LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. John Loewen (
These are the reasons for this petition:
Overcrowded schools throughout Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West subdivisions are forcing Pembina Trails School Division to bus students outside of these areas to attend classes in the public school system.
Elementary schools in Pembina Trails School Division have run out of space to accommodate the growing population of students in the aforementioned areas.
Five-year projections for enrolment in the elementary schools in these areas indicate significant continued growth.
Existing high schools that receive students from Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods and Linden Ridge are at capacity and cannot accommodate the growing number of students that will continue to branch out of these subdivisions.
Bussing to outlying areas
is not a viable long-term solution to meeting the student population growth in
the southwest portion of
The development of
Waverley West will increase the need for a high school in the southwest sector
of
The government is demonstrating a lack of respect for the students and families in Whyte Ridge, Lindenwoods, Linden Ridge and Richmond West by refusing to provide adequate access to education within the community.
The
NDP constituencies in
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the provincial
government recognize the need for a public high school in the southwest region
of
To request the provincial government, in conjunction with the Public Schools Finance Board, to consider adequate funding to establish a high school in the southwest sector of Winnipeg.
Signed by J. Skaftfeld, K. Cheema and G.A. Marchione and many others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132 (6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Minimum Sitting Days for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The background to this petition is as follows:
The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 35 days in 2003.
In 2004, there were 55 sitting days.
The number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.
The Legislative Assembly provides the best forum for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the government, and it is critical that all MLAs be provided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties.
Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limiting the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year.
Signed by Amrit
Parbhakar, Hasumati Shah and Janet Nikkel.
* (13:35)
Ambulance Service
Mr. Ron Schuler (
These are the reasons for this petition:
In May 2004, 46-year-old Peter Krahn suffered a heart attack while exercising in East St. Paul and was pronounced dead just under an hour later after being transported to the Concordia Hospital in Winnipeg. Reports show that it took nearly 18 minutes for an ambulance to arrive for Mr. Krahn.
The Interlake Regional
Health Authority claims that 21 minutes is an acceptable emergency response
time, whereas the City of
Ambulance coverage for
The municipalities of
East St. Paul and
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the provincial
government to consider providing East St. Paul with local ambulance service
which would service both East and
To request the provincial government to consider improving the way that ambulance service is supplied to all Manitobans by utilizing technologies such as GPS in conjunction with a Medical Transportation Co-ordination Centre (MTCC) which will ensure that patients receive the nearest ambulance in the least amount of time.
To request the provincial government to consider ensuring that appropriate funding is provided to maintain superior response times and sustainable services.
Signed by Al Schoffner, Marie Schoffner and Steven Schoffner.
Manitoba Day
Hon. Eric Robinson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
It is a pleasure today to
rise and provide a ministerial statement to acknowledge Manitoba Day. It was
135 years ago that the Manitoba Act received Royal Assent, officially creating our
province as part of
Across this great
province Manitobans are attending various celebrations and events to
commemorate this anniversary. These celebrations bring all people of all ages
and origins together to commemorate our heritage in
One celebration that is taking place in Gimli is the event Manitoba Day Heritage Partnership Project, involving school children in learning about and honouring the special relationship that developed between Icelandic immigrants and the Aboriginal people who were instrumental in helping the newcomers become accustomed to life in a land much different than the land they came from.
The Grade 5 class from Strathclair Community School that won the "Thank You Farmer" card contest earlier this year are our special guests in the gallery today on Manitoba Day. Also scheduled is a meeting with His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, other dignitaries and guests.
Today the diversity of
its people is one of the many characteristics that make
As I mentioned before, when explorers and settlers from other lands began to arrive here, First Nations people shared their knowledge of the land. They also shared place names and legends associated with those places from Aboriginal name and legend to official title of the province. The name "Manitoba" is our shared legacy and a lasting way of honouring Aboriginal people who are integral to the heritage of this province.
My department is a proud and energetic supporter of heritage initiatives throughout Manitoba. As an example of that, I would like to share with you some of the details of a small celebration I will be attending later today. I will be meeting with representatives of the Churchill River Diversion Archaeological project to formally acknowledge a very special relationship between the Province of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and First Nations.
* (13:40)
This partnership has actually been in place for about 15 years, and it has resulted in the reality of the rich legacy of heritage sites. It has also shown us where future partnerships could allow northern communities to manage precious cultural resources directly. Signing this agreement in principle is long overdue recognition of the roles played by all these parties in the past, and the roles that they will play in the future to preserve a heritage and an historic record of the value of all Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, I believe
this agreement in principle represents acknowledgement of First Nations people
as the first residents of this province,
and it highlights the extremely important contributions their descendants are
making to the history of
As a First Nations person
and as a Minister of
I wish to conclude my remarks by thanking Manitoba Hydro, the Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation, the O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, the Manitoba Museum, the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba Aboriginal and Northern Affairs and the Historic Resources Branch in my department for their co-operation in putting together this important agreement today.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Southdale): I thank the minister for his comments
in regard to Manitoba Day and the
celebration that we will be going through today and over the next short while.
It is my distinct pleasure to share a few remarks about Manitoba Day,
celebrated today, May 12, in honour of
As mentioned, in 1870,
the province of Manitoba came into being with the Manitoba Act. The 1880s was a
decade of expansion for the CPR, extending tracks through
In the 1900s,
In 1979, overturning a
court decision,
Mr. Speaker, these
highlights of
Today is a day not only
to celebrate
* (13:45)
Mr. Speaker: Order. Leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Continue.
Mr. Reimer: –to celebrate this wonderful occasion, the 135th anniversary of the
day of
Mr. Speaker, today, as Manitobans, we remember our individual and our collective past. We celebrate the accomplishments of our province this far and we look to the future, a bright peaceful and prosperous future for all Manitobans, and I encourage all Manitobans and legislators to hug a buffalo today.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, happy Manitoba Day. On May 12, 1870, the Manitoba Act received Royal Assent, and this made
In calling for a half-day
provincial holiday on
So let us move forward with this idea. Let us look seriously and move on having a half-day holiday so all of us can celebrate. You know, there have been a variety of memorable activities on previous Manitoba Days: May 12, 1966, Manitoba's official flag was dedicated and unfurled; May 12, 1996, the Louis Riel statue was unveiled; May 12, 2004, last year, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce organized Manitoba Day 21 with 21 organizations supporting an effort to build a better awareness of Manitoba Day. Our provincial history is far too important for this day to be so neglected.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to have a half-day holiday for all Manitobans every year on May 12 so that we can celebrate and honour our province together. We have a lot to be proud of. Let us show our pride with an official holiday starting next May 12.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Grade 5 students from Strathclair school. These students won the "Thank You Farmer" card contest that was held earlier this year. They are the guests of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) and the honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Livestock Industry
Slaughter Facilities
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, my enthusiasm to ask this question is exceeded only by my disappointment in this NDP government where they have failed to respond to the need in this province to assist and build slaughter capacity so we could market our cattle, but we want to celebrate Manitoba Day.
We are soon to be celebrating the second anniversary of the closure of the American border to our cattle. We need federally inspected capacity to move beef anywhere outside of this province. Natural Prairie in Neepawa, Rancher's Choice in Dauphin need infrastructure development to build their plants. What priority has this government given that project?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may be celebrating that it is almost two years since the closure of the border, we are not celebrating. We are working with the industry. We are working with people at Rancher's Choice, and we are moving forward on that proposal to build slaughter capacity in Dauphin. We are working with other people who have put different proposals forward. That is why we put additional money in place to cover off feasibility studies.
I can tell the member opposite there are people who have applied for funding to have their feasibility study done and there are people coming forward with business plans. It is my goal and all of our goal to see slaughter capacity in this province increase. We will continue to work with people opposite. If the members opposite would support and offer support to people who are looking for the increase to their slaughter capacity, we would welcome their support.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, anyone listening to that answer would realize this government has done almost nothing to support this industry. We cannot move beef out of this province without federally inspected plants. We have an opportunity to produce more capacity in this province. We are desperately in need of leadership from this government so they can get into production, so they can develop their capacity. They have not yet, as this minister said, exceeded or gone past the stage of doing a feasibility study.
Will she assist these plants and hurry up with the process?
Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to remind the member opposite of where slaughter capacity was at the end of their term, Mr. Speaker, because during their mandate slaughter capacity declined dramatically. Under our leadership slaughter capacity is increasing. We are working with people who want to build slaughter capacity in this province. We are working with Rancher's Choice. We are working with others. We have put money in place for feasibility studies. People are taking that money, they are coming forward with plans. I hope we will see further growth, and I hope we would have members opposite, rather than just being critical, being there to support the industry.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we are not critical of the people who are entrepreneurs in this province who want to get on with the job. We are talking about infrastructure developments that support these plants. That is the government's job. That is where the government has a role and they are failing. They are failing the plants; they are failing the cattlemen.
Mr. Speaker, I want an answer today as to when they will tell the communities what support they can expect for their infrastructure.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, each application is an individual application. Each application is dealt on an individual basis. I say to the members opposite that we are working with them on the facility in Dauphin, and I hope we would have support from the members opposite rather than just criticism because this is a co-operative. This is a group of people that have been wanting to see the slaughter capacity.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we have staff dedicated to this, and it is through our leadership that, in fact, the slaughter capacity in this province has gone up from where it was under the previous administration.
