Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the expectation that a number of bills might be passed today at second reading, I would like to announce that on Thursday, June 11, 1998, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit to consider bills referred to it. This particular announcement would require the leave of the House because, as you know, the House will be sitting Thursday morning.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to sit concurrently with the Chamber on Thursday, June 11, at 10 a.m., to consider bills referred? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: That is on the expectation, as I say, that some bills will receive second reading today.
It is also expected that on Thursday morning we will have two private members' hours to deal with matters on the Order Paper for that day.
It is expected that Wednesday, tomorrow, we would spend the entire day, once we move to government orders, that we would deal with Estimates and waive private members' hour tomorrow.
For today, well, we just do not know, Madam Speaker, what we are going to do with respect to private members' hour, but we will see what kind of progress we make. It may be that at five o'clock we will ask members not to see the clock--or not, depending on what kind of progress we have made with respect to bills.
An Honourable Member: That is kind of wishy-washy, is it not?
Mr. McCrae: Well, I thought it was a bit that way, too. When we are wishy-washy like this, we are reminded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that we--[interjection]
Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Bills 22, 24, 37, 41, 19, 44, 36 and then the bills in the order we see them on the Order Paper?
Would there be agreement to waive private members' hour tomorrow, Wednesday?
Madam Speaker: Is there agreement to waive private members' hour tomorrow, Wednesday? [agreed]
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 22 (The Veterinary Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les soins vétérinaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the vet services amendment bill, as the minister indicated in his comments, is not a very lengthy bill or one of very much substance. It is one that is just going to make a few changes to the act that has been in place for some time.
The one change that it does make, Madam Speaker, is it allows for the dissolution of vet services districts that have come to a point where they are no longer in existence, and in the present situation there is not the ability to dissolve these vet services districts. I guess when the legislation was first brought in, it was anticipated that there would be a continuance of vet services districts for a long period of time, and there was no need to think about this continuance of them. But we have seen a change in the climate, in the environment in rural Manitoba. When I checked with people in the department as to what was happening, they said that there was an increase in private vets in some areas, and in other areas there just was not, and there have not been that many services districts that have been dissolved.
* (1450)
But we have seen a difference in the kinds of services that are provided in rural Manitoba under this government. Over the past few years, we saw services that were once provided by the Department of Agriculture that are now privatized and a move over to private services.
But I want to say, Madam Speaker, that the livestock industry is a very important industry in rural Manitoba, whether it be cattle or horses or hogs or poultry. They play a very important part in the economy of rural Manitoba, and there is definitely a need to have veterinarian services provided to the farming community.
As I said, Madam Speaker, the area that we have seen a difference in is we have heard people saying there are less services or it is more difficult to get services, particularly in the calving season. There used to be much more willingness on the part of veterinarians to go out to farms to provide services. Now it is required more on the part of the farmer to bring his animals to the vet clinic or to the veterinarian to have services provided. So there are some differences in the services that are provided, but when I first saw the bill and I saw the move to discontinue vet service districts, I was a little bit concerned that this was a move to see more of them dismantled. I would hope that they would not be dismantled.
The bill also provides for immunity so that no proceedings can be brought against members of the board for actions done in good faith, Madam Speaker, and that is a good clause. People volunteer their time to serve on these boards. They should have the protection that other boards do have to ensure that they do not end up with lawsuits on their hands when they are actually doing volunteer work.
The bill also allows for municipalities to get back any expenditures that they put in place for out of pocket when the district was being set up, such as capital, such as property and other services, or it could be a building that the municipality has set up. Virtually the bill gives way to distribute and dispose of the assets in an orderly fashion. It also puts in place an appeal board to hear appeals that may be made against decisions with regard to vet services boards, Madam Speaker.
It is a bill that I am disappointed that vet districts are being discontinued, but that is the way things evolve sometimes in the rural community. As we move over to more of a private system and government vets have to set up their own practices in the rural communities, there is not any further need for the districts. So this bill will allow for this to happen in an orderly fashion, and we are prepared to support the bill and allow it to go to committee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very briefly, Bill 22, from what we understand, this act has not been changed for some time now, but the recent closure of a veterinary district exposed areas where the act was lacking in terms of facilitating that closure. The bill aims to improve regulation of a veterinary practice, which is something that perhaps could have been done somewhat sooner, given the rapid expansion of the livestock industry in the province of Manitoba, something in which I know the current Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) takes a great deal of pride, particularly with the hog industry, where we have seen just tremendous, tremendous growth. Hopefully, this will do some assisting in the latter parts of the comment that I just made. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 22. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 24, The Crop Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-récolte), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this bill today to speak about Manitoba Crop Insurance. Manitoba Crop Insurance is a very, very important tool used by farmers across the province. We just saw in the last week or so how important it was when we had the untimely frost that hit many, many farmers and put tremendous amount of pressure on them. Whether it be frost or flooding or drought or hail, those acts of God, Mother Nature showing its strength, create a burden for farmers, but the burden is much lessened by a very good program that we have and that we have had for many years in Manitoba, and that is the Manitoba Crop Insurance program.
This program pays out large amounts of money to farmers during times of disaster. Of course, farmers have the option of whether they choose to go into the program or not, and over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the number of farmers who are participating. One of the reasons that has happened is because we now have Enhanced Crop Insurance, which is a program which was brought in as a result of additional money coming in from the federal government. The provincial government had the ability to enhance crop insurance and offer a 50 percent coverage to farmers without any charge other than the administration fee of the program. So we have seen an increase.
That is certainly an improvement to crop insurance, but it is the kind of program that we always have to be looking at, and looking at ways to improve the program. As I listen to farmers speak about this program, an issue that has come up many times is, not only in crop insurance, but how we can get better coverage. The input costs are much higher than they ever used to be. Costs of producing this food for the rest of the world put a tremendous burden on farmers, on their pay cheque or their return for their product. We have to look at ways that we can continually review the program to ensure that there is the best possible coverage that we can have for farmers. As crops evolve, as we change things, we have to always be looking to add in additional crops.
Crop Insurance also administers other programs, the safety net programs, and it is timely that we should be talking about safety nets at this time, given that the program is negotiated between the federal and provincial government and they are up for negotiations. We had this discussion the other day, a short discussion when we were in Estimates. I conveyed to the minister how important it is that we have the best possible safety nets that we can and, as these negotiations go on, that we ensure that the safety nets that we have are based on risk rather than on the value of the product that is being produced as is being proposed by other governments. We know that here in western Canada and here in Manitoba we face much, much greater risks than do people in the West, in Ontario or in British Columbia. The Prairies are an important part to the economy. We grow a lot of crops here, but also the farmers who work in this area have a great amount of risk.
* (1500)
The bill, Madam Speaker, allows for the sale of data collected by Manitoba Crop Insurance. Manitoba Crop Insurance collects data on various crops and a lot of agriculture material, and, as I understand it, they have been able to sell this information from time to time and use it as a revenue source. This legislation will legitimize the sale of the information through Crop Insurance that has been taking place up till now. Certainly we have no problem with that section of the bill.
Madam Speaker, the section of the bill that we do have concern with--and we have not had very much time to discuss this in Agriculture Estimates. That is one of the mistakes you make when you allow the department to go later rather than earlier. I think it is a lesson that I will learn if I have any choice in it. Next year, I will be sure that Agriculture Estimates are early up on the list so that we can have the time that Agriculture really deserves, because, as it looks right now, the Agriculture Estimates are going to be squeezed very greatly and will result in us not having the opportunity to discuss in much detail many of the concerns and issues that are facing the agriculture community. However, I know that we have concurrence, and perhaps at that time we can raise more of those issues.
But the issue that I have concerns with, Madam Speaker, and that we have discussed in our caucus, is the section to deal with reinsurance. The bill gives the ability to charge interest on loans and set private reinsurance for the corporation. This could have implications. What we are concerned about is two things. I am concerned as to why the minister is looking at reinsurance, this issue right now. As I understand it, Manitoba has just signed a five-year deal with the federal government, and the federal government will provide reinsurance. There is no big rush to proceed with this. I believe that, if you are moving on this, it is going to give the federal government a signal that you are prepared to move to private insurance. I really feel very strongly that the federal government has a responsibility to agriculture. They have certainly been reneging on that responsibility.
We have seen over the last couple of budgets that there has been very little mention of agriculture within the federal budget or throne speech. There is less and less of a commitment. When we make this kind of move, saying we are getting ready just in case the federal government wants to get out of reinsurance, then the provincial government is sending the signal to the federal government saying they are quite prepared to let them get out of this responsibility. I am not quite sure why the government would bring forward an amendment that will now allow for reinsurance with the government of Canada, the government of Manitoba, the government of any other jurisdiction, any person, whether or not that government or person in Manitoba is insured under the act. The current act allows for the advancement of funds to the corporation without legislative authority for the building of capital on an interest free loan. This amendment will allow for the charging on interest of loans.
So, Madam Speaker, there is a concern as to why the government would want to then open the door up. Is the government now saying that they want to allow for insurance to go out into the private sector? If this is the case, if we start to reinsure in another area, what is going to be the impact on producers? Producers now say the price they have to pay for insurance is high. When you look at their bottom line, where the return for the product that they are getting, after you take into consideration all the input costs, farmers are operating on a very, very narrow margin. They cannot afford to have additional costs, and they cannot afford to be without insurance. So I would have to tell the minister that we have serious concerns.
We will talk about this in greater detail, I hope, when we get back into Agriculture Estimates as to why the government is seeking the ability to reinsure from agencies other than the provincial or federal government, and why the government is proposing to charge loans to the corporation from the reinsurance agency, from bearing interest to becoming interest bearing or noninterest bearing.
So, Madam Speaker, there are areas that we do have concerns with. We do not support the government on the concept of reinsuring. We have talked to the various farm organizations. We have talked to the National Farmers Union. They have expressed the concern of the possibility of this change resulting in higher premiums for recovery of interest charges on loans from the government. Keystone Agricultural Producers has also expressed a concern. It feels that the federal government is pulling out, and the provinces have not got the capacity to cover reinsurance by themselves, so they will then have to go to the private sector to have this reinsurance.
I have to say, Madam Speaker, that when we talked to the Saskatchewan government, they said that they could not see any reason for moving into the private sector for reinsurance, because of the five-year agreements that they now have. There are five-year agreements. Manitoba has a five-year agreement with the federal government. Saskatchewan has a five-year agreement with the federal government, and, they again said that they do not see any reason to expand the reinsurance into the private market. Again, getting into the private reinsurance is only going to raise the premiums.
