House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): By leave, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that the duties performed by those members who from time to time were appointed to be Chairpersons of the third section of the Committee of Supply during the second session of the Thirty-sixth Legislature, shall be deemed for pay purposes only to be the same as those of the Chairperson of a standing or special committee.

Motion agreed to.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I noticed some looks of puzzlement on the members opposite. I did clear it with both the opposition House leader and leader of the Liberal caucus here with regard on what was in agreement.

I would like to advise the House that I have called the Standing Committee on Economic Development to sit on Tuesday next, October 8, at 10 a.m., to consider Bills 21, 42, 52 and 53. I will have an announcement a little bit later with respect to further committees, but in the interim would you please call Bills 12, 54, 49, 39, 14 and 15.

Madam Speaker: On a matter of House business, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will sit Tuesday, October 8, at 10 a.m., to consider Bills 21, 42, 52 and 53.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

Bill 12--The Barbers Repeal and Hairdressers Repeal Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 12--[interjection] Order, please. May I just inform the House the order that I heard the government House leader cite the bills, please, and then get clarification as to which order you really prefer? Bills 12, 54, 49, 39, 14 and 15.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, if I can just clarify, I believe we would like Bill 39 called first and Bill 49 called last. Sorry for the confusion.

Madam Speaker: So I will repeat. Bill 39--

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, if we could have a two-minute recess, I will meet with the opposition House leader.

Madam Speaker: I would appreciate that. There will be a two-minute recess.

The House recessed at 2:39 p.m.

________

After Recess

The House resumed at 2:41 p.m.

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, disregard everything that I said before with respect to the bill numbers and replace it with Bills 39, 14, 15, 54, 12 and 49.

Bill 39--The Pari-Mutuel Levy and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), The Pari-Mutuel Levy and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les prélèvements sur les mises de pari mutuel et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No. Leave has been denied.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, let me say, to simplify things at the outset, that we intend to support this legislation and think that it achieves some significant increases and accountability and clarity for the public of Manitoba who will understand better now how money flows from the pari-mutuel levy into the racing commission and back to the track in the form of purse support. That, in a nutshell, is the purpose of the bill, because it improves the accountability and clarity of the relationship and avoids the difficulty of Industry, Trade and Tourism having to receive monies in their budget and disburse monies in the form of grants which are not clearly related to the revenue under the current arrangements and therefore are not transparent to members of the public. We see this bill as an improvement, and we will be supporting it.

Having said that, Madam Speaker, I want to raise some concerns about the current state of the racing industry in Manitoba and put some perspective on that. I trust that the government will be aware of all these issues, indeed they may already be aware of them but that they will realize that we are fast approaching the day when this industry may no longer be viable in at least its current form in Manitoba.

To put a bit of perspective on this, Madam Speaker, in 1987 the Woods Gordon Company made a study on behalf of the government of Manitoba, the then-Pawley government, indicating what the economic impact of horseracing in Manitoba was. This study is dated February 1987. It is the only study that is available in the public domain and indeed I believe it is the only study that attempted to quantify the impact of racing on the provincial economy, both in terms of jobs and in terms of the spinoff benefits, as well as the consumption of supplies, feed, racing trailers and that sort of thing.

Madam Speaker, in that year, some 12 years ago, the total wagering in this province on gambling at tracks was $57.6 million. That was comprised of approximately $18 million on standardbred racing and $40 million on thoroughbred racing. The estimates at that time were that the industry with that level of wagering and prizes worth in total $5.3 million supported an industry of approximately 2,500 persons directly and indirectly off track and on track.

Madam Speaker, according to the most recent report of the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission, the total wagering at the track level has fallen to $11 million from $57 million. And I am sure that the members realize that is a fall of some 80 percent from its level of only 12 years earlier, actually 11 years earlier, given that you count summers. So, in 11 years, we had an 80 percent fall in the amount of wagering.

Now, in fact, what has happened during that time is that off-track betting and betting theatres on races, not in Manitoba but elsewhere in North America, has risen to approximately $24 million, but those bets and those races could be bet on anywhere. They have really nothing to do at all with the business of operating a racetrack at Assiniboia Downs. During that same time, the purses in actual dollars have fallen from $5.3 million, as I said earlier, to approximately--it was slightly under $3 million. Now those are nominal dollars in both cases. They do not take into account the effects of inflation, and so the actual fall in the purses offered is probably more in the order of 60 percent to 70 percent from the level of 1985.

Madam Speaker, an industry that has had an 80 percent decline in the wagering and a 60 percent or 70 percent decline in the purse structure cannot be supporting the same number of people in an economic way today that it was 11 or 12 years ago. Nevertheless, the government is still suggesting that close to 2,000 person years of employment are being generated by this industry. I would respectfully ask the government to investigate those who are putting forward such numbers, investigate the basis on which they suggest that on a fifth of the wagering and less than half of the prizes of 11 years ago in nominal dollars, anything like that level of employment is actually being supportive.

There was a case to be made over the years until recently that we were justified in putting forward some support for purses, and in the past this has been done by rebating the revenues from the horseracing and betting industry through a mechanism put in place by the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. I want to just review that situation as well. Provincial revenue from the pari-mutuel tax has fallen from about $5 million in 1990-91 to just under $3 million in 1994-95, the last year for which information is available. The government provided the revenue from this tax back to the track in the form of grants and in the form of purse support, in the form of support to breeders and other small grants related to the industry, and up until recently the total support provided to the industry was matched by the total revenues from the industry.

* (1450)

However, by 1994-95, the total revenues to the industry from government exceeded government's revenue from the industry by some $600,000. To put it another way, Madam Speaker, Manitobans are now directly subsidizing the racing industry, not simply by rebating revenue from it but by making an additional grant in the amount of at least $600,000 to this industry. We have to begin to ask ourselves, if we have to subsidize an industry every year to an increasing amount, at what time do we then say wait a minute, maybe the public interest is not being well served by these arrangements.

I asked for assistance from the department which they graciously provided through the minister--and I appreciate that--to give me a better idea of what was going on in the background of this industry around North America, to see whether this was a local issue or whether this was an issue across North America. Mr. Johnson completed a--I guess what I would say was a qualitative report, a very broad report that does not have a lot of statistics in it but which was completed in June of 1996 and which the government released. Mr. Johnson in his report makes the case that across North America there have been serious problems of decline in virtually every track, particularly in what might be called the secondary tracks of North America, that this is an industry that appears to appeal to an older sociodemographic group. Young people do not appear to be being drawn into the industry in any significant numbers, and there are many who suggest that there is just no way that this industry can continue to operate in Winnipeg, given the decline in betting of 80 percent over the period of time in question.

So Mr. Johnson's report concludes that this is nothing to do with the quality of the management of Winnipeg's track or of the efforts government has made to keep the industry viable, and I am certainly not suggesting that it is. What I am saying is that Mr. Johnson, I think, is clear that all across North America tracks are in trouble, and this track is no exception, and that there is no data that suggests that this trend is going to change.

In short, the sociodemographic profile, to summarize Mr. Johnson: The sociodemographic profile of the industry and its fans is of an aging and a shrinking base of support.

I think that government should, in a very forthright way, examine carefully what the true costs of this industry are to Manitobans at this point and, regardless of one's affection for horses and for horse racing and the beauty of the beast, whether or not it continues to make sense to pour significant public dollars into subsidizing what appears to be a dying industry in North America.