Livestock Industry
Slaughter Facilities
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr.
Speaker, today we hear yet of another processing plant nearly developed, but
not here in Manitoba. No, it has
opened in
Will the minister put on the record today when a plant will
open in
* (13:55)
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the members opposite that the equipment is in Dauphin. The equipment has been bought. Our government has supported Rancher's Choice in the purchase of that equipment, and we are working with them. They are putting their business plan together and the infrastructure plan is being done by the people of Dauphin and the R.M. of Dauphin.
We are working with the industry. We have had increased capacity in this province. We need much more. We need Rancher's Choice and we need others. We will continue to work with the industry that wants to have slaughter capacity in this province. I hope the members opposite would offer their support rather than the criticism that we have heard from them, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eichler: We have done more than offer criticism. We offered this minister, time and time again, suggestions, our five-point plan. They have yet to answer those. That is the problem with the government over there.
On
When will this minister finally make a meaningful announcement and announce the start of this project?
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the people who are involved in Rancher's Choice and the work they have done to bring this idea forward. I can tell you, as I can tell members opposite, our government has worked very closely with them to ensure that this plant will move forward. I can tell the member opposite stay tuned. The plant will be going into construction. We will see a plant in operation in Dauphin.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister to stay tuned because we have more news for her if she would just listen. We have brought realistic proposals forward to the minister. We have expansions in Winkler and Beausejour, also projects from Neepawa, Arborg and Dauphin. The minister has done nothing. Two years, no plants, no action, just empty announcements. Our producers are tired of these hollow promises.
Will the minister make a commitment and keep our cattle in the
province along with the jobs in the
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I will stand beside our record of what we have done to support the industry through this very difficult time. It has not been an easy time for people in the cattle industry. Our government–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been a difficult time for producers in the cattle industry over these last two years.
Our government has put in place programs that were designed in consultation with the industry. The producers and processors have come forward with ideas and our government has been there to support them as they move through this process of increasing slaughter capacity. We will continue to work with them because it is our goal to increase slaughter capacity in this province and have plants built to the federally inspected standard.
Probate Fees
Increase
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Finance Minister issued a press release raising probate fees by 17 percent. Yesterday the Finance Minister introduced Bill 44, increasing probate fees by a further 36 percent over Friday's increase. In a period of five days, the Finance Minister increased the fees a total of 58 percent.
Given the fact that the Province has record high revenues this year, courtesy of the federal government, I ask the Minister of Finance what possible excuse does he have for increasing this tax twice over a five-day period. Why did you do it, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, at the time of the budget we said there would be an adjustment in the probate fees when it was brought forward by the Department of Justice. When it was brought forward we announced it. It is encoded in The Budget Implementation and Tax Statutes Amendment Act, 2005. All the information is there. It was announced publicly. The member says that a public press release is a backdoor way of doing it. It was announced twice and now it is being followed through on in legislation.
Mr. Hawranik: Increasing probate fees is a tax on widows and children. A total increase of 58 percent is unconscionable. The taxes for a $150,000 estate went from $890 to $1,050 on Friday, and then now today, a mere five days later, to $1,405.
I ask the Minister of Finance has he already spent the extra $525 million in additional revenues available to him this year in the budget. Is that why he is increasing the taxes on widows and children twice over a five-day period to a total of 58 percent?
* (14:00)
Mr. Selinger: The member asked if we have spent the extra money we received from Ottawa. He will note that the Fiscal Stabilization Fund has been replenished very close to the 5% target. The money has been put there. The probate fee was brought into the middle range for the probate fees across the country. It had fallen severely behind.
All the money that is being drawn from the probate fee goes back to doing what the Minister of Justice is doing today: 23 new police officers are graduating of the 54 that we announced in the budget. So the money is going to make our communities safer for everybody including senior citizens.
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, a 58% increase in probate fees in five days by this NDP government is unconscionable. Obviously, the NDP cannot increase taxes fast enough to fuel their spending habits. Obviously, the NDP cannot stoop low enough in their quest for more money. They have to go after widows and children.
I ask the Minister of Finance who is next on the minister's tax radar screen. Who is next? The food banks and the homeless?
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we reduced
taxes in this budget by $149 million.
We have increased the property tax credit for senior citizens up to $800. We have put more resources into middle-income
families. We have increased the minimum wage. We have increased shelter options
for low-income families within this province. As a matter of fact, in the year
2003, we were one of the only provinces in Canada where food bank use actually
declined, and that was in part a result of restoring the National Child Benefit
clawback. Members opposite clawed back the National Child Benefit from
low-income families. We restored it, and that is why families are doing better
in
Crocus Fund
Election of Directors
Mr. John Loewen (
Today we are learning that the six board of directors appointed by the MFL are going to resign their position and four or five new directors are going to be appointed. These are the directors responsible for the loss of over $60 million of unit holders' money. Mr. Speaker, the new board of directors, whose names we have seen, will be a vast improvement, but they still are short of any experience in venture capital investing.
This still leaves a big hole in the fund but the real issue, Mr. Speaker, is that the same prospectus indicates, and I quote again, "holders of common shares are entitled to elect two directors."
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to indicate to the House and to unit holders today what this government is prepared to do to see that the rights of the unit holders are upheld when they get the opportunity to elect two directors.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I think what the member forgets is the Auditor General's report is going to recommend changes. What he is going to do is recommend changes to improve the system. The system that was set up in 1992, by the former Filmon government, was improved. It was improved in 2001 to ensure that the Auditor General had oversight of the fund. We will continue to listen to the Auditor General, listen to the investigations that are ongoing to make sure we improve the system, make sure there is more additional protections for shareholders and make sure the board is reflective to the best interests of the shareholders.
Mr. Loewen: Once again, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicates the Auditor General will make recommendations. I would remind him he has got the report of the Auditor General, as does the Minister of Finance, but that is not the issue. The issue is that it is this government's responsibility to uphold the law and see that the rights of the shareholders are protected. Section 106(3)(b) of The Corporations Act reads, and I quote, "if there are no remaining directors elected by that class or series, any holder of shares of that class or series may call a meeting of the holders thereof for the purpose of filling this vacancy."
What this means simply, Mr. Speaker, is that when Charlie Curtis resigns, as we are told he may do today, it gives the unit holders the right to call a meeting to do as indicated in the prospectus and elect two new directors, unconflicted, two experienced directors to stand up for their interests.
I would simply ask this government to indicate today what they are going to do for the unit holders to see that their interests are protected.
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, once again the member opposite is a little bit confused. It is not the government's right, it is not the government's role to call a general meeting. It is the role of the Crocus Fund. It is a right of the management of the fund.
So what the member is confused about is our role, and our role is to ensure that the Auditor General has the appropriate information. Our role was to make sure he had the right to go in and make a report. Our role is to react to the draft report and the final report once it is presented, to make sure it appropriately reflects the proper protection for all shareholders. That is what we are doing. That is the prudent thing.
The member opposite forgets the management of the fund is left to the board and the fund. We are the ones who set the rules by which the fund operates. That is what the investigation is going to do. We are going to continue to improve the fund for all shareholders and approve what you started.
Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is the minister who is confused time and time again. He needs to understand his role is to do what his government said it would do, and that is to monitor the fund, to see that it acts within the act it was set up to act under. The real issue here is who is standing up for the unit holders. Once again this government continues to try and distance themselves because it is embarrassed by its appalling lack of oversight that has led to the fleecing of Manitobans to the tune of $60 million.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is simple. If Mr. Curtis resigns, it triggers automatically the rights of the unit holders to call a meeting to elect two directors to stand up for their interests. I would ask him today will he give his assurance to the unit holders that they will get the opportunity that a meeting will be called, which is within his right to see the law is upheld to ensure they get the right to elect two unconflicted and experienced directors to look after their interest.
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite must be very confused because yesterday he said I am not asking you to manage the fund. What you have to understand is we do not manage the fund. It says in the act that there will be a general meeting and there will be people elected to represent the shareholders when that happens. You are talking about a hypothetical situation. The fund will work within the parameters as designed.
What you are asking us to do is manage the fund. We do not manage the fund. We do not manage the everyday operations of the fund. We do not call the meetings of shareholders. What we do is we have extended The Auditor General's Act. We gave permission for the Auditor General to go in and audit the fund. We allowed the MSC, an independent body, to go in and investigate the fund. We are going to get their reports and we are going to improve the situation that was set up by you.
Seven Oaks School Division
Land Acquisition and Development
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, from the minutes of a March '05 meeting of the Public Schools Finance Board, it says that on September 14 of '04, the Seven Oaks School Division asked the Public Schools Finance Board for approval to sell off parcels of land in Swinford Park in the Grady Bend area, which are the 20 properties on the cul-de-sac. Strange, considering Mr. O'Leary said all of this surplus land had already been sold in 2003.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education if he can tell us why the Public Schools Finance Board waited five months to pass a motion giving them permission to sell off this land.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Once again, Mr. Speaker, the process of acquisition and disposition of land, the guidelines are in place so that the Public Schools Finance Board acts appropriately. When school divisions approach them in acquiring land and when they approach them in disposing of land the decision rests with the arm's-length organization that is Public Schools Finance Board. The duly elected school boards bring forward these proposals.