The other concern is that Crop Insurance has been considered a green program under the international trade markets, so then why do you want to change it? If it is not considered that it is a subsidy in any way, why would you want to change it over? As I say, Madam Speaker, we have concerns. We have no problem with the section of the bill that is allowing for the sale of information the Manitoba Crop Insurance collects, the data that they collect. We have no problem with that. We have a serious concern with the decision of the province--that part of the bill that will allow Manitoba Crop Insurance again to move into the private sector when there are agreements in place. In my opinion, what this bill does is open the door for the federal government to back out of their responsibilities for reinsurance in Manitoba prematurely. There is, and I think, with all the pressures that we have on the farming community right now, we do not need additional costs or we do not need to bring forward the risk by bringing reinsurance to the private sector which will result in higher premiums for the producers and will allow for the federal government to get out of their responsibility with regard to the farming community.
I mentioned earlier that crop insurance, as it is right now, is considered to be acceptable on the national trade agreements. I think, with those comments, I will leave that one and perhaps when we get into the Agriculture Estimates or when we get to committee on this bill, those concerns that we have, if the minister has an explanation for them, he can bring them forward to us at that time, but just as with other bills, we checked with the farming community and the farming community has concerns with what the impacts of this bill will be on farmers, that indeed, if we go to the private sector that there are going to be increased costs and really the province should be lobbying the federal government as hard as they can to live up to their responsibility to the farming community rather than allowing them an opportunity to renege further on them.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, you know, in listening to the member for Swan River, I think there is a lot of merit to what it is that she is saying which the government should be making note of. I believe that the public is or many Manitoba farmers recognize the need for involvement of insurance programs that are sponsored through government and one always has to be somewhat concerned when we see changes that could ultimately have a negative impact on the way in which we cover insurances.
* (1510)
Having said that, suffice to say that this bill concerning crop insurance deals with the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation and how it operates. There are a handful of housekeeping clauses from what I understand. In particular, there is one part that deals with the concerns to the sale of MCIC data. Over the years, MCIC has become more sophisticated in gathering information of particular plants in agricultural production. Some of this information is quite desirable and has been in many cases sold off in some instances. From what I understand, the amendments will acknowledge what has actually been taking place and will allow for the corporation to do so then for its own benefit. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Agriculture, to close debate.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Just a few comments in closing debate on the bill at second reading at this point in time. I appreciate the comments from both sides of the House on this issue and will look forward to having the honourable members, particularly from Swan River, have an opportunity to debate some of these issues with Crop Insurance officials when second reading of this bill is before us. I intend to have somebody there for second reading because some of these issues should be abundantly clear. We certainly do not want to do anything that would allow, will even give the perception of allowing Ottawa to back away from its current level of contribution to crop insurance. It is the one program that has, over the course of years, maintained a steady 60-40, roughly, contribution, 60 percent Ottawa, 40 percent the province, and despite the fact that the overall safety net support program provided by Ottawa has been decreased from a maximum of $860 million to some $600 million--a very significant decrease.
I appreciate, Madam Speaker, that because of the priorities of everybody and their attention span, everybody focuses on the cutbacks that have occurred in social services, in health, education, but agriculture has taken an unprecedented--I say this to my friend from Inkster--reduction from Ottawa; the elimination of the Crow alone, over $700 million. [interjection] That has now run out. It was a three-year cushioning package just to make the drop a little easier to take, but the fact of the matter is it was just about enshrined as part of the Canadian Constitution, if you like, a part of Confederation. Ever since this part of the Prairies started growing grain, we had a set price, a freight price, to move the grain. [interjection] I agree with you. That is another issue, but I am just talking about Ottawa's reduction. Also, as honourable members are aware and I want to alert them to it, Ottawa is backing away from some other very significant and worrisome areas, meat inspection, health and food inspection and things like that, this coming at a time when Canadians, Manitobans, legitimately should be and are concerned about what we eat.
We are concerned about how our processors handle them. We are concerned about how they are handled in the retail trade. We are concerned about how they leave the farm gate. Do they leave them as healthy animals, or are they injected with antibiotics and other medicines just to keep them well enough to get them on a truck and ship them and the likes of this? I note my good friend the honourable member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson) understands all this because he, of course, has been in the meat inspection business prior to him coming into this Chamber, so he makes a valuable contribution on this subject, and I encourage him to indicate this on some indications that we have on this bill.
However, having said all that, allow me, Madam Speaker--it is within the rules. It is because of my modest nature that I seldom blow the horn of my government or of myself, but despite the fact that we have lost the Crow, despite the fact that we have lost the Canadian Wheat Board freight-pooling arrangement at the St. Lawrence Seaway which has equally a big impact on our grain moving east, Manitoba, during the period of our stewardship, 1988 to '97, increased its overall cash receipts by some 45 percent. That is when the Canadian average across Canada was 32 percent.
More importantly, again, because of the loss of the Crow--and this is why the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) intuitively says it is partly good too, and it is because what it has done, it has enabled us to ship more value-added goods. During the same period of time, we increased our share of Canadian agriculture's overall production from 9 percent to 10.2 percent. That is significant when you consider the big provinces like Quebec or Ontario or all the Maritimes, of course. They had no impact of the Crow. It was only on the three western provinces, really, where the impact of the loss of the Crow applies and to Manitoba specifically.
So I input that interesting little bit of information on the record because it is agriculture innovation we are talking about, an agriculture matter. I appreciate the comments of honourable members and look forward to a good discussion on this when we arrive at committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 24, The Crop Insurance Amendment Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 37, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les machines et le matériel agricoles et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): It gives me pleasure to speak on another bill. You know, we were just talking earlier about not having enough time to speak on agriculture, and now we concentrate it all in one day. We should be spreading this out over a few days to give people more opportunity to hear the challenges that farmers face but also the great values of the agriculture industry.
Before I speak specifically on the bill, I want to say to the minister that we were talking about the impacts of changes, and there has been a tremendous impact that has resulted particularly on the prairie provinces because of changes made to federal programs, whether it be the Crow or the pooling. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has indicated from his seat, and I will quote: but it is going to be better for Manitobans eventually in the long term.
* (1520)
Maybe it will but in the short term. First of all, we have to recognize that it was a huge reneging of responsibility on the part of the federal government when they chose only to put in transition money for three years. They were backing off on a big commitment and a big responsibility to agriculture. In time things are going to change, but, in the next year or two, things are going to be very difficult for farmers because there is not going to be any more transition money. It is just going to be the return from the production. The minister indicates that cash receipts are up. Cash receipts are up in some areas, but the bottom line for farmers with additional input costs, additional transportation costs, all of that has put some farmers in a very, very difficult position. I do not believe that farmers are better off now than they were as the transition comes through. Farmers change to different crops and production, which they will have to do, because they can no longer afford to ship grain to foreign markets with the low grain prices that we have and with the price of freight where it is. We also have to recognize that we are never going to use all of our grain in this process at all. We are going to have to ship some to foreign markets, and there is going to be those challenges there as well.
We are a grain producing area and we will shift over, but there are still going to be people who will grow grain, and that is going to be a real challenge. They can convert to different crops such as canola and beans and other products. Anybody that knows farming knows that you also have to have a rotation, and every few years you are going to be growing crops that are not bringing a very great return to the producer, but he still has to have some of those as part of the rotation.
Madam Speaker, the bill we have before us now is The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act. We are talking about how difficult it is for farmers at the present time and them not having very many safety nets. One of the things that farmers like to have--it is just like any other person that is in business that uses equipment--they like to have some warranty on their equipment. Manitoba farmers are presently lucky in this area because they have a two-year warranty. A two-year warranty is not that long when you consider that on machinery such as a combine, which is only used for a very short period of time during the harvest season, the warranty is not very long. Even on a tractor, when you are paying over $100,000 on a tractor, a two-year warranty is not that long.
However, for some unknown reason, this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has decided that he would listen to, I guess, the farm machinery dealers and the manufacturers who are, I must say, probably in much better financial shape than many farmers are right now, and he has decided to change the level of warranty from two years to one year. Now, why are we doing this? To level the playing field with other provinces. Well, my goodness, Madam Speaker, can we not be the leader and stand up for farmers and say this is good for farmers and encourage the other provinces to stand up for their producers and have a better warranty and ensure that there is a two-year warranty instead of a one-year warranty?
The minister said that part of this has to do with cost, that the warranty is written right into the price of the machinery. Well, Madam Speaker, we all know that whether we are buying a car or a tractor or a combine, we all negotiate. It is the bottom line of what you pay for that piece of equipment that really is the true price, not the 1 percent or the 2 percent that is added on to the warranty and the sticker price. It is the actual price that you pay.
We have done some checking, Madam Speaker. There is this discussion that they are changing this so that, I guess, farm machinery dealers would not have to worry about people running across the border into Saskatchewan to buy a machine there because it is cheaper. Well, what we have found out is that there is no difference in price. The dealers know they want the business, and they are going to meet the price of the farmer. I am sure when you are buying a combine that is worth well over $100,000, there is enough cushion in that price if the dealers can well afford to, and the manufacturers can well afford to, absorb that extra price.
I have to wonder why a machinery dealer would worry about a two-year warranty. My goodness, you would think that they would have enough faith in their equipment that they have developed and are putting up for sale that they would think that their equipment is of high enough quality that they could ensure that there was a two-year warranty there. So it is a real concern that we have with this piece of legislation that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) should be listening to the farm dealers and rather than saying and bending to the pressures that I am sure have been put on him, rather than bending to those pressures, he would be standing up for the farmers and ensuring that they have some guarantee and some warranty on the equipment that they are buying.
We all know that, of course, when you have a warranty, warranty does not cover all parts, but the basic parts of the equipment should be covered. There have been changes to the warranty so that now things like belts and hydraulic components, electrical parts, diesel pumps are not excluded from warranty, but other parts are excluded. That happens with every warranty. There are certain parts of the equipment that are not under warranty.
The other area that I raised earlier today in Question Period with the minister is the emergency repair parts. Now, the minister often tells us that he is a modest farmer, and I know he is a very modest man. I also know that the minister works with farm machinery, and he understands the pressure that comes on farmers whether it be at harvest time for a grain farmer, or seeding during the spring, or the milking season which is every day for a dairy producer. When a piece of equipment breaks down, it is vital that you have that piece of equipment as quickly as possible.
In the old legislation, there was a requirement that when there was an emergency--and a farmer just could not be calling the dealer up for some bolts or some minor parts to get them ordered to be considered an emergency. In our own situation where we are grain farmers, I share with you an example of two years ago when I am not sure what was happening, but we were combining canola. We were just having such a difficult time with parts breaking down for us, and we were able to call dealers after regular working hours. The dealers are very good. They are very prepared to provide you with those repairs, and they will go the extra mile. In our situation, we could not get the repairs for our combine in Swan River, but the dealer gave us the phone numbers. We ended up going as far as Ste. Rose for the repairs, but we needed them. It was harvest, and the dealers were very accommodating with us.