Madam Speaker, the scale of public subsidies to this industry is also not widely understood in Manitoba because the government has not been entirely forthright about the betting theatre which was established in Assiniboia Downs. In the Assiniboia Downs I believe there are some 120 VLTs. They are rather a special kind of VLT, called a video gaming machine, but essentially they are not being used for their capacity to do simulcast betting on tracks across America, like Saratoga or any of those other tracks, because it has been found that the demand for that betting is too small to pay for the very high communication costs of the land lines and satellite lines to make the use of the gaming machines for that purpose viable.

So we enabled the Jockey Club to put in a very large betting theatre on the expectation that perhaps the betting in the theatre on races and tracks that have survived, such as Saratoga, would be sufficiently high to offset the costs here and would keep the track viable. But unfortunately after an experimental period of several months, the track found that this was not the case and so they shut down their communication links with the off-track betting into American tracks and into Woodbine, for example.

However, what I think most Manitobans do not realize is that there is a rather special arrangement for the VLTs at Assiniboia Downs. For every hotel and bar that has VLTs in Manitoba, the standard arrangement is that the owner of the bar or hotel retains approximately 20 percent of the net take from the VLTs after prizes have been paid out and after certain operating expenses have been covered. So the split with the Lotteries Commission is an 80-20 split.

The Manitoba Jockey Club got a very, very special deal from Manitoba in the form of what I think can only be called a hidden subsidy to the track. Certainly the public does not understand that the track is receiving 75 percent of the net proceeds after prizes have been paid out and after operating costs have been covered.

I have been provided with information by Mr. Warner from the Jockey Club that indicates that the net revenue the last reporting year, '94-95, was approximately $3.8 million, of which the club is keeping 75 percent or, in other words, $2.8 million. That is a subsidy that I do not think the public of Manitoba is aware is going into this operation. We are favouring this club with an arrangement that any hotel owner or bar owner would dearly love to have and of course we would not think would be appropriate. So we are giving a nonprofit corporation an additional $2.8-million subsidy to maintain its operations.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, if that were not troublesome enough, it is even more troubling that the Manitoba Jockey Club does not print its annual statements, and I was unable to obtain statements of the operations of the Jockey Club in spite of requests to the minister's office through his staff for those statements. So the public is not only unaware of the additional subsidy of $2.8 million going into the Jockey Club, in addition to the revenues from the betting taxes, the public does not know how much this club costs to operate. We do not know what it costs to operate Assiniboia Downs. We do not know whether the public is supporting 20 percent, 50 percent or 80 percent of the costs of operating the Downs.

I think that the public has a right to know what the total costs of the operation are and, therefore, what percentage of those costs are being subsidized. I say that to emphasize and to underline what I said at the beginning of my remarks. This is not an issue of being unsupportive of an industry. It is an issue of wanting to know whether that industry is viable in the medium or long term, and the government is not providing the data to allow us to know whether in fact this is the case or not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have those concerns about the industry that we are proposing to subsidize through Bill 39, The Pari-Mutuel Levy and Consequential Amendments Act. The act itself we support because it increases accountability. It increases transparency in terms of how the monies flow into the government and how the monies flow out. Our concerns are that through this act the public will be aware of about $3 million flowing into the Horse Racing Commission and flowing out in the form of an annual plan which the commission has to make public.

However, there is an additional amount somewhere in the order of $3 million of which the public is not aware and which appears to be increasing annually. Secondly, the public is not aware of the total costs of the operation that they are subsidizing through the various grants.

So we support the legislation, but we will be raising and will continue to raise questions about the scale of the subsidy and the viability of this industry and be asking government to be, as it claims to be, transparent and concerned about openness by making public to Manitobans what this nonprofit corporation, the Jockey Club, spends on the operation of the track and what the sources of that spending are.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in concluding my remarks, let me underline that this is the government that seems greatly concerned to have us all know the salaries of those over $50,000 of income regardless of whether they work in the public or the quasi-public sector. Surely a nonprofit corporation supported to the tune of over $5 million by government money ought to disclose its operating costs, if not the salaries of its senior officials.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be asking that the government extend its newfound commitment to transparency to the Manitoba Jockey Club. With those remarks I conclude my remarks on this bill.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): The minister, when he presented this bill, referred to it as the Paul Edwards destruction bill, so we are very interested in this. We might want to call it the when gambling is not gambling bill. When it is horse racing, that is when we do not call it gambling any longer, and we know the problems we have had with the gambling industry in this province.

This act changes the tax as collected by the Department of Finance into a levy administered by the Horse Racing Commission. This levy is 7.5 percent if a person bets on not more than two horses, and 12.5 percent if the bettor bets on more than three horses.

* (1500)

Why is this being done? In some respects, you can thank Paul Edwards, since he wanted to redirect some of the money that was going to promote horse racing into Manitoba, into more useful areas like education and social services. What a terrible thing. Since this money, which the minister describes as a tax collected on behalf of the Horse Racing Commission, was part of the province's general revenue, it was a good idea. Unfortunately, the Horse Racing Commission did not take kindly to an attack on its sources of revenue.

The new act transforms the tax into a levy administered by the Horse Racing Commission. This means that we will no longer be accounted for in the province's books as either expense or revenue, and those nasty politicians like Paul Edwards cannot get their grubby little hands on it in the next election. The money raised by this levy will now go into a new fund. This Horse Racing Commission will retain 1 percent of this levy for operating expenses. The balance of the levy will be deposited for the use of promoting horseracing in Manitoba. Distribution from this levy will be approved by the minister. It is hard to believe that the government is not rewarding the Horse Racing Commission for its good work during the last provincial election. We also see that what we have is another rainy day fund that the Tories can influence for its use in the next provincial election.

So we know the Horse Racing Commission, we will see them at the committee, and I am anxious to see their presentation to the committee. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 39. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 14--The Manitoba Trading Corporation Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), Bill 14, The Manitoba Trading Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société commerciale du Manitoba), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). No? There is no leave.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will be supporting this legislation as well. It is essentially a cleaning-up of the current Manitoba Trade Corporation Act that I think is appropriate in virtually all respects. The one concern that I will raise--and the minister, I am sure, is not unaware of it--is that he is providing in this act a change which appears to be consistent across government at this point, and it is a trend which I deplore. I wish all honourable members opposite would examine carefully for themselves, because I think if they looked at it objectively they would not want to see this happen either.

Government increasingly seems to want to contract out audits and this act provides for the option of contracting out, and we deplore the contracting out of audits by government directly. We have said in Public Accounts and in other committee hearings that we recognize that it may be quite appropriate for government to use private auditors from time to time, that the use of those auditors should always be under the direction of the Provincial Auditor. I am sure that those who are experienced in government on the opposite side of the House understand the concern and that is for the integrity of the audit of a given department. There should not be several auditors auditing several pieces of a department. Any desire to have contracted-out audits is a matter of policy; That is not the issue. We do not agree with that policy, but government has the right to make such policy. We do not argue with that.

What we do suggest is that it is inappropriate for government to do so directly by its own Order-in-Council. If it wishes to instruct the Provincial Auditor to use private auditors in some proportion or in some particular areas, let the government give that direction, but let the audit be under the clear scrutiny of the Provincial Auditor for accountability, for consistent standards and so that the ability of the Provincial Auditor to have a complete overview of government and its financial activities is unimpaired.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the concern about other issues in the act can be raised at the committee stage and they are more of a technical nature, and with those comments I will conclude.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 14. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?

An Honourable Member: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 15--The Tourism and Recreation Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), Bill 15, The Tourism and Recreation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le tourisme et les loisirs), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Stand?

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be clear as well on this act we will support this legislation. In conversations with the hotel association and with other tourism groups and with the department, it appears that the purpose of this legislation is largely to catch up existing legislation with existing practice and to remove what is essentially some red tape that has not been adhered to for some years in any case. I am never happy when we find that government has not been adhering to its own acts in recent years, but I understand the concern here.