Obviously in this case, Mr. Speaker, something has gone awry and we have committed to look at how this transpired. All these questions are going to be addressed in the review we have committed to do and all these questions will be answered on or before the 2nd of June as we have committed to do.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, certainly things have gone awry in this situation. In fact, it is a big mess. At the March 16 meeting the Public Schools Finance Board also passed a motion that no future land development projects of this nature will be approved by the Public Schools Finance Board.
Considering that the Public Schools Finance Board had an opinion on February 8 that land development by a school division is illegal, why did it take them until March 16? They had the legal opinion on February 8. They waited until March 16 to relay this to the school division. Why did it take them that long to do that?
* (14:10)
Mr. Bjornson: Once again, Mr. Speaker, these are very specific questions that will be dealt with in the review process. In Estimates it was discussed that the legal opinion that had been requested, as well as the land management review, were documents that had to be dealt with together. The Public Schools Finance Board, when they received those documents, were responding to questions raised as a result and getting the information back and forth.
It is a very complicated process. We have talked about it in Estimates and we are talking about it in the review. The review is going to answer all the specific questions, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, until last week this minister said he knew absolutely nothing about this, despite having the allegations come to him a year before. In the last two weeks he has demonstrated serious, serious mismanagement of this whole issue.
Mr. Speaker, a motion was also passed at that same meeting
saying that the Public Schools Finance Board wanted a full accounting of the
I would like to ask this Minister of Education if this project is concluded and if there is a complete financial analysis already completed and handed in.
Mr. Bjornson: Once again, very specific questions are all going to be dealt with in the review process. We have the co-operation of all parties in this process. We have got a team that is assembled to address this. We have got a lot of expertise lined up to deal with this, and it will be dealt with on or before June 2, Mr. Speaker.
Physician Resources (Brandon)
Shortages
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr.
Speaker,
How many more doctors have to leave before this government will recognize the very seriousness of this issue?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to quote Doctor Dhaliwal, the head of CancerCare
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about what is happening
in terms of the supply of doctors for
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the new
phenomenon of highway medicine is alive and well in
Why does the Minister of Health not recognize the seriousness of this issue? Stand up for the people of Brandon and develop a serious plan of action to recruit and retain physicians in Brandon.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the effect of our work over the last five years has been that, in total, we have 139 more doctors practising in this province than we had in 1999. That does not solve the problem, but it is an immense improvement over the situation we faced when we came into government.
Mr. Speaker, we have very recently been working with the medical college to fulfil our commitment to expand the spaces by a further 15 by a year from now. That is in addition to having brought back the enrolment of the medical college from the cuts of the previous government down to 70, back up to 85. We are actually running at about 87 this year. Next year we will be up over 90, close to 95. Unfortunately, it will take another four years to graduate those doctors and seven years before they become effective in our system. We are committed to a long-term solution to a problem caused by a previous government's bad decisions.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, clearly the members for Brandon East and Brandon West are not standing up for their constituents, so we will.
Mr. Speaker, people in
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, the Brandon RHA has also been successful in recruiting physicians over the last number of years. Yes, there are areas in which we need to recruit more, but they have also been successful in finding and retaining people in the area of orthopedics, for example.
I want to just remind the member opposite that it was the
previous government that cancelled the Brandon hospital five times, Mr.
Speaker. It was this government that built the hospital. It was this government
that put the first MRI outside of
Mental Health Services
Accessibility
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
I ask the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) why is it that his government is spending money to go to court to protect his right to give long waiting lists, instead of spending money to fix the problem and allow people access to problems like PACT, which they need.
Hon. Theresa Oswald (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): I thank the member for the question. It is a fact that the PACT program, that is Program for Assertive Community Treatment, has been a very effective program in our community. The WRHA has this program in place to assist people who are suffering with mental illnesses, severe and persistent mental illnesses, Mr. Speaker, with doing as much as they can to live in community in a healthy and, indeed, happy way.
Certainly we find that the PACT program is considered one of
the best practices in mental health care, a community-integrated program. It has been
very, very successful, in fact, in reducing hospital stays for mental health
patients somewhere in the neighbourhood from 90 days down to 10 days. We have
seen that success here in
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the point. This is a program which is doing good. In Ontario they have about 60 PACT teams. In Manitoba we have one. We should have four, five, six, somewhere like that. What is happening is that people who are severely sick with mental illness cannot get access. Instead these individuals end up in hospital in crisis because there is not the adequate support in the community.
The question here to the minister is why on earth is her government spending money to go to court to protect their right to have long waiting lists instead of spending the money to make sure people have access to PACT programs when they need it.
Ms. Oswald: Indeed, I believe I just stood in my place and agreed with the member opposite that the PACT program is very successful. That is, in fact, why we are working hard to expand the program to help more people in Winnipeg and, indeed, assist those who are suffering with debilitating mental illnesses in rural Manitoba.
The PACT program is one component of our mental health treatment plan. One of the most important components, as I have said before, Mr. Speaker, is mental health promotion. That is why we are working hard within our schools. That is why we are working hard within our communities with organizations such as Teen Touch and Teen Talk to ensure that we can do the best we can to prevent mental illnesses.
I find it curious, strange, that the member opposite who is
standing in his place crying out for more services voted against our budget to
improve health care in
* (14:20)
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the fact is when it comes to health care this is a government in crisis. This is a government which spends to address a crisis instead of spending to prevent the problem in the first place. They could use those dollars much more effectively if they increased the number of PACT teams instead of just standing there and saying, "Oh, there is nothing that we are doing or could do that is more."
The reality is that two years ago they got $200 million more from the federal government, last year $450 million from the federal government and, yet, they are spending it on crisis management instead of preventive health. When is this government going to start realizing that, instead of going to court to protect their right to have long waiting lists, they should be spending the dollars preventing the problems, keeping people healthy and in the community, as the PACT program does?
Ms. Oswald: I will reiterate for the member that not only do we concur that prevention and promotion is a very important part of a mental health strategy, but we in fact put the PACT program in place, the program that he is lauding today. That is indeed why we are going to work hard to expand that program.
I will also correct the record for the member opposite. Indeed when he claims that nothing is being done, in fact, we have increased our funding to mental health spending by 38 percent since 1999. That is close to $20 million. Again, this is a member who stood in his place and voted against increases to health care. I find comments about funding coming from a Liberal a little daunting today.
Initiative Update
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Today we are celebrating Manitoba Day, but for residents of the inner city Manitoba Day on the annual calendar brought very few reasons to celebrate under the previous government's watch. The complete abandonment of inner-city issues led to severe neighbourhood decay and extreme housing deterioration. I was hoping that members opposite–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Altemeyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that those reading Hansard afterwards will not understand that the opposition did not want me to ask my question. They do not want history reviewed and they certainly do not want to be reminded. However, I am pleased to inform members of the opposition that today we are, in fact, celebrating the 5th anniversary of the Winnipeg Housing and Homelessness Initiative. I am hoping that our Minister of Housing might be able to offer some headline stories for all of us here in the Chamber today.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Well, I thank the member from Wolseley for both the question and the
accurate accounting of the history of
Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery
Wait Lists
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.
Speaker, last week it was 84-year-old World War II veteran Don Dundas' hip replacement needs that I brought
to the minister's attention. This week it is Mrs. Brennan from
Why will this callous Health Minister not listen to Manitobans like Mrs. Brennan, remove his self-imposed quotas and provide necessary hip and knee operations for otherwise healthy Manitobans like Mrs. Brennan?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, let me first correct the member. There are no quotas on hips and
knees. They do not exist. These are simply myths that the opposition keeps
repeating in the fond hope that if they say them often enough somebody will
believe them. We put in place a thousand extra procedures in the next couple of
years. That is our goal.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the fact the Canadian orthopedic society said that more had been done in Manitoba than in any other province in the past five years to the orthopedic waiting lists. So I am confident our system, our doctors, our nurses, our physiotherapists will help us provide people with better health care before they need their surgery, when they need their surgery and in recovery. We will make our target of a thousand extra procedures.
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, this is cold comfort to persons like Mrs. Brennan. She said, and I quote again, "I phoned the Morden hospital on April '05 and was told that they were just now booking last April's patients. Since April all they have been able to do are fractured hips and knees."
Will this minister end his false platitudes, remove his ideology, remove the pain and fund the backlog of painful hip and knee replacements?
Mr. Sale: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have agreed
that we have too long a waiting list for hips and knees, so I am not sure where
the member has been. We can now do more hips and knees in
We are recruiting more surgeons. We have six more orthopedic
surgeons than we had in 1999 when the previous government left office. We have
10 more anesthetists than we had in 1999 when they left office. We put in two
state-of-the-art surgical suites in
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Speaker, who are
we supposed to believe, the minister or the people writing these comments to
us, these people in pain in
She stated further, "Do I have to fall and break a hip to get it done before I am in a wheelchair and the quality of life is deteriorating each day?" Mrs. Brennan needs both hips replaced, Mr. Speaker. There are existing alternatives.
Will the minister set aside his rhetoric, implement these options and relieve the pain and suffering of Manitobans waiting for these hip and knee replacements?