So I am not quite sure why the minister is prepared to change the legislation that previously said that emergency repair parts could be ordered from Monday to Saturday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., which gave you four extra hours at least during the day, but, under this legislation, it means that you will only be able to order your repairs during normal hours.
Now, I know that there are farm machinery dealers who are still going to go that extra mile and provide farmers with the emergency service, but I do not know and I do not understand why the minister would change the legislation. The legislation has been working, and it did give farmers a bit of leverage. When someone did not want to go the extra mile, you could say, well, you had the act to fall back on. That was your insurance that you would be able to get those repairs as quickly as possible.
So I do not understand, again, why, when farmers are facing the tremendous challenges that they are right now with changing crops and diversifying into different livestock and other things that are going to require them to have different kinds of equipment and will require that they will continue to need emergency services, as I say, Madam Speaker, whether it is in the dairy industry or the livestock industry, cattle industry, any of them, and emergency repairs will be needed, I do not understand, again, why the minister has moved in this direction. There must be someone who is pressuring him to do this or encouraging him to do this, but it is certainly not from the farming community.
* (1530)
We have talked to various farm groups and, again, we have checked with Keystone Agricultural Producers, and they have expressed the same concerns that we have, that the changes that are being brought forward are not in the best interests of farmers. They do not believe that this is going to save them money, and nobody believes that by reducing the warranty from two years to one year that you are going to see a decrease in the price of the combine or the tractor you are buying. Anybody that believes that is--[interjection] Yes, that is right. You have got something to do. We could sell them quite a few things. It is not going to happen.
So, Madam Speaker, as we had talked about earlier, farmers are going through a transition time, a time when they will be requiring different types of equipment, times when they will be facing different challenges and working with new kinds of equipment, and we would hope the machinery dealers would have enough faith in their equipment that they would be quite prepared to provide a two-year warranty.
This is certainly not a bill that we can support. I would ask the minister to reconsider what he is doing here and, perhaps, leave this bill for a later time. The bill can pass; the minister does not have to enact it. Maybe we can reconsider this and think about what is in the best interests of farmers, because I believe he has made a mistake on this one. Machinery dealers should be able to stand behind the product that they produce, and the minister, recognizing the importance of agriculture and the pressures that farmers are under, knows that getting repairs as quickly as possible is important.
There are other sections in the bill, but it is those two sections that are causing us enough concern that we cannot support this bill. I understand that there are presenters who will be speaking on this bill, making presentations in committee. We look forward to that and look forward to possibly hearing explanations from the minister as to at whose suggestion these amendments came forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I did want to say a few words on this particular bill, a few words of very serious concern. [interjection] The member for St. Norbert says: support it 100 percent. Not, not.
I would look to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), who has been here for a number of years, and even that goes back to Ed Schreyer's time when he was the Premier. The minister might recall that back then there was legislation that was brought in that changed warranties. Some of the comments, from what I understand back then, were that, look, you could get better warranty on a watch than you could for a tractor. That sort of stuff was coming out.
In second reading, Madam Speaker, again, I have not had the opportunity to go over Hansard in detail, but if I were to speculate, I would think that we probably had individuals like the Minister of Agriculture raising those concerns. If in fact he had, he would have been right. If he did not, I think maybe he overlooked it. But I would suggest to you that this is a piece of legislation on the surface that does not appear to be very, let us say, farmer- and consumer-helpful. The minister has not convinced members of the Chamber, and I also believe others, that this legislation is, in fact, warranted.
Now, whether it was the opposition from this government when it was opposition to Mr. Schreyer, or it was the different interest groups. Then Mr. Schreyer made the changes, from what I understand, for third reading to take into consideration some of his misgivings from second reading.
Madam Speaker, I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is very open minded on issues of this nature. I might not necessarily be able to be there for the committee hearing itself, but I would like to see some sort of amendments brought forward to the legislation. When you talk about the reduction, for example, of the warranty to the hours of service that was posed to the Minister of Agriculture earlier today for emergency services, the impact on the surface is quite overwhelming. I think that there is a need for the Minister of Agriculture to indicate to the Chamber in terms of where it is that he is getting the amendments from.
You know, the minister often makes reference to the fact he listens very closely prior to bringing in legislation. Well, Madam Speaker, I am interested in knowing whom he might have been listening to with respect to some of these amendments. That could cause some concern, as they point to the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Maybe the member for Turtle Mountain will stand up. Mind you, there might be somewhat of a conflict. I do not know. I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture broadened his consultation outside of the member for Turtle Mountain to at least include some of those consumer groups, such as the farmer. I think the farmer is very important. In the past, our Minister of Agriculture has talked about the importance of our farmer.
But, Madam Speaker, I did want to conclude, both the minister, in responding to the previous bill, and the member for Swan River made reference to the Crow rate. I really do believe that it is in our best interest that the Crow rate did disappear. I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is in concurrence with that. The question then becomes one of compensation. Was the compensation adequate? That is something which, from a Manitoban's perspective, I would think that we would always be asking for additional compensation or more compensation. But that to the side, I would argue--and that is the reason why I said "in the long term"--that far too often, if you leave it up to those that pull the economic levers in eastern Canada and, to a certain degree, on the West Coast, Manitoba and Saskatchewan would be nothing more than a hinterland where we would not be allowed to have diversification.
An Honourable Member: Drawers of water and hewers of wood.
Mr. Lamoureux: The haulers of--drawers of water and doers of wood--
Some Honourable Members: Hewers.
Mr. Lamoureux: Hewers--make sure I am not mispronouncing that word, Madam Speaker--of wood. Hansard will ensure that proper pronunciation was there.
But the point is made, Madam Speaker, that being that the Crow rate, getting rid of the Crow rate, the national government should in fact be applauded for it, because, in the long term, the province of Manitoba and our agricultural sector in particular will benefit tremendously by that.
Having said that, I have expressed my concerns on this bill. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will give reconsideration to some of the concerns that have been brought forward, or, at the very least, articulate as to why--and I hope, I cannot commit to being at the Agriculture committee hearings on it, but I hope that the minister will deal with it. Thank you.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, just a couple of comments in regard to the bill that is being presented before us today. I reference the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) comments about a watch and the warranty that comes with it being longer than perhaps the $15,000 car or $200,000 tractor, but I guess my first question would be: when that person needs a warranty for his watch, he takes it to the dealer. The dealer repairs it. Who pays the dealer? The manufacturer? That is how warranty works in most parts of Canada. If you buy a $300,000 Porsche, the dealer is not responsible for the warranty that is put on that particular piece of machinery. It is the manufacturer that covers the warranty.
The warranty that we are talking about is an imposed warranty upon the dealer. It is not a warranty upon the manufacturers. The dealer who is selling and representing the manufacturer of that product is being held responsible for two years to maintain all the warranty and repairs necessary on that. I would suggest to you--the member for Inkster--that there are very few, and in fact after the debate is over I will ask him to maybe list some of them, because I know of none of them. Having had experience in the car business, having had experience in the implement business, having bought appliances, having bought furniture, the dealer is never responsible for the warranty. It is the manufacturer of the product that represents.
* (1540)
I can remember back in the late '70s, the car companies changed their warranties from a one-year, 12,000-mile, 20,000-kilometre warranty, to a seven-year, 115,000-kilometre warranty. They did not ask the dealers if that was what they wanted, because they were not imposing any extra costs upon the dealer. That was something that the manufacturers saw the consumer asking for and requiring, and they met those needs.
Several years later they changed it. They changed it back to a three-year, 60,000-kilometre warranty. And why? Because the consumer told the manufacturers that the costs of the additional warranty and the implications of the warranty were raising the costs of the vehicle to the consumer. Therefore, they said: give us a more comprehensive warranty for less of a period of time, and that is exactly what I see happening, in the sense that the dealers do not make the product that they are selling. They represent the product, and I think we are putting an unfair burden on them particularly again.
The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) brings it up. If the farmers in her area are going to Saskatchewan and buying implements, which they do, they are coming back with a one-year warranty. They do not come back to Manitoba and get a two-year warranty.
So obviously they are seeing a price advantage in Saskatchewan to buy. I can tell you from experience that is exactly what happens, and dealers are worked back and forth on that system. I have lived it, so I know. I think the member for Swan River should talk to the dealers and find out how much it is impacting them, because it is impacting them greatly, particularly on the Saskatchewan border. We do not experience the same problems on the east side simply because we are not competing with an agriculture.
The member for Swan River mentioned in her statements, the dealers are doing well, the farmers are suffering. Well, I can tell you that that is not true. The correlation is, as the farmer does well, so does everybody in rural Manitoba, so does the grocery, so does the pharmacist, so does the petroleum dealer. Nobody benefits unless the farmer is doing well. I believe that, and I think the member believes that, even though she distorts her statement to think that the farm machinery dealers are coming to government and asking us to dictate down to a policy that would impose or put something onto the farmer that is not fair and equal across the entire western provinces.
When the member brings up the idea of labour or the idea of the hours, I questioned that too, because, again, as a provider of a service to a person, their hours are unlimited and unrestricted. I would suggest that, if you can find a dealer in rural Manitoba today that is still in existence, it is because they have been open and available every time the need has been there. Whether you put it in writing or put it in any kind of legislation, the hours that people work are going to be to accommodate the need.
Again, I question why they would have to even put a time frame on it, but if they are, in the instance of a small dealership who is employing people, he may say to that person: you work till six o'clock; I will be available, because I cannot afford to pay you to work till ten o'clock on call if it has been a rainy day and there are no calls. So I am suggesting to you that there may be something behind that. I am not sure, but all I know is any dealer I know in rural Manitoba today that exists in the farm equipment business does not exist because they have taken advantage of farmers, does not exist because they have ignored the needs of farmers, and does not exist because they have neglected their duties. They are there because they have served exactly those reasons. They have been there when they have been needed. They have provided exemplary service. I think that, if you questioned your farm community, you would find that they would say that. They would defend the dealer as much as the dealer defends the farmer. I think that is something that we cannot ever forget.
I support the bill. I have been involved with The Farm Machinery Act at a personal level for years, and as a dealer I can tell you there have been certain impediments that I have seen in the legislation for years. I also know from talking to my constituents, my friends, farmers, agricultural people that they would agree too that there have been impediments in the legislation for them. I think what has happened is that we have listened to both sides and tried to come up with a reasonable resolve to some of the dilemmas that they saw. I would support the bill. I think there are going to be some suggestions of some changes. I think as always that the minister has been open and available. I congratulate him for his consultations, because I know he has met with a lot of different groups, so, with that, those are my comments.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading--[interjection] I am sorry.