Essentially, the current act regulates the building and operation of what are now called transient accommodation facilities, in other words, this act provides for the licensing of all motels, hotels, tourist camps, lodges, outcamps, campgrounds, et cetera, but in practice the Minister of Tourism has not issued such licences for some five years now, and in 1993 the responsibility for licensing these facilities was transferred by Order-in-Council to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Bill 15, in effect, eliminates the licensing requirement for all accommodations other than those that the Minister of Natural Resources has particular concern for, namely hunting lodges, fishing lodges, or outcamps. In effect, that is the only kind of accommodation that would be covered. The definition of what constitutes a lodge is handled through an interdepartmental committee. I spoke with people involved in that and I am satisfied that that seems like an appropriate mechanism.

The one concern that I have, and I will ask the minister to elaborate on this issue in committee. I hope the Minister of Natural Resources will be at that committee, and that is that there do not appear to be any sections dealing with the licensing of guides or what the act calls outfitters. Presumably, it is the quality and the skills of those people on which the quality of the lodge that is being licensed depends, so we will be asking for some clarification about standards for the licensing of guides.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, with those comments, I would call the bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 15. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 54--The Municipal and Various Acts Amendment Act

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr Derkach), Bill 54, The Municipal and Various Acts Amendment Act (Loi concernant les municipalités et modifiant diverses dispositions législatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), who has 11 minutes remaining. Leave? Leave has been denied. And standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona. No? Leave has been denied.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to put a few comments on the record about The Municipal and Various Acts Amendment Act which deals with the governance of all municipalities and cities in this province.

The intent of this bill is to completely update an act which has not been overhauled for close to a century. The bill streamlines municipal government decisions so as to relieve the province of its dealings in municipal affairs while, at the same time, giving the province greater leverage over municipal spending.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I say this, there are major changes involved in this bill and one that affects all municipalities. There was an awful lot of work done prior to passing this bill. There was a committee struck to review the process back in 1983, and many, many meetings were held around the province. Over 200 people made presentations, so as you can tell, there are many issues that are being addressed here, but when we were looking at reviewing this bill and being in contact with municipalities, there were very little comments made by the municipalities. It has only been in this last couple of weeks that municipalities and councils have started to raise concerns with various aspects of the bill. It is only understandable that there will be parts of the bill, in such a large bill, that the people within the councils do not agree with, and they will find some problems with it.

* (1510)

So I would urge this government to recognize that there will always be concerns, and even though they have made major amendments, this will have to be an ongoing process. I am sure that there will be many amendments that will come and many presentations that will come at the committee hearings, but it is one that will have to be ongoing. The government will have to recognize that as each year goes along there will be issues, and I am sure that we will see many amendments brought forward to this legislation as years go on. This would be something that we would expect, to recognize the concerns that are put forth by the many groups across the province.

The major changes of the bill include reducing the number of types of municipalities from five to two, urban and rural, and converting LGDs to urban or rural municipalities. That is one of the areas where there are some concerns. The municipality that I represent, the majority of it is the LGD of Mountain, a council that I served on for many years as a councillor, and they have put forward concerns that they have with the result of this legislation. They are concerned with the financial impact on an LGD being forced to incorporate as a rural municipality, and in the words of the people from the LGD of Mountain and in other LGDs, this will be devastating.

The major issues that cause grave concern are the withdrawal of the grant in aid to LGDs. I am sure you understand that populations within--an LGD is, at most times, a very large area with a very small population. At the present time, the government provides a 50-50 program to help cover the costs of the roads within the LGD. With the shift to a municipality, there will be a loss of this funding, and services on these roads would have to be cut dramatically if provincial funding is withdrawn, eventually resulting in a deterioration of the road system. I think that that is something that we look at.

As a province, we recognize that not everybody has the same tax base, and we have always looked at equalization and providing equality for people across the province and those people who live in sparsely populated areas. By taking away this grant in aid from the LGDs, we will see a deterioration in the quality of services. Also, the next concern that LGDs have raised is the transfer of responsibility of main market roads to municipalities. Again, when you look at a municipality and the amount of roads--I will give you an example of the LGD of Mountain where there are approximately 83 miles of market road. In order to estimate the possible financial impact of transferring main market roads to the LGD, an average cost per road of $852 is what they arrived at by dividing the total of the 50/50 budget over a number of 50/50 roads.

At the rate of $852 per mile, the cost of maintaining these main market roads would be well over $70,000, and again much more than could be expected to bear by the people with a very small tax base. What the result will be is either deterioration in the quality of roads or a dramatic increase in the property tax for the people living in those areas.

The other concern of people living within the LGDs, as a result of this bill, is the transfer of the responsibility of providing social assistance. Again I will use the example of the LGD of Mountain where they were levied close to $20,000 for social assistance in 1995. As they were unable to obtain accurate figures with respect to the costs of the province for the provision of a social assistance to the ratepayers, it is necessary to estimate the potential impact based on rather sketchy information.

At the time of the inquiry, within the LGD there were 69 people on general assistance. The fund ranges from $200 to $300 for a single family and up to $1,000 per family. The amount varies according to the size of the family. Again it is estimated that if this was shifted completely over to the LGD it would be a cost of close to $250,000 annually, again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a level of funding that is virtually impossible for an LGD to carry out.

The other concern is the vast areas of unproductive, vacant Crown land which are exempt from taxation. Again I think this is a concern within this LGD. I only use this as an example. There are over 240,000 acres of Crown land within the LGD. These lands are exempt from taxation, therefore add nothing to the tax base of the district. The district does, however, have to maintain the roads around these vast pockets of nonrevenue-based land.

We are therefore in the opinion that the provincial government should be required to pay grant in lieu of taxes on these lands. That is something that the government should consider. In these large areas where it is the government that owns large tracts of land, it should be considered that there be grants in lieu of taxes. Again, LGDs are the ones where there are large areas of uninhabited land, Crown land, again where the tax base is very small, that there will be a problem.

The final concern that they have put forward is the possible transfer of responsibility of administering LGD lands presently administered by the Crown back to the LGD. The Crown currently administers a considerable amount of land owned by the LGD of Mountain and charges 10 percent for the rental value of these services. If these lines have to be administered locally, the costs will be considerable.

These are the concerns of the LGDs, and I hope that when we get to committee, we can discuss these in more detail and look at ways to address the concerns so that we do not create disparity between people who are living in LGDs and people who are living in larger areas where there are higher populations. In areas where there is a low tax base, combined with geographic conditions, the potential increase in costs and loss of revenues could decrease the ability for this LGD and other LGDs to operate at a level and provide adequate service for the people. Because people live in areas that are sparsely populated, they should not have to deal with poor road systems, should not have to have poor drainage systems, and the government has to recognize that in these remote areas there is a responsibility of government to bring some equity between the people.

That is the concern that is faced by some of the LGDs, and I am sure the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has heard concerns from others. I hope that when we get to committee we will be able to rectify these problems or discuss them further, or, as we go along and see that these problems are overwhelming for these areas, that the government is prepared to put forward further amendments to deal with this.

Another issue in the bill is that an elector who is a property owner or a resident in Manitoba may now be a candidate in a municipal election. Traditionally, it has been that if you are a landowner, you may vote in the area but you could not run for municipal council. This is now changed, and there has been some concern raised by some municipalities that if people do not actually live in the area but are landowners, they could have a different interest. For example, somebody might own land in an area, but not live there during the winter months, so if he or she is on council, they may not be that interested in keeping roads open or keeping the roads maintained at a level where they will not deteriorate during the spring months. So that person's interests will be a little different from a person who lives in a municipality full time, and it is one that has been brought forward by a few people.