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, when my colleague, the former Minister of Health, moved to assure patients that the Pan Am Clinic would be available for many orthopedic procedures which previously took up time in our acute care in-patient hospitals, he made it possible for many more surgeries to be done in our hospitals because the recovery time for hips and knees requires a hospital stay. The alternatives that have been put forward by the opposition are all on the mistaken assumption that somehow a hip procedure is an out-patient procedure. It is not; it requires a hospital stay.
We are very much committed to reducing these waiting lists to an acceptable level. We know that our friends and neighbours are also waiting for surgery. We know the pain can be very, very severe. I have friends in that situation. That is why we are putting all the energy we can to fixing this problem so that the waiting lists are shorter and Manitobans get the care they need. We need everyone's support to ensure Manitobans that we can make our targets and reduce that list.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
New Community Centre in
Elmwood
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the Manitoba Legislature to report on an exciting new project that will take place in my constituency of Elmwood.
In the not-too-distant future Bronx Park Community Club and Good Neighbours Senior Centre will be housed in a brand new facility that will serve as a model for future community centres in our province. The $3.9-million facility will be 35 000 square feet, will include a wellness zone, games room, computer lab, creative arts studio, home improvement shop, as well as administration, storage and meeting areas. Funding will come from all three levels of government, administered through a $43-million recreation and leisure initiative announced last month.
The benefits this facility will offer the community are numerous. It will enrich local neighbourhoods by acting as a community campus which will promote interaction between individuals of all ages. It will enhance the quality of life of seniors, children and their families by providing a safe place to pursue recreational activities in a social setting. It will help to keep the youth in the community physically active setting them on a path to healthy living for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, although
this ambitious project is important to the future of
Again, I would like to congratulate all of my hardworking constituents for their efforts in this visionary project. Thank you.
Mr. Leonard Derkach
(Russell): I rise today to congratulate the Grade 5
students from
Mr. Speaker, these
students, we learned today, worked very hard to comply with the rules of the
contest and to try to make this as original and as unique as possible. I think
from the judges scaling of these projects, certainly the Grade 5 students from
Today, the Minister of Agriculture hosted a luncheon for these young Manitobans. It was very appropriate she did that because, when the students were supposed to be here to receive their awards, we had a snowstorm in this province, Mr. Speaker, and the students were not able to attend at that particular day. So it was indeed a pleasure to join the Minister of Agriculture today at the luncheon. I am happy to say that Mr. Speaker (Mr. Hickes) was able to join us at the same time. It was truly a wonderful short lunch that we were able to enjoy with the students and the teacher as well as some of the support staff and parents.
I understand the students
are touring the city of
Joyce McLean
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate
Joyce McLean for being awarded the
2005 Volunteer of the Year Award from the National Association of Activity
Professionals. Joyce received this award on April 20 in
Joyce began her close relationship with the lodge in 1966. She started working as a dietary aid, but so strong was her interest in serving others that, a week later, she volunteered to help in the recreation department on her days off. When Joyce later became the manager of that department, she continued volunteering, going above and beyond the call of duty to make someone else's life, or their leaving of life, a little easier. Besides involving residents in enjoyable activities, Joyce worked tirelessly to organize fundraising projects to ensure that these activities continue.
Joyce is still volunteering at the lodge. A year ago she logged 4000 hours. These days she can be seen in the dining room before each meal, setting the tables for the residents, assisting them getting to and from the dining room, conducting Sunday hymn sings, or showing them movies twice a week.
The staff and volunteers of Fred Douglas Society foster a caring, respectful and supportive living environment. Joyce, as a member of that society, has adopted volunteerism as a way of life, bringing hope, comfort, joy and dignity to others. She has been called the "heart and soul" of Fred Douglas Lodge, and the "glue that holds the lodge together."
I am proud to congratulate Joyce McLean for being awarded the 2005 Volunteer of the Year Award by the National Association of Activity Professionals. Thank you to all staff, board of directors and volunteers with the Fred Douglas Society for their hard work and volunteerism, which makes Fred Douglas Lodge such a wonderful place to live for its residents.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu
(Morris): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a few
words on the record today, Manitoba Day,
In celebration of
Manitoba Day, The
Mr. Larry Manson of Domain was the winning entry with his landscape featuring a grain
elevator at Ste. Agathe,
Today, the Grade 11
students from
In particular, I want to congratulate Doug Penner and Laura Rempel from The Scratching River Post, a community newspaper in Morris, for their innovation and creativity in celebrating Manitoba Day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (14:30)
Asian Heritage Month
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, May is Asian Heritage Month, another opportunity for
Manitobans to celebrate the diversity of our province. Today, I recognize the
efforts of Magdaragat
Magdaragat
Each year, Magdaragat holds a Culture Share and co-operates with members of another culture to give both groups an opportunity to learn from one another. This year they joined with the India School of Dance. In years past, Culture Shares have included co-operation with the Spanish, Ukrainian and El Salvadorian communities.
Each summer, Magdaragat
serves as the principal sponsor of the
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank Magdaragat
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(Continued)
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, could you please call debate on second readings in the following order: 18, 25, 5 and 8? Then could you please call the report stage for Bill 22?
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 18–Le
Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on Bill 18, Le Collège de Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman.
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Monsieur le Président, je suis très heureux aujourd'hui de me présenter ici
dans cette Chambre pour donner mon appui au projet de Loi 18, Loi modifiant la
Loi constituant en corporation le Collège de Saint-Boniface.
Translation
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
today to be present in the House to give my support to Bill 18, Le Collège de
Saint-Boniface Incorporation Amendment Act.
English
It is unfortunate that
certain events that led to the Auditor General's investigation into the
practices and governance of the college prompted this amendment to this
particular act. It is fair to say that St. Boniface college is a valued
institution that offers a great deal to the
Nous les Conservateurs [We Conservatives] believe that the college has a bright future ahead of it and that there are many things that could be done to increase the value of the college and to increase the value of the educational experience for the college's students, which I believe the Auditor pointed out in his report. I am certain that there are many other different ways that we could assist in making this institution a world-class university when it comes to French-language sponsored programs.
À travers le Canada, nous voyons qu'il y a
plusieurs établissements postsecondaires qui offrent des cours en français.
Translation
Throughout
English
Many of these schools are
outside of Québec, and entering into partnerships with them would be a valuable alliance for St. Boniface college
and, indeed, the
Unfortunately, this
mindset means that the students at St. Boniface will not be able to take
advantage of programs in the faculties of Education, Arts or Social Sciences
offered in French at, say, Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. The
quality of French language education at
As well, the
J'ai eu l'occasion dernièrement d'écouter des
étudiants et des membres de la communauté francophone chez nous à La Montagne–
Translation
I have recently had the
opportunity to hear students and members of the Francophone community, in my
region of La Montagne–
English
–who see tremendous and untapped potential for the college. It would be extremely beneficial to our province, and indeed, our education system, if we could work towards making this a reality. There appears to be an opportunity now in our history to establish St. Boniface College as a full-fledged university in the very near future.
However, this would
require a great deal of effort on behalf of this minister and her government in
terms of funding and programming. The college, as well, would have to deal with
a great deal of programming issues to ensure it can offer appropriate class
selection to offer degrees. As well, a great deal of work needs to be done on behalf of
the community to ensure that government understands the merits and demands for
an actual, stand-alone university serving the needs of Franco-Manitobans as
well as Francophones around
Quand nous regardons le nom "collège
universitaire", je vois que c'est un peu difficile à comprendre, parce que
je ne suis pas capable de trouver un autre établissement avec ce titre dans le
réseau d'universités canadiennes. C'est pour cette raison que nous devrons remplacer
le nom par "Université de Saint-Boniface".
Translation
When we look at the name
"collège universitaire," I see that it is somewhat difficult to
understand, because I cannot find any other institution having that title
within the network of Canadian universities. It is for that reason that we
should replace that name by "Université de Saint-Boniface."
English
Bill 18 does address some
concerns that were raised about
the governance of the college. The amendments are an important step to
bolstering the credibility of the
college as a consumer of taxpayers' dollars and a place of higher learning and
development for
There will now be
representatives from the
It is to this end that I see that we have a responsibility to the professionals who give of their time to instruct the students in the other official language of this bilingual province. We see many advantages for our young people who want to educate themselves in the French language. To this end, French should be the official working language of the université de Saint-Boniface. Also, I believe that the minister should support this institution by recommending that students be required to answer their exam questions in French, unless, of course, the student were taking an English course. Then it would make common sense to have them done in English.
Ce qui nous concerne aussi est le renvoi–
Translation
What concerns us as well is
the reference–
English
On that part, I want to
retract that statement because, giving considerable consideration, I see that the minister has already–and she talks
about it in the bill on the affiliation
with the
Yet, there seems to be some sort of dragging of the heels on the part of this minister to help address some of the many shortfalls that she has created with a lack of resources and understanding where a French university is concerned.
* (14:50)
We have in our milieu one
of the finest French colleges, or as I like to say, universities in western
I would have expected more from this government, especially with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who just happens to have this college which should be called a university right in his own back yard. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan), that we adjourn debate.
Motion agreed to.