The honourable Minister of Agriculture, to close debate.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to assure the honourable members of the House that I understand we have at least upwards to half a dozen presentations to be made for this bill at committee stage, so there will obviously be a lively discussion on the bill. I will listen to the bill. Let me make it patently clear that this bill is designed to create a situation with respect to the servicing and the warranty of farm machinery that is the best possible for the farmers in Manitoba. This bill is not designed for the dealers of Manitoba. These changes are not designed for the manufacturers of the farm machinery, wherever they may be, worldwide. This bill is made to make a sensible business relationship that farmers have when they are purchasing their farm machinery, which, in this day and age, can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and care needs to be taken.
The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) reminds me of the time that this bill was put into place. I questioned the need for this bill, period. Of the millions of automobiles, and we all buy automobiles, there is not a scintilla of government regulation that tells any automobile dealer that they ought to have warranty. GM says it is good for GM. Ford says it is good for Ford. Chrysler says it is good for Ford. Do you think John Deere or Massey Harris or New Holland are any less intelligent? It is a classic example of government intruding where they need not intrude, quite frankly. Classic, but we have it. Our farmers are used to it. I prefer to modify it to some extent. I will listen, and if upon presentations reasonable suggestions for amendments are made, I will have no difficulty in accepting those amendments. But they will have to be demonstrable to me and to my colleagues that they are in fact in the interests of the farmers. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 37, The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Ms. Wowchuk: On division, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On division.
* (1550)
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), Bill 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les baux viagers et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I can speak on Bill 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act. It is a legislation that is very much needed in the province right now. There has been a year delay in this legislation since the government withdrew it from the last session. In that time period, there has been quite a bit of risk that members of the public, those involved in life-lease condos, have been operating under and living under. It is fortunate that during this time period there have not been any problems, because the new life-lease housing has been very much unregulated.
I was pleased that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) and his staff agreed to have a meeting with me to discuss the bill. At that time, the minister said that Manitoba is at the cutting edge on legislation regulations around life-lease condominiums, and that this is the first legislation perhaps on the continent. This is because this type of housing has become very popular in Manitoba, and actually Manitoba has been at the forefront in bringing on a number of these.
A number of the condominiums were built actually through the Seniors' RentalStart program. There were 15 to 20 buildings that were started under this program. Unfortunately, this government has discontinued the Seniors' RentalStart programs, so properties now that are being developed for life-lease condominiums are having to do so otherwise without that kind of support. I think that is also making it a much more risky venture. It is risky for all the partners involved. It is risky for the tenants. It is risky for the service clubs or the corporation that is created to own and operate the life-lease condominium, and I guess in some ways it is risky for the lender or the bank and the trustee.
Because of the very nature of these life-lease condominiums, prospective tenants invest their own money. These are tenants that are usually 55 or over, seniors, and the money that they invest is used for the construction of the condominium. If the condominium is not completed, then that is one way that the prospective tenants can lose their money, and that is one thing that has been a problem. The seniors and people going into this kind of ventures have been at some risk of losing their initial investment. In some cases, it can be up to $80,000 a shot that is being invested, so it is an incredibly large amount of money for your average Manitoban. This usually occurs because seniors sell their home that they have lived in all their life. They probably owned that outright, and then they have a large amount of money that they can put in to act as the initial down payment in equity going into the construction of these condominiums. In some ways then, the seniors I think would enter into this as a way of expecting that this would protect their money, that their initial investment would be protected and would accrue interest, and they will be able to get it back when they decided to do that, to end their lease.
That is the type of thing that this legislation is designed to do that there is a need to provide the tenants with sufficient information so that they can make informed decisions when they are entertaining the decision to go into a life-lease condominium. We need to ensure that the tenants' funds are going to be protected. There has to be some application of The Residential Tenancies Act to these tenants because indeed they are tenants. That has been one of the confusing things in the past, that tenants are not clear that they do not own the unit, that, indeed, they are tenants. Even though they may put in a substantial entrance fee, they still also pay quite substantial rent. These tend to be very nice places to live with lots of amenities, as well as fairly large square footages, especially the ones that are being constructed now. So they are paying quite large--in some cases more than $700, $800, rent, as well as putting in their initial deposit.
I had mentioned that it is also risky for service clubs because, even under this legislation, the directors of the Kiwanis Club or the Rotary Club or whatever service club is involved is going to still be personally liable for any funds that are involved. If there are problems with foreclosure, there are some provisions in the bill to deal with that. But that is one of the other provisions in the legislation, or one of the other concerns in the legislation.
So I guess, to start off with, that I wanted to say that we are in support of the legislation because we think that it is so essential, that we have some coverage, and we fill this regulatory gap that exists right now. But I do have some concerns about the bill. I think that there are some problems that this bill does address to some extent, but I think that there still are some questions outstanding.
One of the problems in the past has been that some life leases only give the tenants back their money when they want to break their lease, if they let their apartment to a new tenant. The only way that this bill deals with that is by the disclosure provisions. So now the tenants have to be told up front that this is the way that that life-lease condominium deals with the refunds, from the refund on their entrance fee. I am concerned about that because, in the discussion document, I should say that there was a yearlong or so discussion and consultation process on this bill, and the discussion document has a number of other recommendations of what should be included in the disclosure.
The minister has chosen to only put two of those into the bill, and all the other disclosure requirements are going to be in regulations, regulations which we of course have not seen yet. I just question that. I think there were recommendations through the discussion document that more should be included in the provisions for disclosure that are actually in the legislation. The only things that the minister has included are the estimated entrance fees that will be payable in respect to each of the units as well as the projected completion date, and then, they have said, any additional prescribed information which I think could be a lot more specific.
I think also one of the things that seniors must be protected from and must understand is a lot of the other requirements under the legislation. I think that would also be another good amendment to be included in the information for disclosure that the owner of the life-lease condominium is obligated to disclose to seniors the other provisions under the act with respect to their notice provisions, the provisions related to the time periods, particularly, for them to get their money out if they decide to change their mind. I think that we cannot expect seniors going into this would read the legislation.
They may, because this is just a tenancy and it is not where they are actually purchasing a unit--I do not know if they would be necessarily using a lawyer or not, so I think that there should be some other provisions in the legislation to ensure that the tenants are going to have the pertinent information from the legislation disclosed to them.
I can see that the minister is taking some notes and is listening carefully. I appreciate that, because I think that he will recall this government's foray into the area of life-lease condominiums. That was the problem that they had with the Rotary Pines fiasco. This supposed scandal-free government had quite a scandal on its hands a number of years ago. Granted, that was prior to when the member for River Heights, the Consumer and Corporate Affairs minister was elected.
Rotary Pines was one of the proposed life-lease condominiums that this government got its hands dirty with. They were applying under the Seniors' RentalStart program for funds. The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs at the time tried to bump certain developments up the line and was caught with the proverbial hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, and a number of the prospective tenants ended up pulling out their money.
Then, when it also became clear that this development was proposed in the flight path of the Winnipeg International Airport, more prospective tenants pulled out their money and in the end the Rotary Pines was cut down. It was cut down in the path of the Winnipeg airport. It was never built and it is an example of what can happen. I think in that case there were no tenants or prospective tenants that lost their initial investment but, as I mentioned earlier, that is the risk.
The provisions in this legislation still allow for the government to approve these life-lease condominiums, so I think that there is still some concern that, again, there could be some political connections or political favouritism shown, as there was in the case of the Rotary Pines where, I believe, the political staff with the government, someone was related to the chair of the corporation that was sponsoring the Rotary Pines. That proceeded to become another problem for the government.
* (1600)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Would the member be good enough to clarify who was related to the chair of what?
Madam Speaker: On a point of order?
Mrs. McIntosh: It is a question for clarification, if the member would be good enough to reveal in her remarks who was related to the chair of some board. She has made an allegation but used no names, implying a conflict of interest. I think she is obliged to put the names on the record.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, we have a tradition in this House that has fallen into disuse whereby members can ask the speaking member if they would yield to a question. That has not been used very frequently in recent years. But we have no tradition whereby members can stand up, presumably on a point of order because the minister said it was not a point of order, and then ask a question or put a statement on the record.
I would suggest that the minister was out of order, and if we are to ask for questions or put comments in debate, the appropriate thing would be to follow that practice, which has fallen into some disuse or for the minister to speak. She is more than welcome after the member for Radisson finishes speaking to stand up and speak in debate.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education and Training does, indeed, not have a point of order, and the honourable member for Thompson is correct. It is fully within the parameter of the rules and practice of this House for a member to stand and ask if another member would take a question, and that member has the right to accede to that wish or respond to the question.
Mrs. McIntosh: I apologize for not following the correct form. I would like to ask the member if she is willing to entertain a question on her speech.
Madam Speaker: Is the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) willing to have the minister pose a question of her?
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I think what I would like to do is just continue with my speech. If the minister wants to ask the question related to what she said earlier, I think she can read Hansard going back to what year was it, 1992, I think, where they asked months of questions--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not feel the question is in order.
The honourable member for Radisson, to continue debate.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson was recognized to continue debate.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I was talking about some of the problems that the government has had related to the whole area of life-lease condominiums. I cannot go on without also mentioning last session and Bill 60 which is where they created more problems for themselves in the area of life-lease condominiums when they brought in the bill that would grandfather certain life-lease condominiums under The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Act to be exempt from the school tax portion of property taxes.
Seniors are starting to complain to the government about the unfairness of this. I know the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) as well as the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) have met with the tenants of condominiums on St. Anne's Road who are concerned that there is now a double standard or two standards for condominiums and for seniors, and it is not based on income or a sense of fairness. It is fairly arbitrary. They believe that this has set up a situation where some Manitobans who are fairly well to do are enjoying property tax-free living, I guess you could say, and in some cases other seniors who are earning or living on much less income are having to pay their property taxes and their school tax portion of that.
We warned the government last year during the debate on Bill 60 that this was going to happen, that there were a lot of concerns.
An Honourable Member: Did they listen?
Ms. Cerilli: No, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) can be assured that they did not listen. They went ahead with their legislation, without consultation, I might add. I do not understand why that whole issue that was dealt with under Bill 60 was not part of the discussion document that the government has used to develop this bill, Bill 41, on condominiums and life leases, but they chose to go ahead and to quickly bring in Bill 60 last year.
