTs: only VLTs in rural
An Honourable Member: Oh, another one.
Mr. Dewar: Another American consultant. She, in her study, identified that
approximately 1.3 percent of Manitobans between the ages of 18 and older can be
classified as pathological gamblers.
Now, the Minister of Lotteries in Lotteries Estimates mentioned that
nine out of 10 Manitobans gamble. So it
is simple mathematics. You get the
number of about 10,000 to 15,000 Manitobans who can be identified as
pathological gamblers. So what are they
going to do in an attempt to deal with this very serious problem that
Manitobans face? The government has
decided to bring forward a treatment program.
Two thousand gamblers in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Selkirk does have
the floor.
Mr. Dewar: Again, as I mentioned, the consultant
identified between 10,000 and 15,000 Manitobans who have a problem with gambling
and, in an attempt to deal with it, they are only going to be addressing really
an incidental amount. Only 400 individuals
per year will be receiving treatment.
They are willing to fund the program from lottery revenues, obviously,
but only $2.5 million over the next five years.
Even though they are going to be realizing over the next five years
close to half a billion dollars in revenues from the lotteries, they are
willing to put back only $2.5 million to help individuals who are affected by
the governments own gaming policies.
So we find that to be a rather disturbing
situation, Mr. Speaker, to say the least, that the government is willing to extract
millions and millions of dollars from rural Manitobans, from Manitobans from
the North, and they are only willing to put back only $2.5 million to actually
treat those individuals who are held captive by the Minister of Lotteries and
her policies. We are fearing that by allowing the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation
to become a corporation, it would give them the opportunity to even expand
further, to seek out new initiatives to expand the ones that they have now,
though it is difficult to anticipate what possible gaming initiatives they
could come up next.
I am certain that the creative minds of
those interested in pursuing such a task will be hard at work in trying to lure
even more Manitobans to get involved with the many gaming activities that the
members opposite offer, Mr. Speaker. We
find again not only that, but better compensation packages are required for veterans
organizations in this province. As we
know, many organizations are suffering out there because of the administration's
gaming policies.
We are seeing break‑open ticket
revenues down so the government responds again only a fraction of the actual
loss. We see veterans' organizations
across the province that are suffering right now, and we know many of them are
in the members' opposite constituencies.
I know mine, they have raised a concern with me that they would be
seeking a fairer compensation for their loss because of the introduction of
VLTs into rural
I would expect and suggest that the first
individual to sign up‑‑or the first group that would be interested
in signing up for the gaming treatment program would be the members opposite,
the government itself, Mr. Speaker. They
would be the first ones to benefit from taking a treatment program for a gaming
addiction.
So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to passing
this legislation on to the committee stage, to allow Manitobans to come forward
to present their views on this, although we would like to see a broader study,
a broader set of hearings throughout the province to allow more Manitobans,
particularly those in rural Manitoba and those in the North who contribute
significant amount of revenues to the Lotteries Foundation, to give them the opportunity
to express their views on this important issue.
*
(1640)
So with those few comments, I will end
debate on this bill and look forward to the presenters, once it reaches
committee stage. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 43, The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine
des loteries et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? (agreed)
Bill 24‑The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Transcona, who has 37 minutes remaining.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
continue my remarks today from where I had left off yesterday when I only had a
few moments before the conclusion of the sitting.
I think the minister is here today and I
am not sure if he is aware of one section, but I will point it out to him
immediately in the legislation‑‑and that is under Section 3 of the legislation‑‑there
is, I believe, it may have been an oversight, Mr. Speaker, in the printing of
this bill, but it is not printed in both official languages. I hope that the minister will, when we go to
committee, be bringing forward an amendment to that effect to reflect that
there is no French language version in this bill.