Bill
25–The Workers Compensation
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 25, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, standing in the
name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the
House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name
of the honourable Member for
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise to add my comments to Bill 25, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, Mr. Speaker.
I want to start first by thanking the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) for her work in bringing forward this piece of legislation and for her department in recognizing the need to amend The Workers Compensation Act, in fact, to modernize the act.
Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of changes occurring in the new act that have been long interests of
mine, and I wanted to see some improvements to those. In particular, it was the
section dealing with protection for firefighters, both full time and part time,
for those employed in that occupation in
Mr. Speaker, in Bill 25, our government proposes to make some significant changes over what had been in place through previous legislation brought in by the Filmon government during the 1990s. I can remember debating quite clearly those pieces of legislation, and Bill 59 comes to mind. I know Bill 56 preceded Bill 59 in the early 1990s. Of course, during that time those amendments to The Workers Compensation Act were deemed to have, in our view, eroded the benefits and the wage loss protection for Manitobans who were injured in workplace accidents and then had to sustain time loss and, of course, subsequently, loss of some of their benefits.
I recall in the early
1990s, in fact, Mr. Speaker, going back a bit further than that, in 1985 the
then-Howard Pawley government had
introduced the King Commission report, or
King Commission, to review The
Workers Compensation Act in the province of Manitoba. That committee travelled
across
Mr. Speaker, that report was about an inch thick in its size and contained a significant number of recommendations. Unfortunately, and I recall quite clearly, the then-Filmon government chose to cherry-pick that report and not take all of the recommendations contained within it, and then implemented Bills 56 and 59 which eroded the benefits and wage loss protection for injured workers in Manitoba. I know when we were in opposition we spoke against and voted against those two particular pieces of legislation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have
before us a piece of legislation that will right the wrongs caused by Bill 56 and Bill 59 and will bring back
and restore some balance and protection for injured working people and their
families in Manitoba. I am quite proud of the progress we have made in this
regard. In particular, I am quite proud
of the fact that, for the first time in
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it went on further to penalize injured workers and their families by penalizing those families and workers an additional 10 percent of net pay after two years. So, if an injured worker was injured longer than two years and was off work, their net pay was reduced a further 10 percent from the 90 down to 80 percent. The net effect of that was considerably less. In fact, we had calculated at the time that the wage loss that the injured worker would receive would be somewhere in the range of 75 percent of net income. So there was a considerable financial penalty for anyone that was unfortunate enough to be injured in a workplace accident as a result of the impact of Bill 59 that was brought in and became effective January 1, 1992.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in this new bill that we have brought forward, Bill 25, we have put in place, as I have indicated, wage loss replacement of 100 percent for minimum wage workers, because I think it is important to recognize that those in our society who are living on minimum wage, eking out a living, are very hard pressed to keep their commitments and to support their families at that level of income. It is only fair that if they should unfortunately sustain a workplace accident 100 percent of their wages are protected.
Mr. Speaker, we also have increased benefits for those people who have sustained permanent injuries. I do not like to use the term, and I use it guardedly, that some have referred to the "meat chart" with respect to how individuals are compensated for perhaps the loss of a finger, or an arm, or a leg as a result of a workplace accident. Those levels of compensation have been increased and will help to offset some of those losses and to in some way help to reduce the suffering that person, that individual who would have lost those parts of their body, would have to live with for the rest of their lives. So this in some way, some small measure, helps to compensate for that particular loss.
Mr. Speaker, one of the
issues that I had, and I recall the debate quite clearly in this House sitting
across the way and debating Bill 59, was an age discrimination that was built
into Bill 59 of 1991. At that time the former Filmon government decided that if
a worker was injured and was 45 years of age or older their benefits would be
reduced for every year that they were over the age of 45. So for 20 years there
would be, if a person was unable to return to work and was injured at the age
of 45, they would have their benefits reduced every year from the time they
were 45 up until the time they were age 65, when their benefits would end. So
there was an age discrimination actually built into Bill 59, which I never
supported at any time in this House. I think it is only fair to say, and I am
quite proud of the fact, that our government has decided that we will eliminate
that age discrimination as a part of The Workers Compensation Act here in
Now, Mr. Speaker, with
respect to other parts of Bill 25 that we have brought forward, there are some
benefits in here for employers as well. I congratulate the minister and the
Workers Compensation Board for striking a committee that would travel across
the
One of the other items, Mr. Speaker, that had been put in place by Bill 59 during the 1991 legislation that we are removing through Bill 25 is the wage cap that had been incorporated by the previous Conservative legislation. I know this is an issue that is important to the miners in the North for individuals who are, through their employment, achieving a fairly decent wage.
Under the existing provisions of the workers compensation system, the wage loss benefits are capped under the current legislation and do not allow those who are making a higher level of income to receive the full wage loss benefits should they sustain a workplace injury. So through Bill 25, we have removed the cap on earnings that would be used in the calculation for wage loss replacement.
* (15:00)
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is also, for employers, the cost of transporting injured workers to hospitals will now be borne by the workers compensation system which will put in place, obviously, I believe, a responsibility where it rightly belongs, and that is into the hands of the workers compensation system to care for the worker from the moment that person is unfortunately injured until the time they return to work. I know the compensation system we have in place tries very earnestly to restore the worker as close to whole as possible and to encourage them to return to active work life and a normal life and to provide the necessary supports along the way.
Having been the critic for the workers compensation system for a number of years, I know and can reflect on many of the cases that came to my office as a result of the legislation that had been in place. In fact, Mr. Speaker, looking back over some of my old speeches here in the early nineties, I recall when first being elected as a member of this Assembly, my caseload as a MLA was 75 percent workers compensation related, which is a huge volume related to an area that unfortunately, at that time, was penalizing folks for being injured in workplace accidents.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the legislation itself will also bring in place changes to the government structure relating to the workers compensation system and will allow for members of the Workers Compensation Board to be chairs of the subcommittees of that particular board. I think it is only fair and reasonable that some individual who is part of the Workers Compensation Board chair those subcommittees because I think it allows for a complete involvement of all board members to participate in the activities of the board decisions and the subcommittee recommendations that might go through to the full Workers Compensation Board itself.
So I support that the chair of the board will no longer be the sole person responsible for chairing all of the committees. I also support the fact that we have given the opportunity to have Value-for-Money Audits contained within the legislation that will allow for those audits to take place, I believe, once every five years, and will allow the board itself and perhaps the government of the day to determine the effectiveness of the policies that are in place, and if there are any amendments required that will allow those reviews to occur.
I believe, Mr. Speaker,
we have also built a provision into this legislation that will allow for a
10-year review of the workers compensation system. I know this legislation has
not been reviewed for–well, the last piece of legislation we brought in was in
1991, so it has been some 14 years since the last piece of legislation. This
will allow for a 10-year review and, hopefully, ongoing into the future and to
make sure that our compensation legislation stays current with the best
practices and policies from across the number of jurisdictions in
Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of other recommendations we have with respect to Bill 25. One of the
areas I support quite strongly, in fact, very strongly, is the fact we have
said through this legislation that the responsibility for prevention and
investigation of workplace accidents must and should remain a part of the
Workplace Safety and Health branch of
the Department of Labour. I believe very strongly that it is important to keep
a separation between those two functions and to keep them independent of each
other to make sure we take the necessary preventative steps to prevent injuries
in the first place. This legislation reinforces that it would be the practice
in the
With respect to the
investment policy, going back to governance for a moment, the WCB will have its
board of directors now set the WCB investment policy. I know it is a practice
of MPI and that we rely quite strongly on the advice we would receive by fund
managers. I think it is important to have the board involved in the investment
policy decisions being made because they are ultimately recountable to the
stakeholders, to the working people of the
Mr. Speaker, there also
have been changes to the Workers
Compensation Appeal Commission that will strengthen that particular
process, and we have confirmed that workplace injury and disease prevention are
part of the WCB mandate. Now, picking up on that part, I want to talk for a few
moments about The Workers Compensation Act amendments in Bill 25 that will
restore something that is very near and dear to my heart, and that is protection for firefighters in the
I was quite proud to be a part of a provincial government that brought in amendments, I believe it was in 2002, to the workers compensation system that recognized that firefighters would be protected for certain types of cancers. We were quite proud to pass that particular piece of legislation and to this Bill 25 will expand on those protections.
I want to go back and review some of the historical facts that were related to firefighter protection and how we arrived at this point, Mr. Speaker. I know the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I had been working on this issue since–the Member for Thompson, in particular, had been working on this issue since 1988. Of course, when I was the critic, I became the critic for Labour in, I believe it was 1990 or '91, then I kind of picked up where the Member for Thompson had passed the torch, and we moved forward. It has been some 15 years of work, moving to the point where we will restore whole a protection that had been in place for the firefighters in our province, both full- and part-time firefighters.
Now, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the legislation that we had, or the regulations that we had from 1966 until 1988, firefighters in our province, full-time firefighters, were protected by WCB regulation that if they sustained a heart, lung, brain or kidney injury or disease during the course of their employment as a firefighter, they would be deemed to have encountered that disease or that injury as a result of their employment. In fact, WCB, the first regulation was brought in in 1966 and was subsequently amended in 1977 to be WCB regulation 24-77 that protected firefighters.