* (1520)

Again, when I have talked to people on councils, they have not thought this to be a big concern, but as one that has been cited by a few municipalities as having the risk. I guess it would be a bigger risk in areas where you have a large number of summer cottagers whose interests are more in providing services during the summer months but they are not so interested in perhaps winter maintenance of the roads or keeping roads open. So there is a bit of a risk that is there by opening up the candidacy to people who are not residents but who are property owners in the area.

Municipalities will have new powers to promote economic development and share taxes and services with other municipalities. As well, there will be greater control over financial administrations and, in particular, taxation. The council structure, as well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will also change in that it must have a minimum of five or a maximum of 11 councillors. Here is one change as well that is quite different: now the head of council or a reeve in the municipality or mayor in a city will now be able to vote on motions, and it will be required to have a chief administrative officer appointed to council who will report to the minister.

Again, this is quite a change, because it was always the role of the reeve or mayor to chair meetings and act impartial on issues and only vote if it was necessary with a tie vote. Now the person at head of council will have the ability to vote and, certainly, that has not caused much concern.

The changes, there will now be more cities in Manitoba because the city will now consist of 7,500 people, and that is a change. I guess my honourable friend from Dauphin, with this legislation passed, will live in the city of Dauphin rather than the town of Dauphin. I am not sure what the implications of that will be but, certainly, it will put the towns of larger population on the map. I think that will certainly not be a disadvantage to those towns of at least 75 people--7,500 people. My goodness, if it was 75 people even the village of Cowan would be classified, but that is not going to happen; 7,500 people will now be a city, and I do not think that is a disadvantage. It certainly will probably enhance and it will help the province of Manitoba to say that we can have more cities in Manitoba. I understand that now with this passing, we will have seven cities in Manitoba. I do not see that as a major problem.

In the bill also, there is an increased public access to municipal documents. Almost all meetings are to be open to the public and public hearings and public meetings processes to be clarified. There will be a new municipal Ombudsman.

The part of opening up public meetings more to the public, I see that as an advantage. I really do not see why councillors should have to have private meetings unless they are discussing issues of personnel and things that must be held discretely. But there have been problems in the past where it has been difficult to get access to documents and meeting minutes but certainly not in the municipality where I come from. I can tell you that at the present time almost every council, the LGD of Mountain and the R.M. of Swan River, the Town of Swan River, most of those publish their minutes in the local paper, so I do not see that as a problem. Certainly, in areas where there have been difficulties with having access to council minutes, this is a plus and one that we do not see as a problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the issues that was raised with me in one of the municipalities was that the municipalities will have more flexibility and be able to operate more efficiently. However, at the present time, the department does the audits for municipalities, and now they are given an option as to whether or not they want to do that audit, or else they can go to an outside auditor, and one of the municipalities saw that was a bit of a concern. However, the department will continue to supervise and monitor financial matters to safeguard a strong financial position for Manitoba municipalities. It was raised at one of the municipalities as a concern, but mostly the concern was that this was such a big bill and people would have to wait until the bill was enacted, and they would see a little bit more how it was operating.

There is another section of the bill that says that where a municipality is in financial difficulty it must submit to the supervisor, by an officer of the minister, their financial plan and proposals and proposed taxation and shall comply with the instruction of the supervisor. A municipality in danger of insolvency can be put into receivership by the minister. So there is still the department overseeing the activities of the municipalities, and those that are not handling their finances properly can still be brought under the supervision of the department and be dealt with and given the necessary guidelines that they need.

This can happen. Many times councillors do not all have the expertise, and they may have run into difficulties with their staffing. They need the supports of the Department of Rural Development, and it is right that there should be that supervision available.

* (1530)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the section that has caused concern and discussion around the province is a proposal for annexation. Annexation need only come from council without solicitation for public support. The setting up of a framework for amalgamation and annexation may create problems for the city of Winnipeg which is already losing part of its tax base when you see breakaways like the community of Headingley. As we look at having more cities in the province, people looking at annexing from councils to improve their tax base, we have to be sure that this section of the legislation does not create problems for urban centres versus rural centres.

The exercising of by-law powers includes dealing with any development activity or industry in different ways including establishment of classes and systems of licensing and permits. The impact of this power will depend on the strength of the provincial legislation in areas of environment, workplace health and safety and labour laws.

Again I want to say that as we see more and more economic development in rural Manitoba and opportunities for industry growth and looking for value-added industries and particularly increase in livestock production, we have to be sure that the proper laws and by-laws are put in place to ensure that all people who live in rural communities have the opportunity to benefit from economic development but at the same time we do not sacrifice one group of people who are living in a rural centre against those who are living in an urban centre.

Under this legislation, economic development grants cannot directly or indirectly reduce municipal or school taxes. Under this legislation there will be the opportunity to raise money for economic development, but it must not be at the risk of reducing municipal or school taxes.

In terms of taxation, a municipality may apply local improvement or special levy taxes on the basis of property value, rent value or unit value, frontage areas or any amount for each business or parcel of land. The range of options may not lead to inequitable distribution of taxes. Supplementary taxes may be added after the tax roll for the year has been completed. Where a municipality owes money to a creditor and must borrow that money, a municipality must repay the borrowed money through taxation, so there are safeguards put in this legislation in this section.

Another area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the area that is addressed in here and that is the role of the Land Titles Office. The role of the Land Titles Office has been removed from the sales tax process, where the owner's right to redeem property and the municipalities prior right of purchase will no longer exist. Where a parcel of land is required for local improvement the owner must give it as a gift or give up part of his claim for compensation.

Another area that is of concern and one that was raised with some of the municipalities that I talked about, talked to during discussion on this bill, is the liability. Under this bill the liability of the municipalities is quite limited. For example, there is little or no liability for failing to conduct a building inspection, for loss or damage on a municipal road or for failing to do something that it has been mandated to do in good faith or not to do.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

So, Madam Speaker, there are issues that are within this bill that cause some concern but, on the whole, I want to say that we support the bill. It is time that The Municipal Act was looked at. Certainly a bill that has been in place for close to or almost a hundred years should be reviewed. I think that there has been a lot of discussion, but I also think that because it is such a large bill it is very difficult to pick out and understand all the detail in it. Certainly we will look to hear what municipalities have to say as they make their presentations. There have been a few issues raised by UMM and MAUM with respect to this bill, and I am sure that they will be making presentations.

I am sure that, it is my understanding in fact that there have been several of these issues pointed out to the minister, and we will be seeing amendments brought forward to the committee stage. But I guess what I want to also say is that the government will have to be ongoing, continue to recognize that there will probably be amendments that have to be followed up on in the following year, and I urge you to do that.

Again, outlining the concerns that I have, and that one is the potential loss of revenue to rural Manitoba, with a loss of the special assistance that has traditionally been paid to LGDs. This will be a large loss and a large burden to the people that live within the LGDs. If there is not a way defined, how we are going to provide those extra services within the LGD, we will see a deterioration in the quality of life for those people.

The limitation on economic growth in rural communities set by the estimated expenditure formula, which does not include borrowing or having a watchdog of the minister enforce this formula.

Madam Speaker, there is the potential mishmash of development in industry by-laws in the absence of strong provincial legislation. As I said, we hope that we will see growth in rural Manitoba. There have been changes and there are some parts of the province that will see growth but, if we do not have strong by-laws, we run the risk of setting one group of people against the other, and we have seen that. For example, we have just recently seen it in the Interlake with the expansion of the hog industry in that area. Without proper guidelines or proper enforcement, we have seen one group of people in the community opposed to the other.

So, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to let this bill go to committee and hear the presentations and bring forward amendments that we have heard from other people. With those few words, I will close my comments.