Yesterday when we started talking about
the bill, of course, in looking at the minister's comments when he did second
reading on this bill, he started off talking about the fact there was going to
be a repeal of the licensing requirements for the U‑drive industry. It just seemed to be, I suppose, coincidence that
the U‑drive industry has some of the same supporters for the Conservative
Party as with Bill 36 that we were talking about yesterday, but we will not
dwell on that, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that this piece of legislation
runs contrary to Conservative philosophy of this country is leaning toward a deregulated
environment with respect to any types of industry. It is never more so clear
under federal jurisdiction for federal transportation issues where we have seen
the impact of deregulation upon the airline industry. I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard),
who used to be the critic for Highways and Transportation some time ago, is
interested in this.
An Honourable Member: He was the minister.
Mr. Reid: Was he the minister? Must have been just a little blurb in time
somewhere there. (interjection) Must
have been only one map. I guess the hard‑working
current Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) obviously was more qualified to do
that job so they put him in there and replaced the current Minister of Health from
that.
An Honourable Member: He will be back.
Mr. Reid: Yes, of course. The current Minister of Health‑‑
An Honourable Member: He will be there for another 10 years.
Mr. Reid: He may be.
Only time will tell and the electorate of the province will make that
decision for us, so we all have to assume that they are making the right
judgments.
Getting back to what the impact of
deregulation is, Mr. Speaker, we have seen what has happened with the airline
industry in this province where we have seen employee‑employee pitted against
each other in this province, the airlines struggling, fighting to keep their
heads above water. The railways are in a
similar position. Trucking is no
different. They are struggling to
survive. People are trying to maintain
and eke out a living in these industries through the deregulated environment.
It is becoming increasingly difficult for
them to do that and yet this government brings in this Bill 24, which goes
contrary to their philosophy of deregulation.
They believe in deregulation and yet this bill brings in a regulatory
regime that is much more restrictive than what we have seen in the taxicab industry. In that sense they are going to give, I
believe, unlimited power by way of this bill to the Taxicab Board to make decisions
affecting the industry.
I believe that is as a result of the
taxicab industry's outspoken nature.
They have not been afraid to stand up on issues that have been affecting
them in the city and I believe that, Mr. Speaker, should be their right. Where matters are brought to their attention
and they have issues of concern that will affect their ability to earn a living
and to do their jobs, serve the public of this city to the best of their
ability, I believe they have every right to raise those issues of concern with
the Taxicab Board.
This present legislation, Mr. Speaker,
allows decisions that are made by the Taxicab Board to be challenged in the
court of a competent jurisdiction, whether it be the Court of Appeal or Court
of Queen's Bench.
This is going to be changed by this
legislation. The board will actually
eliminate the right of the industry to challenge any decision. So if the Taxicab Board holds a hearing into industry
affairs and it could take place over a period of time, the Taxicab Board does
not have to allow all those who wish to make presentations or to make
submissions to that hearing the right or the opportunity to be heard but, not
only that, it pre‑empts or eliminates any opportunity for those industry members
who are affected to challenge in any way those types of decisions and to appeal
to the courts on those decisions. Well, that
is what is in the legislation. It is
like a notwithstanding clause.
It removes the ability of the industry to
challenge in the courts. We have consulted
with the industry members on this. We have
consulted with their legal counsel on this, and this is what they have told
us. This is what they have said,
contrary to what the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) is saying‑‑
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): I met with them yesterday.
Mr. Reid: Well, it is unfortunate that the minister did
not take to consult with the industry prior to bringing in this piece of legislation. They had to wait several months after he had introduced
it for second reading.
In fact, I think it was back in the end of
April that he did second reading on this bill, and if the minister has resolved
a lot of these issues, I suppose we will find that out when this bill goes to
committee, when the members of the public will have the opportunity to come
forward and make their presentations to members of the committee.
Not all of the bill is bad. There are portions of the bill that are good
and in effect as there is with lots of legislation, whether it be private
members' bills or bills from the government.
There are portions of those bills that can be effective and be to the
betterment of our society. That is no different
in this piece of legislation. There are
sections that are good.
When the Taxicab Board has to have show‑cause
hearings, this piece of legislation indicates that they will now have to notify
members of the industry who are asked to appear before that show‑cause
hearing, will be given notice, and that notice must be sent by registered mail
and there would be a period of time before any action can be taken. That in fact, I believe, is a change, and
that will allow sufficient notice to be given to members of the industry.