Now, unfortunately, in
1988, the then-City of
Now, I know, Mr. Speaker, firefighters at that time were very distressed and of course they subsequently went to the government of the day, the Filmon government, which was fairly new in office at that time and asked the government to reinstate that protection for firefighters into legislation. There had already been the King commission study that had been ongoing, but the legislation associated with that had not been implemented and had not been brought forward.
Bill 56 subsequently came forward, and I am looking at the historical records that we have available to us, Mr. Speaker. We see where the Member for Thompson once again added comment to the fact that the Bill 56 that was brought in by the previous government did not incorporate protections for firefighters and did not reinstate that protection for those firefighters.
So, Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the Member for Thompson, recognizing that the government of the day, the Filmon government of the day, was not serious in bringing back those protections for firefighters, introduced Bill 97, a private member's bill, that would restore heart and lung and cancer protection for firefighters. That bill subsequently died on the Order Paper, unfortunately, and it was a time of the minority government, so perhaps that had something to do with it. It was then subsequently brought back in following years after the '90 election.
Mr. Speaker, I know the Member for Thompson had asked the then-Conservative government to introduce amendments to Bill 56 and, reading the comments, he tried a number of times. In fact, on March 12, 1990, the Member for Thompson brought in his own amendments to Bill 56, trying to amend it to restore those protections for firefighters, and the then-government of the day voted against those amendments.
It is interesting to note all along the way that the practice or the policy of the previous government was to deflect or to defeat any amendments that would provide those protections for firefighters.
* (15:10)
Now, Mr. Speaker, after first being elected in 1990, I had the good fortune to encounter one Bill Laird, who was a firefighter. God rest his soul, he unfortunately died of a heart attack not long after we had the opportunity to meet him. He was playing with his grandchildren and died while, I believe, still an active firefighter. Bill had brought to my attention, and I know had worked very clearly with the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to restore the benefits for firefighters. We thank him for his efforts and honour his memory for the work he has done on behalf of firefighters and for all those that succeeded him in that role. There are a number of folks in the firefighters' organization that I was thankful to have met and worked with.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the folks I want to reference here today, it was announced, I believe, it was yesterday, a number of Manitobans have been invested into the Order of Manitoba. One of those folks I had the honour to work with on firefighters' legislation was one Martin Johnson, who was very actively involved in the firefighters organization, the union at the time. I can remember having discussions one winter day outside a meeting hall where I happened to be attending a meeting. Mr. Johnson stopped me on the street when we were leaving the meeting. We proceeded to stand outside in the freezing temperatures for an hour while he impressed upon me the importance of restoring the benefits for firefighters and how we could achieve that. My answer to him at the time was well, if you can provide me with some of the scientific evidence you have available to you, I would be pleased to take a look at it. Little did I know that the next day I would have four inches of paper on my desk leading me to the only obvious conclusion one could arrive at, and that was there was enough scientific evidence to support the restoration of heart, lung and cancer protection for firefighters.
It was after that time I was honoured to present to the Legislative Assembly changes to the private members' bills that were introduced in this Chamber. On April 29, 1994, we introduced Bill 207 and then again on December 9, 1994, we introduced Bill 213, that would try to restore the protection for firefighters. Now, unfortunately we got very close, but it was subsequently defeated on a procedural challenge by the then government of the day. I know one of the members in the Chamber here was the Speaker of the day. I was very distressed that a procedural challenge would actually shutdown the debate that occurred. I recall it as if it were yesterday.
When no other members rose to speak on Bill 213, I rose to close debate. After waiting a few moments and then at that point, it was members of the government that stood up and challenged my right to close debate. I remember that quite clearly occurring in here. It prevented that private members' bill that would have protected firefighters from going into committee to allow the firefighters of this province to come forward to reflect their viewpoints on what this would mean to them, and to those firefighters who had died and the surviving families. That was a dark day in my time in the Chamber here when the government used a procedural motion to stop me from having that bill moved to committee. I remember that quite clearly, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, with the
changes occurring here, we have introduced some improvements to the
compensation act that will protect firefighters. It will put in place, for
those firefighters, protections that had been taken away from them through a
City of
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Firefighters now, as a result of the legislation that our government has brought forward, has introduced in 2002 protection for firefighters that will recognize there were a number of cancers for which they will be compensated. It is a difficult–[interjection] Well, I waited 15 years for this to happen, 11 of it was in your time for which you had no hesitation in denying the rights for firefighters.
I am quite distressed your government would have done that. Now you purport to defend and to support the legislation which I appreciate you are doing now, but it is obviously for different reasons than what you had for not allowing it to pass–[interjection] Yes, converts on the road to Damascus, I guess, is the term that is used often here. I know I have heard members of the Chamber use that a number of times.
So, no, I do not want to use that term, because members seem to take offence to being, as was referenced in Question Period yesterday, so I will try not to use that term for fear that they might want to challenge that. [interjection] Well, that could be a term that could be used.
I know, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will expand on the number of cancers that firefighters are protected for. Having attended, unfortunately, the funerals of firefighters that have passed away from cancer, having attended a number of those funerals here in the last five years, it is very distressing to sit in the church and to see those young families affected by the loss of their father, in these cases. To know that person will never be there for them as those children grow up and that those firefighters had gone into properties to protect our security as human beings and our property, they paid the price as a result of their selfless act.
So I think it is only important and responsible for the Legislative Assembly to put in place protections that will allow for the continued wage loss protection and benefit protection for those surviving families and for other firefighters continuing to live and battle the cancers.
One of the things I am also most proud of, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the fact that we have put in place protections now for heart and lung, something that was a key component of our private members' bills of the early 1990s and through the 1990s. We are quite proud, in fact, that we have put in place that if a firefighter sustains a heart injury within 24 hours of attending an emergency response scene, that firefighter will be protected for that particular incident. Hopefully they will survive, but should they not survive, it will be deemed to have arisen of and occurred as a result of their employment as a firefighter.
If a firefighter sustains a lung injury, lung cancer, for example, and as a non-smoker, that would obviously have to be demonstrated, the firefighter would then be in the position to have claims against the workers compensation system for wage loss, other benefits and survivor protections as a result of sustaining that injury, something I think that has been missing for a long time. I think that will help the firefighters and their surviving families.
Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of provisions in this bill that restore and right all of the wrongs,
from my viewpoint, that have occurred for the last 15 years with the workers
compensation legislation. I am very proud to be able to say here today that I
support the amendments the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) has made with respect
to Bill 25. I know, in fact, that having talked with a number of folks in my
community and having talked with firefighters in my community, they are quite
proud of the fact that we have introduced these amendments through Bill 25 and
that our government has made that progressive step. We continue to support the
work that both full-time and
part-time volunteers and volunteer firefighters have in the
I want to personally thank the Minister of Labour for allowing the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I, after 16 years of work, to be able to achieve something we believe so strongly in. I wanted to thank the Minister of Labour for recognizing that we have taken the right steps and have brought legislation forward, so I thank the Minister of Labour for that.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to add my comments on Bill 25. I will be supporting this bill.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put some brief remarks on the record in support of this bill. First of all, by the way, I would like to commend the Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), who has been outspoken for years, I think ever since he was first elected to this Legislature, about the need for reform to workers compensation legislation. I am really proud of the contributions that member has made towards the bill that we are seeing today, a bill that is the result, very much, of the hard work of the Member for Transcona, the Minister of Labour, and if you really want to see what the NDP is all about, it is about this kind of legislation.
I will put on the record, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. I am particularly proud that it extends the presumptive coverage for firefighters. It is indeed something that I have been fighting for for more than 15 years. I remember bringing in amendments that would have reinstated it back in 1990 and it was voted down by the Conservative government of the day.
* (15:20)
So the members opposite now have seen the light when it comes to firefighters, Mr. Speaker. I say on the record, nothing like a convert. I hope it will bring them to fast-track this bill, because I have always said, in addition to the presumptive coverage for firefighters that we brought in before that dealt with cancers, I have always said that heart and lung are no-brainers. That is what this bill does. It brings in presumptive coverage for heart and for lung conditions. I say it is a no-brainer because anybody who ever sees what firefighters go through, they understand.
It is Bill Laird, who the
Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) pointed to, who, by the way, organized one of
the biggest petitions in
I also want to put on the record that I remember what the idea of the Conservatives was when it came to workers compensation reform, and I want to kind of use it in the same sense as the "reform" that was put in that Reform Party before they were whatever they are nowadays, Mr. Speaker, the Alliance and the Conservatives, the same old bunch. Their idea of reform was to bring in an act that had dramatic consequences for many injured workers in this province.
You have to remember no one is more vulnerable than an injured worker, Mr. Speaker. In my community I have seen, whether they work at Inco, whether they work in construction, whether they work at any number of employers making enough money to get by, making enough money to have a decent life for their families, who, through no fault of their own, have an injury and then find themselves dealing with many of the consequences of the act that the Conservatives brought in 1993: the limitations of the "meat chart," the discrimination against older workers and the kind of a system that for far too long has forgotten what workers compensation is all about. It is about replacing the court system with a system that works for employers and for employees. I say, with this legislation today, we are going to bring in significant changes that are going to make a real difference to injured workers and at the same time maintain a system that will be fair to everyone.