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak about The Municipal Acts and Various Amendments Act, Bill 54. This bill is as a result of extensive consultation throughout the province with almost every stakeholder that would have something to say about The Municipal Act. I agree with the government that The Municipal Act, as it currently stands, is an unwieldy document that does not reflect today's realities and, in principle, agree with many of the changes that are being proposed in the act.

I would urge the government to listen to our concerns when the bill gets to committee stage. I believe that the amendments will be forthcoming at committee stage and I hope that the government will be open to listening to those amendments so that The Municipal Act can begin its life as well thought out and well put together as possible. The Liberal Party supports the principle of producing a new Municipal Act, and we will be very interested in what the committee hearings engender when this bill goes to committee.

I however do have major concerns in one area of The Municipal Act, namely, within the section that deals with the formation and dissolution, amalgamation and annexation of lands that are currently within the city of Winnipeg boundaries. My reading of Bill 54 shows that in order to form, dissolve, amalgamate or annex lands in the province of Manitoba, whether they be the municipalities or the city of Winnipeg, there are three possible scenarios.

One scenario is a scenario where one municipality wants to form, dissolve, amalgamate or annex portions or all of another municipality or a municipality wants to be created in its entirety.

* (1540)

The second scenario is if the City of Winnipeg wants to annex or amalgamate land outside the city of Winnipeg. The process and procedure for that part for the city in this situation is exactly that of municipality to municipality. In Section 4(2), the city is treated as a municipality for the purpose of annexing lands outside the city of Winnipeg. So that is the second scenario.

The third scenario is the one that is causing me and causing members of City Council in the City of Winnipeg some serious concerns, that is, if a municipality outside the city of Winnipeg wishes to annex land that currently is in the city of Winnipeg boundaries. There is a very different procedure in place for that third scenario. It is not only a different procedure, Madam Speaker, but it is a very much shortened procedure. The procedure for the first two scenarios is very clearly laid out in 10 or 15 pages of Bill 54. We do not, at this point, upon first reading of this, have any problems with this. As a matter of fact, it appears to us to be a clarification of the process and simplification of the process. The proposals to amend or dissolve or annex or amalgamate municipality to municipality or the City of Winnipeg to amalgamate or annex a portion of land can be initiated by the minister, which is a new thing in the act by the council of a municipality or by a petition signed by at least 30 percent of the affected municipalities.

The city of Winnipeg, under Bill 54, is open to rating by any of its surrounding municipalities who may wish to amend their own land and take in parts of the city of Winnipeg. There is virtually no protection for the city of Winnipeg. But in the section dealing with the city of Winnipeg, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may refer the matter to the Municipal Board and may request the board to consider and make special recommendations on matters that cabinet considers relevant to propose alteration.

So cabinet can decide even after a study has been done that there are certain elements that should be looked at by a municipal board. The cabinet does not even have to take this proposal to the Municipal Board. A huge chunk of the city of Winnipeg land could be annexed to a rural municipality with, if they are all present and accounted for, 18 cabinet ministers making the determination, with no input from the people who are mostly affected, i.e., the residents in the city of Winnipeg. Because there is so much legislation that has to be drafted this spring and it is such a complex piece of legislation, perhaps governments simply made an oversight. I am hoping that the oversight will be addressed in committee hearings, so we will be welcoming this bill to proceed to committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 54. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 12--The Barbers Repeal and Hairdressers Repeal Act

Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading Bill 12, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training, The Barbers Repeal and Hairdressers Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les coiffeurs et la Loi sur les coiffeurs pour dames), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I am glad to be able to have the opportunity to put a few words on the record about this particular act. The Barbers Repeal and Hairdressers Repeal Act is a very short act. It contains three sections which essentially cancel, repeal The Barbers Act and The Hairdressers Act.

What the government proposes to do, as I understand from the minister's speech in introducing this, is to eliminate these two particular acts and to substitute regulations in other areas of her department, in Apprenticeship and in Workplace Safety and Health areas.

I think the basic problem for any legislation--and by this I include all members of the Legislature not just side of the House--the basic difficulty for any member of the House in looking at this bill is what will replace it? We are being asked essentially to--I do not know what the right analogy is, but perhaps cut off our right hand and believe that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is going to replace it and regraft it in some magical manner in a way that will be acceptable.

There are probably other analogies I could use, but that one I think perhaps gets to the heart of the matter because the minister is cutting out both of these bills and both of the provisions for training, for regulation, for apprenticeship and in some cases for health and safety concerns that were contained in those acts.

I have spoken to a number of people in the industries in this area. I have spoken to teachers who deal in this area as well, and there is a great deal of interest. It is certainly true, as the minister said, that there is desire to change both of these bills, and we are quite willing to accept that. There has been a great deal of interest I think for the past four years in trying to find new ways of pulling together regulations for apprenticeship and for training and for licensing for people in an industry which has changed considerably since these bills were passed. It is unlikely now that people are trained exclusively as hairdressers or as barbers. They tend much more frequently, not only in Manitoba but across the country, to be trained as a hair stylist and to be able to work in salons which cater to both male and female.

There is also a growing body of services known as personal services or as esthetician services, which at the time these bills were passed were not particularly well established as businesses, but indeed they are across the country a growing area of business. It is one that has been informally governed by parts of The Barbers and Hairdressers Act and by add-on regulations from time to time. In accordance with these changes, there has also been new curriculum developed both in the public schools which teach this area as well as in the many private schools and private colleges across the province. So it is an area that has been changing. I think it is useful for the minister to have brought this to our attention. I think it is a good idea, in conjunction with the industry and with the educational facilities, to begin to look at the changes that we need in apprenticeship and in training and in health and safety provisions in this area.

Every one of us, at some point or other, does go to a hairdresser or to a barber. Some people perhaps much more so than in the past, but it is something that does affect most members of the public. So this is not a bill affecting a small number of people; it is a large industry. It has one of the largest areas of apprenticeship in the province, and it is one which affects the safety and concerns of a broad section of the public.

I would like to congratulate the minister for looking at these bills. I know that the trade committee has been looking at the regulations, the proposed regulations, for a number of years. Indeed, some of them have told me that the regulations have been under discussion for the last four years. I know that in recent months the Trades Advisory Committee has been looking more intensively at specific regulations. I know that even in the last few weeks those meetings have been carried on and the draft regulations have been put before them and before other members of the industry, and this is a very useful procedure. I understand that this goes on in many areas of government drafting, that those kinds of proposals and draft regulations should come before those kinds of committees to get the widest range of advice.

The difficulty, Madam Speaker, for any member of this Legislature is to cut off their right hand and to imagine that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) is going to regraft it to perfection. The problem with this legislation is that we do not know what will replace it. I have tried to find out. I began this odyssey in the summer by talking to people in the industry. I then, in the middle of August, phoned the deputy minister for post-secondary education and said, look, this is a bit unusual. You are asking us to approve a bill that eliminates a whole series of important regulations in education apprenticeship, health and safety, and you are not giving us any idea of what will replace it. No sensible person would agree to those conditions, and I would anticipate that we are all sensible people in this Legislature and would expect that there would be some discussion of the principles of the regulations.

The deputy minister said to me, well, that is something you are going to have to ask the minister on. So I wrote to the minister. On September 3, I wrote to the minister and said there are concerns in the community that I have heard from barbers, in particular, but also from others who are concerned about what is going to replace these bills, when they will replace them, and what the principles will be that underline those regulations. I asked the minister for some discussion, the opportunity to discuss or to look at or to examine some of the principles behind the new regulations. I did not anticipate that the minister would give me the regulations. That is not a normal procedure in this House, although perhaps it would be a useful one, but I did ask for a discussion or something that I could look at on the principles which the minister was going to use in addressing the changes in this bill, but I did not receive them. It did not surprise me. This is not a government which is known for accountability or for its willingness to share information or to provide information to all members of the Legislature, so I was not surprised.