In the bill, there are also provisions
dealing with those that are part of the industry and operating the vehicles,
not necessarily the owners, Mr. Speaker, but the drivers. (interjection) No, I am never stuck. I have talked to the industry members on this
on several occasions. In fact, we have had
several meetings on this, consulted with them.
They have told us their concerns.
We have raised questions in this House with the minister. The minister said, I believe his words were, tchekai,
tchekai, wait until we get to second reading on this, and he would explain but
never did really explain or give us an answer to the questions we did ask in
Question Period.
An Honourable Member: That is unusual for him. He is usually pretty forthright‑‑
Mr. Reid: That is true.
This is one of the more responsible ministers of the government, and I
have great respect for his abilities. I
do not want the minister to get a swelled head, but I am sure that most members
of this House respect his abilities and his forthright nature with his answers
to his questions in this House, and we appreciate that.
Also, this minister is one of the few
ministers in this House who comes forward with a sheet that explains the
reasons for the changes that he is bringing forward in his legislation.
*
(1650)
An Honourable Member: That is because he has got a slow critic.
Mr. Reid: That may be the case. In some cases, I am slow. I recognize that fact, but I must say‑‑and
I do not mind putting that on the record.
That is being honest and forthright with members.
I am sure that if the honourable members
opposite were as forthright with comments about themselves, members of the
public might respect them for the same opportunities, if they were going to be
forthright like that, but of course, they like to think maybe they are better
than most other people, that they do not have any deficiencies or shortcomings.
Well, I will not dwell on that, Mr.
Speaker. That is another matter that the
public will deal with.
An Honourable Member: The arrogance of power.
Mr. Reid: I suppose it is the arrogance of power as my
colleague the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says.
With this legislation, the minister has
indicated in his explanatory sheet that the Taxicab Board did not have the opportunity
to impose financial penalties upon any members of the taxicab industry who were
found guilty of infractions of The Taxicab Act.
Mr. Speaker, in that sense, there are some
good points about that section where the minister gives the Taxicab Board the opportunity
to impose financial penalties on people who are responsible for the infractions
of that act, instead of penalizing those who are not responsible. In some cases, it could be the drivers, or
vice versa, it could be the drivers creating the infraction and not the owner of
the vehicles. So in that sense the
Taxicab Board will have the opportunity to take some actions with respect to
any penalties that it may choose to apply.
I hope that the Taxicab Board‑‑and
the minister has said that he has great confidence in his chairman of that
board‑‑and that chairman will do the fair thing when they impose
any penalties that they think or deem necessary, and that they will treat people
in a fair and equitable manner, anyone who may come before them.
Where there are hearings for
contraventions of the act, " . . . the board has reason to believe that
the holder of a licence or permit has . . . acted in a manner that is contrary
to the public interest in relation to the taxicab industry."
That is a pretty broad statement for any
legislation to say. I hope that, when we get to committee stage, the minister
will describe for us what the intent of that section is, because of its broad‑based
powers.
It also says that the board " . . .
may hold a hearing into the matter" or any matters, and that is
discretionary power that is given to the board.
If the licencee disputes, for example, any
claims of an inspector, and wants to challenge because they think that the decisions
that were made were unfair and unreasonable, there is no appeal mechanism that
I can see in this legislation, because that appeal mechanism, which was the
courts, has been taken away from the industry.
If the minister is prepared to look at
amendments to this legislation when we move to committee that may allow for an appeal
mechanism to be in there, it may be a way to improve this legislation that
might make it more acceptable to the members of the industry. Now, if that appeal mechanism is in there, I
am sure we would look favourably towards some mechanism that would provide that
opportunity for those members of the industry who might find that some of the
decisions that are made would be unfair.
In this bill, one of the sections allows
the board to apply terms or conditions or suspend or cancel licences, and
impose penalties up to $1,000, I believe it is, plus associated costs including
investigations.