Now all of those condominiums are going to be subject to these regulations. That is good, but the problem is that this government has set up a two-tiered, if you would, system for condominiums. I think that they now have to answer to the public and to all of those seniors who are asking to meet with them, who are sending them petitions.
An Honourable Member: That is being fixed.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister says that is being fixed. Now, I know that they said one thing, it seems, to the owners and the proprietors and the tenants living in The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Act units. They have told them one thing, and then when they meet with the tenants from St. Anne's Road, they say that they are going to fix the problem, and maybe those grandfathered condos are not going to be grandfathered for as long. [interjection] The portioning issue is a different issue, Mr. Minister, and I think that that is not going to address their concerns. That is a different issue.
So I do not want to take too much more time on this. We are going to go to committee with it. I hope that there has been time for members of the public who either reside or are involved in other ways in life-lease condominiums to make presentations. I have talked to a few members of the public who are interested, sent out a few bills to them. Hopefully, they are going to be able to make presentations on the bill.
But we do have some other issues that we are concerned about that I just wanted to mention. One of the things is the requirement or the ability to have additional funds or money in the refund fund. It still seems like the refund fund is going to rely on the initial payments, and I have some concerns, still, that there will be sufficient funds there to repay tenants when they want to end their lease.
One of the other areas that we were concerned about is in the penalties. When we met with the minister, the minister seemed to think that these were very harsh penalties. We thought that the provisions for the corporation or the corporate entity that is the owner of the condominium having to pay $50,000 to $60,000 and an individual having to pay fairly close to that, $30,000, that that was fairly close, that the individuals were paying close to what the corporation would pay for violations under the act. That is one of the things that was a concern.
One of the other things that we discussed was the provisions for the owner of the life-lease condominium. If the tenant was wanting to end their application and lease, they have 30 days to basically find the tenant a unit--this is in the case of the complex is not completed--and even on the 29th day of that period, if the life-lease condominium corporation makes available a unit to the tenant on that 29th day, then the tenant does not have the opportunity to withdraw their funds. They are obligated to take that unit, even if it is not the one that they were initially applying for, and we have some concerns about that.
One of the other issues that we were concerned about is the lack of clarity in setting the prelease payment amounts, that there was no formula. The minister clarified that as going to be about $1,000, and it is going to be in the regulation. I was also pleased to see that the tenants will receive the interest accrued on any of their initial payments.
* (1610)
Some of these time periods that I was just referring to--for example, the landlords can wait 60 days after the cancellation becomes effective before returning the initial entrance fee to the tenants. I think that those are the kinds of provisions in the legislation that tenants should be informed of, and the minister is nodding in agreement to that.
So I think with those few comments, I will conclude and just say that we are pleased to see that this legislation is going to go through this session. I will look forward to the committee and continued discussions with the minister and any members of the public at the committee stage and will hope to get this passed at the end of this session. Thanks, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act. This is a very popular form of housing for seniors, especially higher-income seniors, and the kind of housing that I have had a little bit of involvement with; first of all, Fred Douglas Place in downtown Winnipeg.
I remember some years ago before I was elected, the board came to the Winnipeg Presbytery of the United Church applying for a low-interest loan from the United Church of Canada. I argued against giving them that loan on the basis that that loan fund in the United Church of Canada was primarily for low-income and nonprofit housing programs or projects, but the people who could afford to live at Fred Douglas Place were anything but low income, given that in life-lease projects the entrance fee is anywhere from $25,000 to $80,000, and then people usually pay hundreds of dollars a month in management fees. I do not know what the entrance fees are at Fred Douglas Place, but I know that they are substantial. They are probably in keeping with other similar buildings in this kind of market.
I guess other people agreed with me because they did not get a low-interest loan from the United Church of Canada, but it got built anyway, which is rather interesting, because this program of life-lease projects that was supported by government, I believe called Seniors' RentalStart, was introduced by an NDP government in 1986.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Lloyd Axworthy first talked about it.
Mr. Martindale: I am told that Lloyd Axworthy first talked about it. I think the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is going to have to make a speech on this bill.
I had time to dig up some information about Rotary Pines, and one of the letters to the editor that I found talks about the kind of government subsidy that went into these programs. For example, Rotary Pines was going to get a grant of $357,000 plus a low-interest loan of $4.4 million. The interesting thing is that even though the government phased out the Seniors' RentalStart program, basically ended the Seniors' RentalStart program, I think if you were to look at the applications that were still before the government at that time, almost all of them got built.
Now I have not had a chance to look up which ones did not get funded by government and go through newspaper clippings or phone those communities, but my guess is that probably the vast majority of them got built, which I think is very interesting in itself. It suggests that they were a good idea. It also suggests that financially, individuals were able to put up enough money to make them financially viable and that the sponsoring organizations, in many cases nonprofit organizations, legions, churches, et cetera, were able to make a go of them without government subsidy.
Perhaps there is a lesson for us there on both sides of the House that some things are able to work without government subsidy. I know I was visiting at Brock University one year, and I was told that they had built student residences without government subsidy. So I phoned one of the people in the administration of Brock University as to how they were able to do it. I was told that the reason was twofold: one was that they owned their own land, and the other was that interest rates were low. So they just went to a financial institution and borrowed several million dollars and built a student residence, and they were able to pay the mortgage payments based on their rental income.
I certainly remember Rotary Pines, which was the name of a proposed seniors' residence. It was really a story about jumping the cue or a story about fast-tracking, because the Minister of Housing at the time told his staff to approve three projects, in spite of the fact that there were 22 that had applied for government funding. That caused the Minister of Housing at the time a great deal of grief, because there was widespread community opposition to the location of Rotary Pines. I think that was the main objection. One was that it was on the Assiniboine River. Some people thought that there should be river-front walks on the Assiniboine River wherever there was land available. The main objection was that it was under the flight path of Winnipeg International Airport. I remember that we brought up our objections day after day in Question Period, and eventually we asked for the Minister of Housing to resign. Of course, his Premier stood behind him and he stayed in cabinet until some years later he was let go, to put it politely, by the Premier.
First of all, the need for this legislation, certainly, there is a need to protect people who buy into a life-lease building. I was told one of the reasons for this consumer-protection legislation, if you like, is that if a building had a large number of people pull out all at the same time, say, five people either died or moved in a relatively short period of time, some of these organizations may not have actually had the money in the bank to refund all five of those life-lease payments. I am not sure I understand why, except that I think it is because a lot of the money that people invest, the $25,000 to $80,000, goes to build the building, and so the money is not really available. It is not in the bank. It is equity. It is in bricks and mortar, so, presumably, the legislation takes care of that by requiring that a certain percentage of funds or a certain dollar amount is available to refund to people when they move out.
Now, I am not an expert on this bill because it is a rather technical bill, and it is a long one. It is 60 pages long, and so I trust that our critic has put our concerns forward about this bill. But it is a step in the right direction because it does protect people that buy into life-lease buildings. There was consultation between Manitoba Housing, Consumer and Corporate Affairs and those involved in life-lease projects, and a discussion paper was put out in September 1997 by Consumer and Corporate Affairs which identified three main issues. They were the need to supply tenants with sufficient information to make informed decisions, and, second, the need to ensure the protection of tenants' funds, and the third, the application of The Residential Tenancies Act to life-lease housing.
The bill itself covers many of these items. The legislation clarifies the process by which initial prelease payments are given and requires landlords to provide certain information to tenants at an early stage. It provides for some regulation of reserve and refund funds, and it requires the appointment of a trustee to hold and refund entrance fees. It also sets penalties for breaking the act and acquiring life-lease tenancies under false pretences and where necessary amends The Real Property Act and The Residential Tenancies Act.
* (1620)
Now, one of our concerns which was mentioned by our Housing critic has to do with the issue of grandfathered life-lease residences which are exempt from school tax requirements outlined in The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act. Now, I have not gone back and read that act or the relevant clauses, but I would think that the reason those people were exempted, and the minister can certainly correct me here if I am wrong, is that it was originally intended to assist low-income people living in elderly and infirm housing, because that is who it was built for. It was for low-income seniors.
Then, all of a sudden, we have these life-lease projects that are really for high-income seniors, people who cannot only put down large down payments but who can afford monthly management fees in the range of hundreds of dollars a month. So the government got itself into a bit of a predicament here, and I do not think they are out of it yet. I did find a story from the Free Press from March 16, 1996, or I should say the very helpful library staff, Legislative Library staff found an article, and it is titled Taxman Eyes Seniors Residences, and it talks about this loophole. As far as I know, the government has not closed this loophole whereby very high-income seniors are benefiting from not having to pay education taxes.
So, with those few comments, we are prepared to let this bill go to committee, and, hopefully, there will some people presenting on this, I presume supporting this kind of consumer protection legislation. If people have suggestions for improvements, I hope that the minister will consider those suggestions. Especially if we are in agreement, I hope he is willing to amend the act and make this bill an even better one.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Lamoureux: It is interesting that Bill 41 would be following Bill 37 today. In essence, it has a different approach, and that is it is being a little bit more friendly, let us say--and I say that with a little bit of modesty there--than the previous bill towards the consumer.
Madam Speaker, this particular legislation, the only criticism I think that could be soundly levelled at government is why it would have taken so long to bring it into being. [interjection] The minister says to make it good. Well, it took him a long time to come up with what I think is a bill that is very positive and something that is, in fact, long overdue.
The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) made reference to the shelter allowance programs, and I had indicated from my seat that actually it was Mr. Axworthy who, in his tenure over here, had sponsored a resolution. I believe it was talking about the importance of shelter allowance programs, and then we did see the shelter allowance programs come into place.
Well, Madam Speaker, I say that because I do believe we call life leases for seniors, if you like, I do believe that there is, especially as time progresses, the need to expand the whole way in which we hand out, or I should not say hand out, the way in which we ensure that there are lease type of programs. I would think that we might even be able to broaden that whole arrangement to include others that could benefit by lease programs.
Having said that, we recognize that the legislation forces more of a question of accountability to prospective residents to protect their funds, which is absolutely critical. It is surprising the degree to which individuals have been somewhat vulnerable over the years. It makes reference that once you have a certain amount of money invested that the residents do have certain entitlements for information. Again, that is something that is quite positive. I think that the demand for the life-lease concept has been high. I believe ultimately that it will continue to grow, because it is another alternative to housing. We are providing housing for seniors, and it is a viable alternative that makes a lot of sense. Usually, when that happens, you get more people involved as they find out about it.