* (1550)

Even to get that letter, I think I had to phone the other deputy minister to say, look, it has been two weeks and this letter has not been answered. But when the minister did answer the letter, she did say that one of the principles that had concerned me--that was the issue of the grandfathering of existing barbers' licences--she said that that had been recognized and that the government would be incorporating some principle of grandfathering of existing barber and hairdresser licences into the new bill, or into the new regulations, I should say.

I think that is very good. I intend to table that letter at the committee hearings because otherwise there is nothing on the public record that suggests what the minister intends to do in replacing this bill. It is important I think to maintain that public record and for a minister to be accountable to many of those people, particularly outside Winnipeg. Many of those people are now going to be brought under the provisions of regulations, which most of them have had no input and most of them really have not had the opportunity to discuss them in a broad public context. Many of them are concerned about the status of their licence and the status of the future of their particular salon, because many of the holders of licences are also salon owners and small business owners. So this is their livelihood that we are talking about.

I was not surprised. Well, no, that would not be true. I was not surprised, but I was disappointed that the minister did not see fit to discuss with the public, with the opposition, with the Legislature, the principles, just the principles, behind which she would be developing the regulations for the new barbers and hairdressers regulations. As I say, I was not surprised because this has not been the most accountable government in my experience. It is a government which refuses to be accountable for the millions of dollars, and I say millions advisably, which have been poured into the Workforce 2000 fund.

In the region of $8 million a year has been given to private companies, and the government refuses to provide information on the educational plans that those companies have followed. I have asked for this a number of times. I have asked for it through Freedom of Information. I have appealed the denial that I have been given on Freedom of Information and the government has been able to continue to pour $8 million a year into Workforce 2000 without any accountability for the educational plans.

Yet, this is a government which prides itself on accountability on public education, which wants to have accountability in curriculum but only from the public sector, which wants to have accountability in so many areas of accounting procedures, but when it is called to account itself, called to provide information on the principles which affect the livelihood of so many people across Manitoba, there is a complete silence from this government.

The government really feels it need not answer, and one need not look any further than Question Period today and the disdainful and arrogant manner in which this government dealt with questions. I thought it was quite striking. I was really appalled at the attitude of the government to so many of the questions and, in a sense, it really concentrated in a short period of time the kind of attitude which we have seen growing over the last few weeks, the demonstration of this over the last few weeks by this government.

It is no wonder, Madam Speaker, that there is a growing disdain for politics amongst the general public. When people turn on their television and they show a government time after time which refuses to answer questions, which deals in name-calling of people who dare to answer questions, then I think you have a problem. The cynicism which this government deals with, with public information and accountability, is something which does not, I think, stop at the borders or the doors of this House. It is something which has a much larger public impact, and I urge the government to consider that.

Madam Speaker, we have a number of concerns about this bill. In the absence of any information it is difficult to phrase the questions, but I hope to do so at the committee hearings. There are questions of health concerns, the area of personal services, particularly manicuring, but other areas, where there are metal tools which are used, then it becomes very important, I think, that we know both in principle and preferably in specifics the issues of regulation that the minister is going to be developing.

I am concerned about the impact of the possible regulations, what might be in the minister's mind about curriculum and the number of hours that are to be required for apprenticeship and the order in which those hours are to be served, and the way in which those hours are to be related to the actual practical apprenticeship on the shop floor. Those are very serious concerns for the hundreds, and there literally are hundreds of apprentices in hairdressing and barbering across the province. They are of concern to the public schools as well as to the private colleges. There are a number of public schools which teach hairdressing and barbering and manicuring, and if the government intends to change the order of curriculum, if it intends to change the number of hours of curriculum, if it intends to change the relationship of formal curriculum to the practical curriculum, then indeed it does have impacts upon school timetabling and upon the opportunities that are available for young people in public schools.

It also has an impact upon the nature of apprenticeship, and in that case I think there are people again across the province, the small-business people, who are the owners of the salon and who are the journey people who supervise the new apprentices. Those kinds of regulations will have an impact upon how they run their business.

We were interested in the inspection of apprenticeships. We know that very little inspection of apprenticeships has gone on in this province for many years now, been a reduction in inspection. I do not know, for example, how many barbers and hairdressers we have who have been inspected in the last number of years. We do not know that. There is no reporting system for that. We do not know how the apprenticeship system has been or will be inspected. Again, on the perspective of both the private and the public colleges, it is important that there be a strong link between the formal written and academic curriculum and the practical curriculum that takes place on the shop floor. There need to be strong links between those educational institutions, private and public, as well as the small businesses, the owners and the supervisors of the apprenticeships. We have no idea whether the minister is going to change that. We do not know how she is going to change it because the minister has refused now through her department and in person through letter on three occasions to offer any information at all.

We are concerned about the grandfathering of people who have barbers' licences. If barbers' licences are to be repealed, then those who have existing barbers' licences or who perhaps have come from other countries and are working as barbers, then their livelihood is in jeopardy and they are very much concerned. Several of them, in fact, have contacted a number of my colleagues. So I was pleased, and I will repeat again for the minister's benefit how pleased we were that she put in the principle in her letter to me that she would maintain the principle of grandfathering of existing barbers' licences. We have no way, of course, of knowing how that will be done or when it will be done, and I hope to raise that with the minister at committee and to table, as the only piece of public evidence that we have, that this is the government's intention. I will table the letter that she wrote to me.

We are also concerned, Madam Speaker, about training. Many of the sections of the existing barbers and hairdressers acts deal with the hours of training that are required for an apprentice and for a journeyman and for the licensing in the opening of a salon. We are concerned about how those will be changed.

It is clear that the government wants to change it, it is clear that the industry wants to change it. Without any evidence, without any information, without any accountability on the part of this government, we have no way of knowing whether in fact the government is going in the same direction as the industry wants. I think that would be crucial.

* (1600)

One of the most important elements--not the only one, but one of the most important elements--is whether the format of apprenticeship, the format of training and the format of licensing are acceptable to existing schools, colleges, and businesses. So the minister's refusal to provide evidence is an important part of our concerns with this legislation.

Madam Speaker, we would all like to believe the minister when she says, trust me. But there have been so many opportunities for us to trust this minister where, in fact, I think we have been so disappointed. I had hoped, for example, today for an independent review of the special needs education proposals, but we find what the minister means by an independent review is a review which is staffed 50 percent by her own civil servants, which I do not think is what the general public views as an independent review.

I think many of the families had trusted the minister to have public hearings, to provide the opportunity for them to speak publicly to each other, to have a public conversation across Manitoba about the needs of special education and the difficulties that both parents and families were--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member that debate at second reading is supposed to be relevant to the bill, and the bill, to the best of my knowledge, has nothing to do with special needs. The bill is The Barbers Repeal and Hairdressers Repeal Act.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I accept your ruling, but what I was talking about was trust and the issue of whether we could trust this minister, because the issue in this bill is that we are being asked to trust this minister. She is not providing evidence of what regulations are going to be made. We are asked to eliminate a whole area of a bill, the regulation of barbers and hairdressers, the regulation of training and apprenticeship, and the minister is essentially saying, trust me. So I think it is relevant to discuss whether or not we can in fact trust this minister.