Mr. Speaker, this can be pretty broad‑ranging. I am not sure what the intent is, or if there
will be any reasonable limitations that will be in place, and that will prevent
members of the industry who may have to appear before the board to pay for
exorbitant costs for any type of investigation that the board might undertake
to further its case.
I think that there should, either in this
act or in the regulations, put some reasonable limitations on any cost that might
be associated with any of those investigations with respect to any hearings
that might take place.
Also, one section in this piece of
legislation, since we are talking about the principle of the legislation,
allows for the decisions that are made by the board, from my understanding of the
legislation, to be filed in the courts.
In essence, it gives the power for the board to then, with failure to
pay any fines that might have been levied or imposed by the board on members of
the industry, seize any property or assets that might be held by those
individuals so fined. So it does not
give protection. There is no appeal mechanism for that, but it gives great
powers to the board to seize any assets of individuals who have been levied
fines.
My understanding of this bill is that this
is only challengeable on a question of jurisdiction or law which is very limited
in its scope and will make it very difficult for any member of the industry so
wishing to challenge those decisions to find any grounds that they would be
able to challenge them on since the broad‑based powers are given to the
board under Sections 18, 19(1)(e) and (f).
Another section in here allows the Taxicab
Board to suspend the licence, it says, for protection of the public, but does
not fix a reasonable amount of time for a hearing to take place. Now, I know
that members of the board would act in a fair manner in hopefully all cases,
but we do not know what can happen in the future. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there should be
some reasonable time limits put on hearings to be held where licences are
suspended by the board. I think that is
a reasonable request to be made, and I think there should be an amendment to this
legislation to that effect to ensure that that reasonable period is affixed.
Also, I always thought that there was a
presumption of innocence which would apply and that you would think that the Charter
of Rights would apply to situations like this, but that does not seem to be the
case with this legislation. It also says
that it may be possible, from my understanding of the industry, to suspend the
licence of an individual for infractions that may occur away from work. I know I have had members of the industry contact
me in this regard.
There was a case in the city which I
believe is still under investigation by the City of
We have also heard and I would hope that
there would be some way that the board could tighten up the abilities of
members of the industry, the drivers who are working in these jobs where there
is nonpayment of fares. Now, I see that
there is some opportunity there, but I do not know if it is going to go far enough
to allow for collection of the nonfares for people who leave the vehicles and
do not pay for the trip that they have been provided by that cab.
Now, I am not sure how this legislation is
going to allow for the collection of that and how the board or the minister
proposes to give the board the opportunity to go after people who refuse to pay
their fares. How does a taxicab driver
identify the people? He only has a
destination to which the people go and a description, I suppose, that he can
give to the board or to the police. I am
not sure how the minister proposes to collect nonpayment of fares.
*
(1700)
Of course, the members of the industry
will now be responsible for the cost for the inspection of their vehicles by way
of Bill 36. Their vehicles, the taxicab
vehicles, had to be inspected on a twice yearly basis, which I believe is a
good provision and provides for the safe operation of taxicab vehicles in the
city. But at the same time‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m.‑‑
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
on House business, I think you may find‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I cannot hear a word you are saying.
Mr. Praznik: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize you were not able to hear
me.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there are some
committee changes to be made.
I believe also that you will find that
there is a will to allow the member for Transcona to continue with his remarks
prior to private members' hour, and I believe there may be a will, following
his remarks, to call it six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members'
hour? That will settle it very easily. (agreed)
* * *
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members for the
opportunity to continue my remarks‑‑my colleagues I am referring
to.
To continue my remarks, the members of the
industry who have their vehicles inspected are now going to have to pay, as the
minister has indicated, upwards of $40 twice a year to have their vehicles
safety inspected, further adding to their costs in an already depressed market,
Mr. Speaker.
Another section of this legislation causes
great concern to members of the industry and in particular the owners, Mr. Speaker,
and their legal counsel. The minister
says he has consulted with them just only yesterday, so I hope that they have resolved
this issue. If not, I am sure we will
hear about it in the committee when the bill gets there.