I was interested in the comments of the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). I was not aware of the loophole that allows some to exclude paying school tax, when you would have seniors across the province living in independent housing or condominiums where they are expected to pay school tax. So I am not familiar with the details, but I do think that given what the member for Burrows has said on that particular point, there is some merit for the minister to look into that and possibly report back or to indicate the rationale being used for that sort of an exemption under the life lease.
With those few words, as I say, the bill is long overdue, and it is good to see it go to committee.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to close debate.
Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for their comments on this bill.
I think that the honourable member for Radisson has really captured the essence and the heart of this matter, and I think it was summarized well by the honourable member for Burrows where they have said that the issue of disclosure, of security of funds and the application of The Residential Tenancies Act are the three mainstays of this act.
It is an act that is a long time in coming and I take the responsibility for that, because I can tell this Chamber that last year this bill was working its way up to being presented to this stage. I personally had the opportunity to review it. I found the structure and the wording confusing, and it was not satisfactory. It did not meet my threshold test, and so therefore I was not prepared to submit it to--[interjection] Yes, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) says a high threshold test. Well, I do not know. I am much more humble than that.
Nonetheless, it was not something that I was proud of or prepared to present to the public, whereas this bill is. It reads clearly, sequentially, and the issues and concepts are clearly set out in this. Madam Speaker, there was significant consultation set out. I think the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) does make a point in that there will be a number of issues that will be covered off in regulation, that is, to give added flexibility to the issue, the whole concept of this bill.
I do want to put on the record that members of the public should not be lulled into a sense of false security on this because they are putting up large amounts of money for the right to occupy residential tenancy, and they will be the cestui que trust to a second mortgage on the property, but there is no fee simple or leasehold title that vests in such an occupant. So we have gone to some considerable ends to make disclosure so that people truly understand this. I think that I am going to urge my department to uptake some of the remarks of the member for Radisson when she states that she thinks that brochures or some sort of publication should be circulated at the outset so people really know what they are getting into.
The whole concept of this bill is that we are not trying to do in-your-face legislation. We are trying to set the environment for this so that these projects will be successful and people will inform themselves. We have set the parameters for it, and we believe it will be very satisfactory legislation.
So I look forward to proceeding to committee on this matter. I have made notes of the comments of the honourable member's opposite, and I look forward to a successful completion of this matter. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
* (1630)
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading, adjourned debate on Bill 19, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), (The Public Trustee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I know colleagues of mine have spoken to this bill and expressed their concern about the conversion of the Public Trustee's office from a line department to a special operating agency and, as well, have raised issues and circumstances that have been brought to the attention of those members that cause concern as to what are the current objectives and future direction for the Public Trustee.
This bill is a very simple one. It simply changes or deletes the sections from The Public Trustee Act and The Mental Health Act which require expenses for the Public Trustee's office to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund and revenues to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
It is interesting, Madam Speaker, that the Public Trustee's office was converted to a special operating agency in April of 1996, yet here it is now over two years later that the government brings in the legislation that was actually required in order to properly establish the operating agency. I say shame, and I do not think that speaks very highly of the government's competence in making change.
Now, the purpose of the Public Trustee is set out in the legislation. It is a purpose of long standing and of great importance, particularly to vulnerable Manitobans. The purpose and role is described as including to act in the capacity as the official guardian in the province, to protect the finances of those incapable of handling their own finances. For example, that would be the very young or the mentally incompetent or the deceased. Finally, it has a responsibility to represent the estate of individuals where there is no legal representative.
Now, Madam Speaker, we do not support this bill, and we do not support the conversion to a special operating agency of the Public Trustee. The reason is because of the purposes and roles of the Public Trustee as set out in the act, we have concern that there is a new objective, a new purpose and a new role for the Public Trustee's office as a special operating agency and that new purpose is to profit. It is to profit, therefore, at the expense of the most vulnerable Manitobans.
The very purpose of the office of trustee is to protect the most vulnerable Manitobans. How can that purpose be mixed with one of profiteering? Well, Madam Speaker, we do not have all of the trends now known to us about how the Public Trustee's office has changed in terms of its revenues. The story has not all been told, but it is starting to be told.
Now, I want to say as a caveat that it is very important that we recognize there is a role for special operating agencies, and we have supported the establishment of special operating agencies in certain ventures. For example, in areas of Government Services or whether it be motor vehicle fleets, for example, and there are many other areas where an operating agency is well suited to the job and, in fact, can improve performance and service, but to take a special operating agency principle and apply it to an agency whose purpose is to protect the most vulnerable is contradictory and not worthy of support. The Public Trustee is a very important agency for those in need, and by shifting to a special operating agency, early indications are that those in need are going to be wrongly denied assets and their interests will not be the main interest of the trustee's office.
Now we note that in the last 12 years, the Public Trustee has had revenues greater than expenditures in all but one year. It has been, if you will, a profit-generating agency or an agency where there have been excess revenues. The government must have seen that and thought, well, here we can squeeze some more money out of vulnerable persons. What will these profits be used for is another question we have, Madam Speaker. Will it be to reduce the fees of clients or will it be to increase the government's slush funds? People that have to rely on the Public Trustee are captive to the Public Trustee's office for services. So it is important that those services be provided in a very fair, equitable basis with the overall interest being the well-being, the interests of the incapacitated and the vulnerable.
Now I note one Manitoban who has come forward, bravely so, and has submitted a letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, which was published in whole or in part, expressing a concern and wrote this letter which I want to read into the record. Of course, the letter is directed personally to the Premier, it appears, and it is from Karen Sapinski, and it says: "To Gary Filmon, Why is your government allowed to make money from people in ways that no private individual or organization is allowed to engage in? For example, by operating gambling casinos and the Public Trustee's Office for profit. Don't tell us the reason is because government operates like a charity, because the people of Manitoba see little evidence of this. Beds are closed in hospitals, eye examinations and some medications are no longer covered, and your government institutes directives that take away from what little the poor have. It seems you even skew statistics to fool us into believing your government has reduced unemployment when, in fact, unemployment is probably much higher than you claim"--and she references the member for Crescentwood's (Mr. Sale) contributions and analysis and insights in this regard.
The letter goes on to say: "Your government's enactment of laws that say the government can legally operate in ways that are illegal for anyone else, is wrong. Illegal is illegal, and the money you reap certainly isn't going to help people in any charitable way because at around the same time you opened your flashy casinos, the province reduced social assistance benefits by approximately 10 per cent to those who were not fortunate enough to be working and earning a living. This reduction, when no cost-of-living increases to off-set rising costs for food, accommodations, or the basic necessities of life had been given for years. Have provincial employees received raises or cost-of-living increases over the last 10 years? If so, are they more worthy? Did your government save a LOT of money by reducing the already inadequate benefit amounts people on welfare had to live on? What did you use that money for if you wouldn't use it to help PEOPLE? You took from the poor to do what?
"Gary Filmon, I can give you a personal example of how your government abuses its power for the sake of money. The Public Trustee is allowed to charge (gouge) more than twice the amount that for-profit companies are legally allowed to charge to manage investment portfolios. Investors Group charges a maximum of 15 per cent of the interest earned on a client's account, although they calculate it on a sliding scale in a different manner. They are bound by laws that prevent them from charging too much. My son will be 18 in a few weeks and is to receive a settlement which has been held by the Public Trustee for a couple of years. In the release my son is supposed to sign, the Public Trustee is charging 40% (including GST charges) of the interest earned on his money while they have been in control of it. How can a government-backed trustee, who is responsible for protecting those who are under age or unable to handle their money, charge more than twice what a for-profit investment company charges for the same services? If I had known earlier what I know now, I would have applied to the court to take responsibility for the investment of this money and let Investors look after it.
"A recent letter from the Public Trustee to my son uses their pamphlet to justify what they charge. This pamphlet is extremely misrepresentational and does not categorize the types of accounts and related charges well enough for the lay person to understand. No one should have to be a lawyer to figure out what charges apply and on what they apply. It is of course all legal mumbo-jumbo, but still a rip-off for my son.
"Can you explain publicly, Gary Filmon, why the Public Trustee is allowed to charge (gouge) so much more than for-profit companies, from those whom they are supposed to be protecting? It is made very expensive to take the issue to court and so your Public Trustee continues to rip off the people she is in office to protect. The cost of taking it to court come close to cancelling out the benefit of doing so. That is not right or fair."
She goes on to conclude: "Gary Filmon, the people know a lot more about everything than they used to. We are becoming much wiser and you cannot hide the abuses of government power from us for much longer. A great deal will eventually be exposed for public censure."
* (1640)
I wanted to read that letter, Madam Speaker, because those are the words of a Manitoban who has been frustrated and burdened by her perceptions of the Public Trustee's office. You can see not only the disappointment but anger in her letter. We have to have confidence in institutions like the Public Trustee's office. The letter I have just read into the record indicates that confidence is certainly at risk, and, certainly for Ms. Sapinski, is now not there.
We have heard anecdotes of how the Public Trustee's office is increasing their fees in quite an extraordinary way. We understand they are charging for phone calls. They are charging for every paper that is photocopied. They are charging for clerks at rates of up to $90 an hour. Madam Speaker, if the Public Trustee's office is to continue in this way, we fear that the very fundamental role and objectives of that office are going to be compromised.
So for those reasons we are prepared to have this bill go forward. We recognize that the special operating agency has already been established. It is certainly a move that must be re-evaluated, and we cannot, in light of this concern, support this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, very briefly, we understand the need for this particular bill, because it will better reflect the reality of the situation with respect to the Public Trustee's office, but I thought I would take this opportunity just to get on the record officially with respect to the whole concept of special operating agencies.
Governments of different levels have found a new form of governing, if you like, and there is a great deal of benefit derived, there is no doubt about that, out of special operating agencies. This government has made it somewhat of an art of looking and finding where we can develop and then move in that direction and develop.
What my concern has been with the special operating agencies is that more and more we lose some control over accountability of these special operating agencies. What I would believe is necessary is that we need to come up with some sort of a very formal structure that allows elected officials to hold special operating agencies accountable for their actions.
The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), Madam Speaker, said it well when he is talking about concerns. He read a letter with respect to the Public Trustee office. Well, because we as government collectively, if you like, because it is not just the Province of Manitoba moving towards these so-called "special operating agencies," it is becoming more arm's length to government.
I think that we cannot wash our hands of responsibilities as elected officials. These are services that are, in fact, being provided through a mechanism that is established through government. There is a responsibility for us to ensure a higher sense of accountability.
I have over the years been somewhat informally critical of the way in which we operate inside the Chamber with respect to other things, whether it is a Crown corporation or annual reports. For the number of days in which we actually sit inside this Chamber, I think that the public could be better served if in fact we had more structured standing committees that dealt with on a set basis, not ad hoc at the call of the government House leader in consultation sometimes with opposition.