I will be interested to see where the Conservatives vote on this. Are they going to vote against presumptive coverage for firefighters? Are they going to vote against the improved benefits for injured workers? Where are they going to stand? It will be interesting to watch as we go through the debate.
I know where we stand as the New Democratic Party. We, as a fundamental principle, recognize the need for safe workplaces, and, indeed, I am proud that one part of the equation is that we have reduced workplace injuries by 19 percent, thanks to the efforts of the ministers of Labour, including the former minister, well, the former-former. I am the former minister, so I do not want to be patting myself on the back, but Becky Barrett, who led the way by bringing in changes to the workplace safety and health legislation. By the way, Mr. Speaker, members opposite opposed that.
You wonder why I call them the 1895 Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, because they are kind of stuck in the 19th century, maybe verging on the 20th century. They see a bill, they see it brought in by the Minister of Labour, they oppose it. They even oppose workplace safety and health.
I want to see where they come down on workers compensation. I can see the knees jerking already over there. There it is, that knee-jerk reaction. They want to oppose this bill. I can just see it, Mr. Speaker, but we will see if they oppose fairness for firefighters and fairness for injured workers.
Mr. Speaker, I know this is what the NDP is all about. It is a party that is committed to the fundamental principles of protecting workers against injuries. It is a party that is fundamentally committed to fairness for working people who are injured. It is a party that is committed to the true workers compensation, the true vision of the system that understands that when workers are injured, when they are vulnerable, what they need is a timely and a fair way of making sure that they have an income, and this bill does that. Each and every one of the amendments in here is about fairness. It is also, quite frankly, about bringing back the vision of the workers compensation system that has served us well since 1915, no thanks to the Conservatives who, in 1993, turned back the clock decades.
Well, the members opposite are stuck in the past. This bill is about 2005. It is about modernizing the workers compensation system, and when I say modernizing, making it far fairer for firefighters, far fairer for injured workers.
That is where Manitobans are at. So that is why I strongly urge everyone, including the Conservatives, if they have converted on firefighters maybe they can convert the rest of the way and support all of the injured workers of this province by supporting this tremendous legislation brought in by the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan).
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Mr. John Loewen (
Mr. Speaker: Are there any other speakers?
When this matter is again
before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member
for
An Honourable Member: 5:30.
Mr. Speaker: 5:30?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Bill 5–The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Injury Compensation Appeal Commission)
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will now move to Bill 5, The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Amendment Act (Injury Compensation Appeal Commission), standing in
the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the
House? Remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Okay. No speakers.
Bill 8–The
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will move on to Bill 8, The Manitoba Council on Aging Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman? [Agreed]
Any speakers? Okay.
DEBATE ON REPORT STAGE AMENDMENTS
Bill 22–The Water Protection Act
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to resume debate on report stage amendments to
Bill 22, The Water Protection Act. We have four amendments moved by the
honourable Member for
The first amendment, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). What is the will of the House? Is the will of the House for the amendment to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Ste. Rose? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to subamendment to clause 21(1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the amendment to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed]
Now, we will move on to
the third amendment, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
We will move on to clause
4, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
We will now move on to
eight amendments moved by the honourable Member for
The first one, standing in the name of–
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: First amendment, moved by the honourable Member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Clause 4(2).
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes. Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity, I realize it has
been standing in my name for a few days now, to put a few words on the record.
I can appreciate the fact that the member from
I did say I would be kinder. Mr. Speaker, if Hansard would retract that last sentence or two, I would appreciate it. [interjection] With leave, no.
Mr. Speaker, it is an amendment in which, and as I read the amendment because I did not really expect it to come up right now, it would appear just to include "salt" after the word "nutrients." We all know the significance of salt and the impact that salt has in very real and tangible ways.
* (15:30)
I suspect the member from
I would look to the
current minister, Mr. Speaker, in terms of trying to get a sense of what it
is this minister feels about this particular subamendment, or amendment, to the
bill. I have not necessarily heard the cons against it. I appreciate the fact
that the member from
Mr. Speaker, The Water Protection Act is an act which has been before us for a great deal of time. One could go back to March of 2004 when it was actually first introduced. No one questions the value and the importance of water and water stewardship in the province and how critically important it is to develop the legislation. What has surprised me has been the great length of time it has taken to be able to get the bill to this stage. Even though we are at this stage now, we have these amendments.
I would very much appreciate hearing from the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) if he is not going to be addressing these amendments one by one as they have been introduced. Then those that he has spoken on we will review, but those he might not be speaking on, if he could provide me and then I will ensure that Mr. Gerrard does have the opportunity then to look–I am sorry, the member from River Heights will have the opportunity then to make, as I say, a more informed decision. Those amendments he is not going to be speaking to, if he could ensure that he provides us a position on it, we would very much appreciate it.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to allow others to speak. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is he ready for the question? Stand?
Mr. Leonard Derkach
(Russell): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move to the second amendment, clauses 7(1) and (4),
standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this amendment again seems to be fairly straightforward but has some potential significant consequence in the sense that what we are doing is substituting a minister with the L-G of our province, or requiring what I suspect would be an Order-in-Council.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, when you see an amendment of that nature what you are really talking about is ensuring there is more of a check put in place, as opposed to a minister making some sort of decision that it is going through some form of an Order-in-Council, potentially, which would then obligate the minister to bring it before Cabinet.
Again, much like the amendment I just finished speaking to, it depends in terms of what it is the minister responsible has to say on this particular amendment and doing some more work on it. I just do not want to hold it up at this point. We are prepared to see it be spoken to by other members. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? No?
Mr. Derkach: I move, seconded by the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now we will go to the third amendment, clause 7(5)(b), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to keep it remain standing? [Agreed]
Now we will move to fourth amendment, clause 7(6), standing in the name for the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for the amendment to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell? [Agreed]
Now we will move to the fifth amendment, clause 23, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Now we will move to the
sixth amendment, to clause 24(4)(b), standing in the name of the honourable
Member for Emerson. What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House
to remain standing? [Agreed]
We will move on to the seventh amendment, clause 32, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Emerson. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We will move on to the eighth amendment, clause 33(3), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) who has seven minutes remaining. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We will move on to 12 amendments moved by the honourable Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton).
The first amendment, clause 1(1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House? To remain standing? [Agreed]
We will move on to the second clause, to 2(d) and (e), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We will move on to the third amendment, to clause 2.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell. What is the will of the House, for it to remain standing? [Agreed]
We will move on to the
fourth amendment, to clause 4.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member
for Russell. What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House for it
to remain standing? [Agreed]
We will move on to the fifth amendment, to clause 4.2, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We will move on to the
sixth amendment, to clause 4.3, standing in the name of the honourable Member
for Russell. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We move on to the seventh amendment, to clause 8.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell. What is the will of the House?
Sorry, there is a subamendment to that, so we will deal with the subamendment.
Okay, the subamendment to
clause 8.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr.
Dewar). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We will move on to our eighth
amendment, to clause 11(1)(b)(iv), standing in the name of the honourable
Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House? To remain
standing? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to the ninth
amendment, to 20(a.1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Russell. What is the will of the House? To stand? [Agreed]
We will move on now to the tenth
amendment, to clause 32.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Russell. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to
the eleventh amendment, to clause 33(1)(h), standing in the name of the
honourable Member for Russell. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to
the subamendment to clause 33.1, standing in the name of the honourable Member
for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Okay, we have eight amendments that were moved by the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
First amendment to the preamble, moved by the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
We will now move on to
the second amendment, to clause 1(1), standing in the name of the honourable
Member for Selkirk. What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
* (15:40)
Now we will move on to the third
amendment, to clause 11(1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minto
(Mr. Swan). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to the fourth amendment, to clause 11(2), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). What is the will of the House? Stand? Agreed? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to the fifth amendment, to clause 33(1.1), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minto. What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to stand? Agreed? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to the sixth amendment, to clause 34(4), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minto. What is the will of the House? Stand? Agreed? [Agreed]
Now we will move on to the seventh amendment, to clause 35(7), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minto.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, the committee hearing on Bill 22 is one of my first
chances as a member of the government to participate in the committee process.
I recall it was the first night I had met the member from
Certainly, there are a number of amendments on this bill. There are a very large number of amendments that have come forward after the amendment stage. I know that the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) has worked very hard to make sure this is a bill which is going to be for the benefit of all Manitobans. There has been a lot of effort put over on the other side of the House as well.
Clause 35(7), as put forward by the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), we can certainly adopt, or we can certainly accept, as the government side of the House. We are prepared to support that amendment. Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Mr. Derkach: I move, seconded by the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to the eighth amendment, to clause 35(8), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). What is the will of the House, for it to remain standing? Agreed? [Agreed]
* * *
Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the suggestions that we turn Manitoba Day into a half-day holiday, I am wondering if we could do some more business of the House and call the remaining bills that have not been called, in order.
Mr. Speaker, actually, we could start with the second readings and then move to concurrence on third readings. Start with second readings. Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, are you calling to resume debate on second readings?
Mr. Ashton: Resume debates, Mr. Speaker, on second reading, which would be the ones that were not called earlier, which would be 2, 3.