Madam Speaker, I think we might want to look at some of the parallels. For example, how would the minister deal with a school board which requested that it be allowed to drop a particular protocol or policy and said to the minister, well, trust me, next year we might develop another one and we might put it into public form, we might have public discussion on this and formal written regulations but, really, Madam Minister, you are going to have to trust us on this one. Well, no minister, no sensible minister, would accept that. That is not accountability. But that, in fact, is what this minister is expecting the people of Manitoba to do.

I want to close by drawing to the attention of all members of the Legislature that this is a bill which affects all members, that this is a bill that affects people right across Manitoba, in rural Manitoba as well as in the city of Winnipeg. It is a bill which has implications for health, it is a bill which has implications for training and for apprenticeship and for small business, and it is a bill which is asking us fundamentally to trust the Minister of Education to provide regulations and principles of regulations that are in accordance with the best interests of all Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, we do hope that, we do expect that, but we are very disappointed as we move to committee on this bill that the minister has not yet seen fit to bring forward those principles of regulation.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Bill 49--The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act

Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 49, the Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing, firstly, in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who has 24 minutes remaining.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): When I left off the other day, I was talking about the centralizing power of this bill and of this government, and how they have abolished local decision making under Bill 49 and basically abolished all the boards. We are going to be left with nothing but a mission statement and an advisory capability and the responsibility for volunteers. I was drawing a couple of parallels, and the first one I drew was this government's abolition of 98 locally controlled housing authorities and the setting up of one province-wide Manitoba Housing Authority with a government-appointed board of political friends.

The other example that was given to me by the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) was Winnipeg Child and Family Services where we had I believe four regional agencies all with their own board elected from the community. This government chose, for reasons that never proved to be true, to abolish those and set up one city-wide Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency, initially with all appointed board members, and now moving gradually and slowly to having some elected board members. So there are parallels for this government in terms of their desire to centralize and control boards of organizations, and probably Bill 49 is the best example of this, because the largest number of locally controlled boards of hospitals and other institutions are covered in this legislation.

I would also like to correct the record, since last time I mentioned my Conservative opponent in Burrows and said that he had been hired as staff to a regional health board, but in fact he was appointed as a board member. I appreciate the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) correcting me on this, because I do not like to have wrong information left on the record. I indirectly complimented the member for Lac du Bonnet for taking care of a defeated Tory candidate in this way by appointing him to the board. They are certainly taking care of their own on these boards, as was pointed out in Question Period today, and ignoring the needs of people in the community.

One of the examples was in northern Manitoba where 50 percent of the population are aboriginal but only one board member is aboriginal, and I believe only one member is a woman. So not only are they ignoring demographics of the aboriginal population but the demographics of women in that area as well.

Now I would like to continue and talk about the commissioner who will be appointed by cabinet. The Manitoba Health Organizations have sent a very interesting letter addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), which all of us were given copies, and this organization has a lot of concerns about Bill 49 and the structures. They have detailed recommendations on changes that should be made to the Regional Health Authorities bill, and one of them concerns the authority of the commissioner, whom they point out has no public accountability.

One of the other concerns that they have is that the commissioner will get involved in labour relations issues. They believe that labour relations issues should be assigned to the Manitoba Labour Board which is an existing and proven mechanism for the resolution of labour relations issues. We agree with that. There is already an existing mechanism, and this power is not needed by the commissioner and should not be given to the commissioner. I also noticed that the Manitoba Health Organizations have pointed out in their analysis of Bill 49 that the commissioner is exempt from requirements of The Manitoba Evidence Act, and they described this as being very autocratic. We would have to agree. They question, and I question, what possible reason would there be not to post particulars of hearings or inquiries, which is also part of Bill 49, apparently?

So we see that there is a commissioner, the commissioner has a lot of power, and we have concerns about that. We have concerns about the Manitoba labour relations procedure not being followed and the commissioner being given power in this area.

* (1610)

We believe that the existing rights of workers to choose their own union should be upheld and that this legislation should not override The Labour Relations Act. This bill, as our speakers have pointed out again and again, and as Manitoba Health Organizations have pointed out, gives a lot of power to the minister. One of these powers is the ability to approve all the plans of regional health authorities. So the power given to the minister is almost dictatorial in this case, in spite of making the regional health boards responsible for decisions that are being made and giving them less money but a lot of responsibility. Ultimately, the minister has much more power than the health authorities, but, I think, much less accountability, because, as I said before, whenever we ask questions in the Legislature, the minister is going to deflect the criticisms and deflect the questions and say, well, ask the regional health authority why they made such and such a decision. Yet all of their plans and many other parts of the health authorities will have to have approval by the minister.

We are concerned as well in Bill 49 that there will be no provision for maintaining a nonprofit health care system. Regional health authorities will be given the power or the authority to charge direct fees for individual or categories of service. So we think that this bill opens the door for user fees. Now, user fees are something that have been discussed by the public ever since medicare came into being on a national level in Canada, I believe, starting, first of all, in the province of Saskatchewan in 1962, I think, and then, by the federal government, I believe it would be about 1966. In spite of the fact that we do not have user fees for most kinds of medical services, when you knock on doors between elections or during elections, or when you talk to the public, user fees frequently come up, partly I suppose because it is being pushed by people in the community, but partly because of public concern about services that are being deinsured and because people are concerned about the fiscal capacity of government to pay for the existing services. So user fees seem to be a logical alternative. The public seems to think that they would have a deterrent effect on misuse of services, but unfortunately there are a lot of myths around about what user fees would do and whether or not they would be a deterrent.

I have read research, for example, that shows that user fees are not a deterrent, because what happens is that affluent people who have the ability to pay will still go to see their doctor, whether it is necessary or not, because a user fee does not deter them, but it does deter low-income and poor people from seeing a doctor. Now, in many cases, when people use the example of user fees, they say, well, what about a charge of $5? I mean, that would be reasonable, it would not be a hardship for people and it would provide the government and the system with some money. Well, that approach is very naive because, when governments have looked at user fees, and I understand that at least one province in Canada looked seriously at user fees as maybe a budget decision, they considered premiums which still exist in a couple of provinces in Canada, and the premiums would have been in the area of $300 to $400 three or four times a year. So people are kidding themselves if they think that a user fee would be $5 for a visit to the doctor, and of course the costs of collecting user fees are much higher than what a $5 fee would recover.

There would probably be exemptions. Probably people who are of low income would not have to pay a user fee, so then you get rid of the idea of universality and then what happens is, the middle class and the upper classes resent low-income and working people who are exempt from having to pay this fee. That results in all kinds of problems, as we have seen in other examples in Canada where universality has been taken away and a kind of means test has been put into place.

In fact, I was just recently talking to a reporter about the child tax benefit and the federal Auditor's Report commenting that there has been something like $20 million a year in overpayments so now they are having to set up an overpayment recovery system, which is probably very expensive. When you get rid of universality, there are other administrative costs and overpayment problems and fraud problems that then you have to hire more civil servants to police the system, so a user-fee system is definitely not a good idea. People are naive to think that it would be $5 per visit to the doctor, for example. There would probably be premiums and it would probably be in the area of hundreds of dollars.

The Manitoba Health Organizations have commented on this as well, and they said that in Section 25, this is but one of many references to the charging of fees for unnamed services, and they say, we do not support the deinsurance of health services and do not believe that such an important issue can be left to the regulations. They have put in a proposal which makes some sense. They say, at a minimum, the act should state that fees shall not be charged for categories of services listed under Section 3(2).

Then they give examples: health education, health promotion and disease prevention, communicable disease control, public health services, social services, home care services, long-term care residential services, rehabilitative services, chronic care services, acute care services, palliative care services, diagnostic services and emergency services.

So they have a very specific recommendation. [interjection] The minister would like to put words in my mouth, but I am not going to let him do that. The minister is missing the point of what I am saying, which is that--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling the members to order.