There needs to be more of a setting aside of time that obligates members of this Chamber to come before a committee to ask questions or not to ask questions but to do what it is that they feel is in the best interest, but at least to allow that vehicle of communication, that vehicle of accountability to take place.
What I would suggest to you is that a standing committee is, in fact, an appropriate mechanism for us as legislators to have special operating agencies come before committees so that we can address concerns that we are aware of, concerns that constituents bring to our attention. I believe it will allow for future growth in areas of special operating agencies that maybe were a little bit reluctant in moving towards because of the loss of accountability that has been happening as a direct result.
So I think that if we move in that direction of the formalization, if you like, of accountability through these organizations that it will make transition easier, it will open new doors for other potential SOAs, and, most importantly, Madam Speaker, there will be a higher sense of accountability and an excellent vehicle in which in a very formal way MLAs of all political parties or all members of this Chamber are able to better represent their constituents by allowing at least that opportunity in a formal way for accountability on something which can be a very productive thing, and that is to move towards special operating agencies.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to close debate.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I do not believe there are any other people wanting to speak at this time. I certainly listened with attention to both the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Their comments, I think, need to be noted, and indeed if there are issues there that need to be addressed, those are issues that will be addressed.
The whole idea of SOAs has been raised here. I do not know if this is the appropriate time to debate that kind of an issue, but I think the comments made in that respect are important and need to be noted. This act itself, in many respects, is simply in order to establish consistency with existing legislation. These amendments will repeal Section 15 of The Public Trustee Act which requires that all revenues earned by the Public Trustee be paid to the Consolidated Fund and all operating expenses be paid from the Consolidated Fund. Subsection 86(3) of The Mental Health Act which requires that all fees received by the Public Trustee not paid out in expenses in connection with an estate form a part of the Consolidated Fund.
When the Public Trustee's office became a special operating agency on April 1, 1996, the method of accounting for operating expenses and revenue was amended to conform with The Special Operating Agency Financing Authority Act, and that act does not require that revenues be paid to the Consolidated Fund. These then are amendments which are required as a result of The Public Trustee Act and The Mental Health Act being in conflict with The Special Operating Agency Financing Authority Act. I would note that the issue has been commented on by the Provincial Auditor in his audit of the Public Trustee's operating statements.
With those few comments, then, Madam Speaker, I would conclude my remarks.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 19, The Public Trustee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of adopting the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Speaker: On division.
* (1650)
Bill 44--The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, after listening to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), perhaps in the next opportunity when he says he is putting on record not just his position but the position of others, is he speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party of Manitoba? I am just not sure just what his position is there, but it might be helpful.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I can assure the member, much like when you rise to stand, you stand as an NDP MLA. You are elected, I trust you have an NDP membership. I stand as a Liberal MLA. I have a Liberal Party membership and do consult with other Liberals prior to speaking on bills as much as possible, anyway, thank you. But I appreciate it.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster clarified the point, but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is funny how you can get business done here sometimes, but that was an important thing because there was a lot of confusion, I think, on the part of not just members opposite but Manitobans on that point.
I just wanted to thank, first of all, the minister for the explanatory notes that he provided here. I know that is a longstanding tradition and certainly assists us in deciding on what our position should be on this kind of legislation. It is interesting. It was, I think, a session or two ago that we actually voted against The Statute Law Amendment Act, a very rare occurrence. And what was the reason for that, Madam Speaker? This legislation, historically, has been used for a very important purpose, and that is to correct errors in drafting, other little oversights that were missed by all members of this House and people who drafted the legislation. But we had noticed over the last number of years that sneaking into this kind of legislation were actually substantive changes to legislation. Indeed, the last substantive change, and the one we voted against, affected disproportionately--well, more than that, it affected very poor people in Manitoba and their rights or their ability to access justice.
We have looked at this legislation here. There are some relatively substantive matters in this bill. However, they, by and large, are included in order to make the law consistent with a well-established practice that has been proven to be a fair practice, but we are prepared, therefore, to see this bill pass into committee.
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to close debate.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, Generally speaking, as the member indicates, this bill corrects minor typographical, renumbering and other editing errors in the English and French versions of the acts. These matters have been identified by Legislative Counsel office in the course of the year.
If there are, in fact, issues that are not properly there, perhaps the committee would be the best place to discuss those. But I would ask that the House support the bill in the present form to go to committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 44, The Statute Law Amendment Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 36 (The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et modifications corrélatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Speaker: Leave. Leave has been granted.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments to Bill 36, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. I had a chance to read through the bill and to have some discussions with members of my caucus, who, I know, have given a great deal of time to the identification of issues relating to The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act.
Now, I know the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) perhaps does not have a vested interest in this piece of legislation, but as a member representing Transcona, which is a part of Winnipeg as a larger community, we do have a vested interest in what happens to the city of Winnipeg and by way of this piece of legislation and its impact on the city and its particular structures, the elected body for the city of Winnipeg, the City Council.
This bill will make some significant changes to the way the City of Winnipeg Council conducts its business, and in fact infers or gives greater powers to the mayor and to members of council of the mayor's choice who will sit on EPC as a result of the mayor giving those individuals that ability or appointing them to that particular committee.
Madam Speaker, I look back first to last fall, I believe it was, when the first draft of the Cuff report came forward dealing with The City of Winnipeg Act, and the Cuff report, of course, had proposed a significant change in the structure of City Council and its reporting mechanisms and powers as a result of that particular report. Then within three weeks of the first draft being made public, the City Council had voted on the Cuff report and the recommendations were then passed on to the province, and I believe are now appearing by way of Bill 36 that we are debating here today.
I only look, Madam Speaker, to some of the comments that were made by people who are obviously more knowledgeable with respect to this legislation and how the City of Winnipeg functions as a council than to some of the comments that were made by others, some of our more learned colleagues within the city here.
If you look at Councillor Lubosch, who made comments with respect to the recommendations that came about as a result of the Cuff report, Councillor Lubosch at that time indicated that there was nothing in those recommendations that would give him confidence that Winnipeg is going to improve the services to the citizens of our city. Those were comments by Councillor Lubosch. I would think that Councillor Lubosch, having been one of the sitting councillors now for several years, would have some significant experience as a result of his role as a councillor.
Then, when we look at the comments that were made by others, I believe it was Professor Thomas talking about the Cuff report, that it was not the result of a careful analysis or a reflection of mature judgement, I believe was the quotation that was used by Professor Thomas. One would, I think, take from that particular comment by Professor Thomas that not all of the issues were dealt with by the Cuff report and that the recommendations were somewhat lacking in how it would concentrate powers of the mayor and certain members of council that the mayor is choosing and also take away some of the powers of the communities to have some control or some direction or input into the decision-making process at the City of Winnipeg.
There were also further comments made with respect to the Cuff report dealing with the obscene haste with which that Cuff report was dealt, being presented to City Council and then passed on to the council by the council floor to the province to deal with by way of legislation here.
* (1700)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m.--
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe there is leave not to see the clock to allow the member to complete his speech, and I believe we have one more speaker on this bill and then we can proceed with private members' hour.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave for the Speaker not to see the clock and permit the honourable member for Transcona plus one additional opposition member to speak to this bill before commencing private members' hour? [agreed]
Mr. Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I will add the minute on.
Mr. Reid: On Bill 36--
Madam Speaker: Yes, I will add the minute.
Order, please. I am just assuring the honourable member for Transcona that I will add almost one minute to the time allotted for the interruption.
Mr. Reid: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for that assurance. I was hoping to be brief in my comments here today to give my other colleagues the opportunity to comment. So I will try and summarize as much as possible my thoughts or condense my thoughts into more specific items.
Madam Speaker, in dealing with Bill 36, the amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act, more learned colleagues, as I have indicated, have made statements concerning the Cuff report and also the haste with which the City Council has passed that report through council and on to the province for further dealing.
In addition to Professor Thomas, there was an individual from the University of Winnipeg Institute of Urban Studies who I believe indicated that council was ramming this decision through and that this was done obviously in great haste and that there was not a great deal of thought that was given to the process or to the way that the public was excluded from any involvement in the decision making at the City Council level.
I can only refer back to a letter that was sent from the resident advisory group to the minister responsible for the administration of The City of Winnipeg Act, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer). The letter, of which I will table copies here today, comes from Mr. John Kubi, who is the chair of the East Kildonan-Transcona Residents' Advisory Group. In this letter, and I would like to read some comments from Mr. Kubi, who is a resident of northeast Winnipeg and has, I am sure, the best interests of the residents of that area in his mind when he makes these comments to the Minister of Urban Affairs.
Mr. Kubi goes on to indicate that the minister had indicated that concerns would be taken into consideration in the legislative process, but the minister, Mr. Kubi indicates in his letter, seems to have missed the very important point or concern that Mr. Kubi had raised in earlier correspondence with the minister dealing with the public consultation process. That is the issue that I believe Professor Thomas and others have commented publicly on on Bill 36, and that is the haste with which City Council passed that report, which is the very issue that Mr. Kubi is referencing in his letter to the minister.
Mr. Kubi goes on to indicate: firstly, council did not hold a consultation process. "Secondly, the City of Winnipeg Act has not been put to public review for approximately ten years. Thirdly, Council's proposed amendments, if approved . . . , would have a negative impact on basic democratic processes by concentrating more power in the office of the Mayor and the Executive Committee." These are the words that come directly from the letter of Mr. Kubi, the chair of the Residents' Advisory Group.
Mr. Kubi goes on to indicate that there is some discrepancy in government's role or plan dealing with this Bill 36 in that it will concentrate power into the hands of the mayor and the EPC, whoever those people will be after the coming municipal elections this fall. Mr. Kubi indicates that this seems contrary to the plan that was just recently released by the TransPlan 2010 people, the Moving Towards Solutions report that came out not that long ago, wherein that particular report referenced that there should be greater local community group or neighbourhood association involvement, in other words, the resident advisory groups, to assume responsibility for local or community issues. I mean, that was one of the recommendations from TransPlan 2010.
It also goes on to give an example of another jurisdiction with respect to Calgary Community Associations, where Calgary itself as a city, Madam Speaker, encourages individuals or small groups of residents through their community associations to identify and address concerns. So there are other jurisdictions in western Canada that do have community participation, something which I do not see guaranteed by way of this particular legislation itself. Bill 36, in fact, takes away some of those powers.
The elements of Bill 36--and I like to compare it because my first-hand experience is dealing with the legislative process of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and comparing that more directly with the role and the way in which City Council operates. I do not see in the process that we have taking place here where we are going to have what we would consider to be, under the minister's proposal for Bill 36, a representative democracy as a result of the bill and the consequences that will happen as a result of that bill.