That is the section that deals with the
board's ability to preclude any advocate or any presenter from making any presentations
to any board hearings.
That will effectively limit the members of
the public, and in a sense members of the industry, from acting as either
advocates for themselves or for representing their own interests to the board. The board can prevent them from making those presentations
to any hearings that take place, whether they be show‑cause hearings or
other hearings.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this will be
intimidating to anyone wishing to present to a hearing, in the sense that they
are going to have to show some kind of cause or reason why that obviously would
then have to be acceptable to the board and that not everyone would have
standing or status at any of those hearings. That will, I believe, seriously curtail
or limit any of the industry representatives from making representation to any
of the board hearings.
Under one section, Mr. Speaker, it says
that the board can make any rules and may reject any intervener without hearing
any reasons. Now, that, to me, is a
pretty unlimited power to give any kind of a board. I think that there should be in that case, as
well, some kind of an appeal mechanism so that if people feel they have not
been given the opportunity to be heard, that they should have some appeal
mechanism that they can have their concerns addressed. I know we will be looking at that opportunity
to have that appeal mechanism when we move to committee in the way of
amendments.
Another section that I find unusual and
that is Section 19, where it says it will allow a meeting to start with a
quorum and a quorum will be three members, Mr. Speaker.
I know the board itself has had some
difficulty getting members of the various community interests that are involved
in the board hearings to attend some of the meetings, but this bill says that a
meeting now can start with a quorum of three but does not have to conclude its
hearings when that quorum is broken. It may
in fact continue even moments after the meeting starts. If a member of that body conducting the
hearing leaves and they are down to two members, which is less than a quorum,
that meeting will then be allowed to continue and to make decisions.
I am not sure how that is going to be in
the best interest of the public and how that is going to be in the best
interest of the members of the industry.
I think that if a meeting starts, it would only be fair and reasonable
to ask that the quorum be continued, and that those sitting in on those
hearings should have the opportunity to present their concerns to the complete quorum,
and that the quorum itself should decide and it should be not less than the
quorum making those decisions.
Apparently this has been challenged
before, and members of the industry have indicated that there has been a
successful court challenge where a quorum has disappeared, that the meetings should
cease at that point and should be reconvened at another time.
The taxicab industry is comprised of over
a thousand drivers and I believe there are close to 450 owners, if I am not mistaken,
in the industry, and this industry contributes, I believe, $32 million to the
economy of the city of
In that sense they are our first public
relations representatives, and they put on for us the greetings for anyone coming
to the city of Winnipeg, whether it be by way of bus into the province or by
airlines or by some other means. The
taxicab industry is our representative in greeting the public, the new public
members who come to visit our province, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is only reasonable to say that
the board should treat this industry in a fair and impartial manner. When I asked questions of the Minister of
Highways (Mr. Driedger) earlier when this bill came forward, it was with
respect to a ruling that had been made by Judge Monnin where he had indicated
in 1991 where a study was conducted by the Taxicab Board and it was going to
give the members of the taxicab industry the opportunity to have some kind of a
fund set up to allow them to have some equity come about as a result of their
jobs because there was no pension plan.
That was one of the recommendations that
was never implemented in this taxicab industry.
Judge Monnin had ruled that this study that had made recommendations,
the minister and his department, through the Taxicab Board, should have implemented
all of those recommendations, not just cherry‑picked the ones they
thought were for their convenience.
I call on the minister, you know, if he
wants to put on the appearance at least of giving some fair opportunity to
members of the taxicab industry, to look at implementing a program that would
give members of the industry the opportunity to have some security for the
future. That is what that fund would
have established for them, to go back and to review the decisions of that study
to look at giving members of the industry that sense of future security.
Now the minister, when he made his
statements here to us in the House, said that the board was only presently at a
50 percent cost recovery. That seems to
go contrary to the statement that his department put out on May 29 of last
year, where he said that the board was already at a 60 percent cost
recovery. So there is a 10 percent
discrepancy there.