We also have a concern that the reason that this government has allowed for user fees in the act is that they are going to cut major amounts of money out of the health budget for rural Manitoba. In fact the figure that we were given was $99 million over the next two years. What are the regional health authorities going to do, and what can they do? What does this legislation enable them to do? Well, it enables them to charge user fees. So if they have their budget cut by the provincial government, how can they make up that money? They can make it up by charging user fees, so there is a logical reason as to why this is in the bill.

We also have some concerns about the Winnipeg superboards, one board for hospitals and one board for nursing homes. We are not the only ones that have concerns about that. The faith-based institutions have concerns about that, and so they have begun a lobbying campaign and I understand they may even be quite successful in this. Certainly, the faith-based hospitals and nursing homes are concerned, and they are starting to encourage their supporters to write letters to the editor and to write letters to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and we brought this up in Question Period the other day.

Just the other day, I talked to a board member from a faith-based nursing home about some of their concerns. I have talked to people who have family at a faith-based nursing home, and the comment that was made to me is that they are like a family at this institution because, well, many of the family members provide supports and services to their family members and their loved ones who are in the institution that used to be provided by nurses and other staff and are no longer being provided. So they are very involved as volunteers and as family members and as caregivers.

Now, what is going to happen if they do not have their own board and they lose the ability to make decisions locally, and if people do not like the way the institution is being run? Then they are going to lose the services of these volunteers, because people are not going to feel a sense of ownership. They are not going to feel a sense of attachment to their local institution. I know that this happened with housing authority boards. I remember talking to someone in Deloraine or some other community where a volunteer board member used to walk through the residence at night, they used to plant flowers, they used to trim the trees, they used to provide all kinds of volunteer services to the government free of charge. What happens when you no longer have a local board? People do not feel the same kind of attachment. [interjection]

As the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) says, it is not going to be there anymore. Of course, the member for St. Boniface should be very concerned. We will expect that he will speak for 30 minutes on this bill because it affects St. Boniface Hospital, and so, of course, the member for St. Boniface would be concerned. We look forward to his 30-minute speech on this Bill 49.

The other group of institutions that are concerned that I have spoken to have to do with community health centres. I belong to one, Nor'West Co-op Health and Social Services, and I talked to the executive director there. Their concern is really not unique. It is shared by many other nonprofit community health boards and centres. In Winnipeg, for example, we have Mount Carmel Clinic. We have a number of nonprofit clinics who have community-elected boards in most cases, some of them organized as nonprofit organizations, some as co-operatives. What is going to happen to these communities, to these health clinics, to these health centres? Well, the first and most obvious thing is that they are going to lose their ability to make local decisions because they are going to be run by a superboard, and their board will probably be left to do things like run the volunteers and send out a mission statement.

* (1620)

So, basically, they are going to be powerless. They will have no role in setting important policies. Why would anyone run for a board like that? They will become totally advisory. Not only will they be only advisory, but they will lose an important role in decision making in these institutions. I think it is important that the community be part of decision making and setting policy for a nonprofit or co-op board.

Just to use Nor'West as an example. They are located adjacent to public housing with a large number of people on social assistance, a large number of aboriginal people. They are located adjacent to a housing co-op, and they are located close to single-family detached housing. So they have three very different communities and members and users of their health clinic, but they have taken a particular interest and responsibility to responding to the needs of low-income people in their midst. So, for example, they have tried to hire staff to meet those needs. Their users, all of their members, are going to be disempowered by this legislation, and they are concerned. Will they get the funding to have an abuse councillor? Will they get funding for some of their special programs or will it all be centralized or will they be referred to large hospitals or larger clinics instead of in their own community? They have had some very creative things there. They have a staff person who has been involved in a lot of community development. In fact, they won, I believe, a national award for healthy communities, and it was students at a local school who drew pictures and illustrated what they thought a healthy community would look like.

They have also started food bingo for people, to educate people. The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is listening intently here, and he should because he has a food bank in Killarney. His business is across the street, and the good people in Killarney tell me that he has never stepped a foot in the food bank. So I would recommend that he do so. I have been in the food bank, and I would recommend that he talk to the volunteers who run the food bank in Killarney and find out about the issues in his community and why people use the food bank in Killarney, a fairly affluent community. He would learn that it is not just people on social assistance that are forced to use the food bank in Killarney.

Of course, we know that food banks basically are a form of charity, and at places like Nor'West Co-op they have got very involved in community development and social justice issues. One aspect of self-help that they were promoting is that, instead of just handing out groceries, as many places do, they have conducted food bingo, which is a game that teaches nutrition; and, instead of winning money, people take home groceries. It is very popular, it is educational, and it is a good idea. It is a good example of the kinds of things that can happen in small community-controlled health centres.

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

We are concerned that kind of local input and local control might disappear entirely under Bill 49. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for these and many other reasons, we in our caucus are opposed to this legislation, and we hope that the government might listen to the public, especially at the committee stage, and listen to the many submissions that they are going to get and the submissions that they have already received, for example, by the Manitoba Health Organizations, and that they would seriously consider amendments to improve this legislation and take out the authoritarian and centralizing and draconian parts of it and make it more democratic, more fair, and listen to the people of Manitoba instead of offloading all their problems to another layer of bureaucracy. Thank you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)? [agreed]

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to announce that the Committee on Economic Development will meet on Thursday, October 10, by leave, concurrently with the House in order to consider the reports of Venture Manitoba Tours. So we will require leave.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? Is leave granted then? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to call the Committee on Law Amendments for Monday, October 7, at 7:30 p.m., to consider Bills 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 38 and 300. [interjection] No, it does not. I checked already.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Law Amendments then for Monday, October 7, 1996, at 7:30, Bills 8, 9, 10, 13, 20, 38 and 300? Okay. Economic Development, Thursday, October 10, 1996, at ten o'clock, Venture Manitoba. Correct? Okay.

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is Thursday, October 10 at 2:30 p.m., concurrently with the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: At 2:30 p.m. then on October 10. Thank you for that correction.

Mr. Ernst: Concurrently with the House for which leave--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Concurrently with the House. That is why we had leave, and leave has been granted. I thank the honourable minister for that.

* * *

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to also speak on Bill 49, a bill that is very important and one that is going to affect many people in rural Manitoba.

I want to look back at the reason for this bill. This bill came out of The Action Plan that was put forward by the Northern and Rural Health Advisory committee that was established by the Department of Health to look at health services in rural and northern Manitoba. When the recommendations first came forward we were concerned with the number of regions that were put forward and how the boundaries were drawn. I speak now from my constituency. There was a concern that the Swan River health area was combined with the whole Parklands, and we made an effort to have the government recognize that that was a unique area. The government would not set aside another area in that area but, not surprisingly, in other parts of the province, in southern Manitoba, where there is representation by Conservative members, where there was some conflict about the size or the description of the regions, they were able to establish new regional health authorities in those areas of the province.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill is a bill that is causing great concern for many people across the province. The first concern arose when we had the appointments of the boards. Although we do not know, the minister will not let us know, has not released the names of the people who are on the boards, the regional health boards are already in operation. There is no legislation for them to operate under. Anyway, we were disappointed when we found out, not from the government but from the public, who the people were on the board. This, in fact, as my colleague from The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) said the other day, seems to be the opportunity to reward past Tory candidates and Tory members. Rather than looking for a balance of people across the province, people who have interests in health care, we are seeing appointments from Conservative supporters, and that is very disappointing.

I am also disappointed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the number of women who are on this board. Women are more than half the population of this province, but for some reason the government could not find women who would--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Swan River will have 27 minutes remaining.

As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).