If you put all the parts of this legislation together, the changes that the minister is proposing here, it will, I think, undermine and can have the effect of undermining citizen participation through the democratic processes in our city. By way of Bill 36, there is going to be an enhanced leadership role--the minister's words, I believe--saying that the mayor is going to have greater powers to be the leader of the city.
I have never seen a process, Madam Speaker, in all of my years, whether as a member of the Legislative Assembly or elected to other bodies, where a person of those particular committees or structures would have two votes, but what the minister is proposing by way of his legislation in Bill 36 here is that the mayor will have two votes. The mayor will vote as a member of City Council on issues that come before council, and then in the event of a tie, the mayor will have a second vote to break that tie. I have never seen in any of my experience--[interjection] Yes, I guess that is the role that the government wants the future mayor to take. It will be interesting--
An Honourable Member: Glen will appreciate that.
Mr. Reid: Yes, I am sure that Councillor Murray, who is now a candidate seeking office for mayor, would be interested in this concept. I am not sure when the minister drafted this bill if he had envisioned at that time that Councillor Murray would be the front runner as a mayoral candidate in our city here, knowing that the government may not be supportive of Councillor Murray's aspirations in this regard.
But giving the mayor as a member of council the opportunity to have two votes seems to be undemocratic by any test or any standard you want to use. It seems to be something that is totally foreign to our process of democracy, not only in this province but across this country.
In addition to that, the mayor will have the power to appoint the executive planning committee, the EPC members, and will be able to choose--the EPC, I believe, will have the powers then. No doubt the mayor will have some say in this process of being able to choose the chair of the committees, members of the standing committees and, in fact, all other committees that are part of the City of Winnipeg structure. Under this particular legislation as well, the mayor will have the ability to suspend the chief administrative officer, of course. That person is the replacement for the board of commissioners for the City of Winnipeg which was recently done away with by mayor and council, and that the chief administrative officer has now assumed the responsibilities of the board of commissioners.
Now I do not know why you would ever want to suspend a chief administrative officer. Usually when you have people in capacities or in roles of that stature, or with that much ability and power put into the hands of an individual, if they are found to be in breach of their responsibilities or duties, it is usually a decision that would be made by council to replace that individual. Why would you want to give the mayor the ability to suspend that individual for up to three days? I do not understand the logic behind that. Perhaps when we move into committee, the minister can explain to members of the committee and the public, who will no doubt be there, his intentions with respect to giving the mayor those specific powers.
But on Bill 36 greater powers will be put into the hands of the EPC, as we have read in this particular piece of legislation, concentrated into the hands of the executive branch of the City of Winnipeg, if we can call it that.
Now, in the legislative process that we have in this Chamber, we have a different structure than what the minister, I believe, is proposing for the City of Winnipeg. In this process that we have here--and I am sure no doubt in other legislatures across the country--we have checks and balances that are put in place to ensure that there is some accountability to the public which ultimately elects us to represent them in this particular Chamber.
Now, in the City of Winnipeg process that the minister is proposing here, I do not see where you are going to have those checks and balances put in place, because you are proposing putting into the hands of the mayor the power to have or not have the resident advisory groups, or some other community advisory body. It had been legislated or mandated before that you would have to have those particular groups providing some advice or counselling for the community committees, which would be councillors for those general areas of the city. Those councillors would take back those recommendations, hopefully, to the main floor of the council chamber.
* (1710)
I do not see, and I have not seen, any public comments coming from the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) or from council to say that the intent of those bodies or those departments would be that there would be a requirement to have some community involvement in the democratic process, trying to bring the decision making as close to the people as possible and giving the public the opportunity to participate in that process.
By the elimination of the community committees by way of changes that you are making in this legislation, by changes to or elimination of the resident advisory groups, you are taking away the ability of our communities to participate in the democratic process at the most fundamental level. I can only think back to issues that have come up in my own community recently where residents in the community had some apprehensions, we will call it, about a particular developer wanting to build a certain structure that would house a certain type of restaurant facility. The community was then able to, through their roles at the community committees, impress upon the councillor--[interjection]
Well, if there is no zoning requirement, and if the land is zoned commercial already, there is not going to be a zoning requirement to put something up, if I understand the process correctly, if the land has that zoning application already in place. So there will be no zoning requirement that would be necessary in such a situation. The land, I believe in question in this particular case, which I am describing here, was already zoned as a commercial piece of land, but was surrounded by a residential community. That zoning had taken place a number of years ago, had not been altered during that period of years and had not been developed to this point in time. When the developer came along and wanted to develop with that particular type of restaurant, the residents were able to, at the grassroots level, make some representation through the resident advisory groups and through the community committee councils and impress upon the councillor and the councillors that were part of that group that that was not the wish for that surrounding community.
That development was ultimately stopped. Of course, it went to appeal and there were Board of Revision appeal hearings, of which I had the opportunity to represent the community interests at that, and that decision was upheld by the appeal, the review office appeal process. So that particular development did not take place.
By the elimination of the community committees and the resident advisory groups, I believe you are taking away that fundamental power of the residents themselves to control their own destiny, and by concentrating that power into the hands of the mayor and the EPC and taking away that power, you are reducing the democratic process to an executive top-down process, which I do not think furthers the democracy that we have in our province here or in our city of Winnipeg. I think the minister, when he goes in that direction, by not mandating that there be some type of body, and leaves it solely to the discretion of the City of Winnipeg, who may or may not decide to have such groups, that we are taking a great risk here at eliminating citizen participation in the process.
There is no doubt, Madam Speaker, and this is one of the concerns, and any one of the members representing Winnipeg constituencies here, I would think, should have the concern that their particular councillor, who would be elected to represent their community, could be in a position where they would be excluded from participating in any of the standing committees. Now under the current City of Winnipeg Act, it is my understanding that the mayor must appoint every member of council to at least one standing committee and they must be able to participate in that process, in other words, contributing to the process or the democracy at City Hall, the City of Winnipeg Council.
Under the legislation that is proposed here, there is no requirement for the mayor to have every member of council participating in any of those standing committees. Therefore, you run the risk of putting councillors in a position where they will not be involved in the day-to-day decisions of running the City of Winnipeg. I think that puts us at a disadvantage for our councillors, whether it be in the Speaker's constituency or whether it be in the Minister of Urban Affairs' (Mr. Reimer) constituency or mine. If the mayor comes in and does not wish to have our councillor as a part of those standing committees, from my understanding of the bill, there is no requirement to have that occur.
Under the current legislation, there is. Our councillor would have to be part of one of those committees and, therefore, can have some input into those processes, but there is no requirement by the changes from what I see under Bill 36. If I am wrong in that, perhaps the minister can correct me, and I hope to be in committee to listen to those comments that the minister will make and, of course, no doubt, listen to the public input as well.
The other part of the bill that I see that can create some problems for us--and I know there may be times, Madam Speaker, where members of the Legislative Assembly or where there is ability for certain government bodies to go in camera, and it may be times where you would want to deal with personnel matters that perhaps would be best dealt with in a way that provided some sense of dignity or respect to the handling of certain matters or issues. In those cases, I can understand where you would want to have certain in-camera sessions take place, but in this particular bill, if I understand it correctly, it will allow the mayor and his or her cabinet to go in camera into many particular situations that would deal not only with personnel matters, but perhaps could deal with land or legal matters. I am not sure that the citizens of Winnipeg are best served by having such matters as issues dealing with land, land-based decisions or legal decisions going in camera. I am not sure that is in the best interests of the people of my community.
I am sure they would want to know what decisions are being made and would want to have their elected representatives debating this in some public forum and not going behind closed doors for another secret round of discussions and no doubt some decision making. I mean we all heard and saw what happened with respect to the constitutional changes when secret meetings were held and how the public of Canada took great offence to these decisions being made behind closed doors in secret. I would not want to see that particular process being handled, for example, for land or legal matters.
There are other issues dealing with the checks and balances in this Legislature. We have the ability to ask questions. If it should happen that a councillor is excluded from standing committees or some of the committees, Madam Speaker, is there going to be a Question Period that would allow those individuals the ability to ask questions about the processes that are taking place, if they cannot participate in those committees, or represent the wishes or the needs of the community for which they are elected?
There are changes in this bill with respect to extension to four years from the current three years. That is a change that is taking place, I believe, not only for the city of Winnipeg but for other municipalities in the province. Now, on the surface, four years, perhaps, is not an unreasonable period of time, but when you combine this with the other powers that are being concentrated into the hands of the mayor and the Executive Policy Committee of the City Council, I am not sure, from my understanding, that there is any other jurisdiction in Canada that is going to have the powers that this government and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) are proposing for the City of Winnipeg by way of Bill 36. Yet we are giving those people the ability to have those powers for four years. I am not sure that is in the best interests of the people. I am not saying that I am opposed to the item of extension from three years to four years, but when you couple that with the other changes that the minister is proposing in this bill, it may be something that would give the public less opportunity to have some say or at least cast a vote on election day on the decisions that have been made by those people in those positions of power.
Madam Speaker, there are several other issues I can no doubt reference with respect to Bill 36. There are other members who would like to no doubt have the opportunity to speak on this particular bill. But I think with those few comments I have indicated that there are problems with this particular bill, and it will give the mayor inordinate power that I believe is not held by mayors in other jurisdictions in Canada. By way of that mayor concentrating power, or power into the hands of that mayor, whoever that person might be, and ultimately down through the EPC and then to the selection of speaker and deputy speaker and into the standing committee chair positions and appointments where there are obviously salaries, additional salaries that are attached, the mayor will wield a significant amount of power over what is currently held.
* (1720)
I know that the Chamber of Commerce for the City of Winnipeg has said that they support the Cuff report, and they are quite open in that when they sent us correspondence back in October of last year. Madam Speaker, they do not reference anywhere in their report, that I can see, in their comments here, where they would want to have a public consultation process. I am not sure why the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce would have excluded that particular item, perhaps they believe in a top-down or top-driven system or reduction in the democratic processes. I would have to wait and hope that they would come forward in their presentation to provide some explanation to members of the committee and to members of the public who may be in attendance when we are talking about and listening to public presentations on Bill 36.
So, with those few words on Bill 36, at this point I do not see anything in this bill that would lead me to conclude that I should be supporting the legislation at this time, but I am prepared to listen to the members of the public who will no doubt come forward and add their comments to the others that are made here in this Chamber. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
An Honourable Member: Five o'clock.
Madam Speaker: Five o'clock. Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? [agreed]