I have not checked into this too
much. I will be asking the minister some
questions on this when we get to committee, but I would be interested to know
in what position other boards that we have in the province, what position they
are at cost recovery as well, or is it only the Taxicab Board and its
administrative costs that we are looking to be cost recovery? If that is the case, it seems to single out
or discriminate against a certain segment of our society. It does not leave a perception of fairness if
we are only looking to do cost recovery on that portion.
Now, if the government is sincere about
that, they should look at doing cost recovery on other sectors as well. If they want to leave the perception at least‑‑I
am not saying the minister should do this, but if the minister wants to leave
the perception of fairness, they should make it an overall plan to leave that
perception of fairness. I do not see
that that is happening in any detail.
The minister said that there is going to
be some changes in the fee structure that can be anticipated after this
legislation is passed. I suppose members
of the industry should brace themselves for more fees coming along. The minister has told me in Estimates that he
will not be releasing that information to us.
We would have to find out on our time, on our own efforts. I think he was
concerned that we would make an attack on his department's effort by way of
Question Period and that. Quite possibly,
he is right.
One item that has been brought to my
attention that the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) may
not be aware of‑‑but it was brought to my attention as recently as yesterday,
and this, I believe, could impact upon the taxicab industry if the alleged
comments that were made to me are indeed accurate.
I have been told that there is a certain
courier company within the city here that has taken one or more of their
vehicles and is currently allowing those vehicles to be hired out for compensation. I think that goes contrary to The Taxicab
Act.
If the minister is interested in that, I
will draw that to the minister's attention after I have concluded my remarks
here so that he might be aware of how this is impacting upon the taxicab
industry and that there may be people in contravention of The Taxicab Act.
*
(1710)
The minister has said that this bill will
give some broader powers, fee‑making powers to the Taxicab Board and, in
general, give broader powers. I think
that is an understatement. I think this
will give tremendously more powers to the Taxicab Board, and I am not sure that
the Taxicab Board needs all of those powers to deal with the concerns of the
industry and the concerns of the members of the public. I think that we saw what happened when the
Taxicab Board had powers in dealing with matters such as Tuxedo Taxi.
I know we raised this with the minister
during the Estimates. He was a bit
defensive what happened with Tuxedo Taxi.
Looking at what happened with that industry and what we have been told
by members of the taxi industry, I can see why he is somewhat defensive.
I believe the Taxicab Board could have
taken better care and control over decisions that they had made with respect to
that particular decision.
Now, they may have their reasons which
they have not made me aware of, why they made those specific decisions. It is my understanding that they made many of
those decisions behind closed doors, and members of the public did not have the
opportunity to either hear the reasons why or to take part in any of the
decisions that were made with respect to Tuxedo Taxi. That is the type of
action that I think creates a sense within the taxicab industry that there are
things that are being done contrary and without consultation with the industry
members.
I think that, if we want to address those
concerns and to have some co‑operation between the Taxicab Board and the
members of the industry, they should be done in a consultative manner, and that
they should hold those hearings, where possible, in hopefully all cases, with
the members of the public able to hear any of the decisions or discussions that
are taking place. That is not currently
occurring, and I think that is something that should be addressed.
I think in fairness, unless the minister
has worked out some kind of special arrangements with the taxicab industry in his
discussions, he said, with them yesterday, that this legislation is probably
not in the best interests of the industry at the current time.
I think the minister should seriously look
at either drastically amending the bill that we have before us to provide a few
mechanisms to members of the industry, to give them opportunity to have their
voices heard, or you should look at withdrawing this bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, we look forward to
this legislation going through to committee.
Any members of the public that may be interested in coming forward to
make presentations, we look forward to hearing their comments and their
concerns and, of course, any recommendations they may have by way of this legislation,
whether it be by amendment or withdrawal of this bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to address
my remarks today.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres‑‑(interjection)
Is the House not ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Okay. Who is speaking? Oh, I am sorry, the honourable member for
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Motion agreed to.
Committee
Change
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows:
Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for Pembina (Mr. Orchard).
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members:
Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).