DEBATE ON SECOND
(Continued)
Bill 2–The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
(Child Protection
Penalties)
Mr. Speaker: We will resume debate on second readings in order. First, we will
call Bill 2, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Child Protection
Penalties), standing in the name of the honourable Member for
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Speaker: I mean
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
In addition to that, there is a number of relatively minor housekeeping changes that will hopefully give better clarification. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical as a Legislature that we do what we can for our children. Where the opportunity is there to enhance legislation that will allow for us to protect our children and maybe get a little bit stiffer in regard to those who are the perpetrators of what would be any form of child abuse, I think, is a positive thing. I do not have a problem in terms of this bill going to the committee stage to see if there is any sort of feedback in regard to Bill 2. The principle of it is something we can support, recognizing that there is a fairly significant increase from the $500 example maximum up to now what is being proposed, I believe, $50,000.
It is fairly significant. Children are abused in many different ways, Mr. Speaker, physically, sexually, mentally. I think it is important for all of us to recognize the role we can be playing as legislators in ensuring that our children which we often say, and I know it goes far beyond just the political platitudes, are our most valuable resource. We want to be there for them in a very real and tangible way, and therefore we do not have a problem with this particular bill going to committee at this time. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing
in the name of the honourable Member for
Bill 3–The
Recreational Trail Property Owners Protection Act (Occupiers' Liability Act
Amended)
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to resume debate on second reading of Bill 3, The Recreational Trail Property Owners Protection Act (Occupiers' Liability Act Amended), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
What is the will of the
House, to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman? [Agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
These outdoor recreational trails are very valuable and important to, if not most, possibly all Manitobans, especially when we take a look at the importance of healthy living. There are so many different outdoor activities that we can be participating in, and there is all sorts of potential for trails.
As the member from
Again, I would not say this is a controversial piece of legislation. It is fairly decent to be here, and it is something in which we do not have a problem in terms of giving support for it going to the committee stage to get a better sense of what other people might have to say in particular.
I personally think the development of recreational trails is very positive. It is also possible to drop injuries because where these trails are done in a more experienced fashion, they are more professional. There are all sorts of benefits and we, as I say, very much want to see recreational trails expanded in the province. We see this particular bill as a bill that might better enable that expansion to occur. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we do not have a problem in terms of seeing this bill going to committee. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr.Rocan).
Bill 6–The Real Property Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to second reading, Bill 6, The Real Property
Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
* (15:50)
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr.
David Faurschou (
Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that. It is not a point of order,
and any discussions for briefings or
whatever should be in discussion, probably with the House leaders, off the
record, because we normally do not do negotiations on the floor. So I would
encourage the members, the House leaders, to meet and discuss the issue that
the honourable Member for
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I am calling second reading, Bill 6, The Real Property Amendment
Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 7–The Personal
Investigations
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Move on to second reading, Bill 7, The Personal Investigations
Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 9–The Manitoba
Centennial Centre Corporation Act
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to second reading, Bill 9, The Manitoba Centennial
Centre Corporation Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 11–The
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to Bill 11, The Provincial Court Amendment Act (Justices of the Peace), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
What is the will of the House? Remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 14–The Electricians'
Licence Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to second reading, Bill 14, The Electricians'
Licence Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the
House, to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 15–The Emergency
Measures
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 15, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman.
What is the will of the House, to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 16–The Wildlife
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 16, The Wildlife Amendment Act, which remains open. What is the will of the House? To leave the bill remaining open? [Agreed]
Mr. David Faurschou (
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for–
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Same point of order, the intention was to do bills. Originally, that was to be yesterday and today, but, given the accounts of yesterday, it is even more important that we go through bills today. Following second readings, it would be our intention to call third readings.
An Honourable Member: We have done that.
An Honourable Member: Did we do third readings already? Today?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of order. I would encourage members to use the loge and do their negotiations, instead of on the floor of the Chamber. I would strongly encourage members to meet in the loge to have a private discussion on negotiations, but I am going to deal with the first point of order. The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable member for us to revert to Bill 8 so the honourable member can speak to it?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
Okay. Leave has been granted.
Bill 8–The
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Bill 8, I believe, is a very important bill. It is one of the bills which the government has brought forward this session that actually does, from my perspective, have a significant amount of substance to it.
We all are a part of life. We all are born and we are all destined to, at some point, pass away. Everything that happens in between, I think, Mr. Speaker, is important and relevant and we have to do what we can to ensure that our seniors, the people we owe a great amount of gratitude for, are represented and represented well.
I notice in particular with Bill 8 that the minister is wanting to establish a committee of 15 people that would be advising the minister on the aging process, Mr. Speaker. I have always thought it is important that we seek information from people before we make decisions, and in that sense I would applaud the government in recognizing the need for having a committee or creating a committee to be able to deal with this very important issue.
I have, some more than others, some individuals that constantly want to keep me abreast as to what is happening within our senior community, different types of issues that are important to them. I have one individual in particular, Mohinder Singh Pannu, a very good friend, like a brother to me and my family, very close to the family, and he feels very passionate about our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, when I think in terms of individuals like this, an individual that truly is apolitical in many different ways, and we have others that are out there that have a passion for our seniors in advocating for our seniors. There are some areas we really need to improve on in terms of ensuring there is adequate advocacy. What I am thinking of in particular is the area of different ethnic groups, Mr. Speaker. We have to ensure–because the very nature of problems that seniors have that come from different ethnic groups vary significantly. That is why I think when we talk about the creation of a council in which we are going to have 15 people advising government, we have to ensure that representation is fair and just and represents a wide selection, a variation of Manitobans.
* (16:00)
That is the concern I have. In the spirit of not wanting to be too mean in my comments to the government, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that what I would like to see is the government start tying more of those appointments into different organizations. I have had this discussion in the past on other committees that the government has established. I think it would be very much beneficial if government as a whole would look at the positive impact that it can have if we saw legislation that was being introduced that recognized many of these different valuable organizations and the roles they could play in providing representation to advisory types of groups or committees that government puts together from time to time.
It does a number of things when you do that, I believe. First and foremost, it allows the government to access, in a very natural way through apolitical groups, very good quality individuals who are quite committed, because chances are they have likely done a great deal of volunteer work for that organization. That is one of the reasons why that organization might, in fact, give recommendation to that name. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, it also adds to the organization in itself, when an organization gains the credibility and has government acknowledge that credibility by saying, "Look. As an organization we have confidence, faith and trust that you have the ability to be able to identify someone and recommend that individual to a government advisory committee."
I think that is wonderful. That is the type of thing we should be doing, and that is why when I do get the opportunity to talk about advisory groups the government puts together I like to be able to emphasize that. You know, governments come and go. There is always going to be a certain number of political appointments, and you want to, as much as possible, I believe, make sure that there are just as many, if not a whole lot more appointments that are being done in a more of apolitical fashion. What we should be doing is looking at how we can start empowering different organizations that are out there so that they are, in essence, getting and ensuring that valuable viewpoints are, in fact, being heard.
Mr. Speaker, when you talk about a seniors group or the whole issue of aging and getting people sitting around the table, I think it would be a mistake if we did not look at the ethnic diversity our province actually has. I say that because there are issues such as food, cuisine, what people actually eat. Different cultures have different things. I think it was the other day, Canada Health, I understand, is going to be changing their food index. You might recall in high schools they would have the major components of meals in the day, and it was a nice colourful poster. It made circles and you had to make sure that you had each one of those categories.
Well, what it did not reflect is the very multicultural nature of our nation. As a result, for example, rice is a major staple and provides breakfast for many. I trust, Mr. Speaker, knowing the area that you have represented, whether it is the Aristocrat Restaurant or Julio's, there are places that you can go, and you will have a nice healthy portion of rice with some pork. You have to excuse me for not knowing the true ethnic word, but you know it is and someone advises me that it is rice and pork. Yes, that is the essence of it. But it is great tasting food.
You know, that is just one culture. Squid is a very popular thing. I have a restaurant I quite often frequent in the North End, and I have roti and, again, not necessarily appreciating the language as I should, I always kind of kidded and said the peas and cheese. Fortunately the owners of the restaurant know what it is I am referring to. There are so many different cuisines that are out there, and when we talk about the aging process we need to be sensitive to the many different foods that are out there and the role that plays. Food is one thing.
There are different sorts of cultural activities, Mr. Speaker, that are out there. Some groups are more inclined to do different types of activities that we might not even be nowhere near as familiar with. You could attend some of the different pavilions during Folklorama, you will see the different levels of activity and how people engage themselves in what one might even say post-retirement times.
An Honourable Member: Post-retirement is death. Post-retirement.
Mr. Lamoureux: After they have retired. I will just say after they retire, Mr. Speaker, there are many activities that they engage themselves in. I think that we have got to be able to get assurances that all of those things are being taken into consideration. The only way in which we do that is that we ensure the representation that makes up this group of this committee, is going to be, in fact, advising the minister, is really and truly reflective of our population. That is why I believe that far too often there are certain sections of society that are too quickly overlooked in favour of political appointments. Even though these particular appointments are done through, ultimately, the L-Gs, what I would have liked to have seen is something that is a little bit more definitive, a little bit more empowering for different organizations. This way, it would ensure that we are, in fact, going to get the different viewpoints from the many different individuals, communities, and I make reference just to the ethnic, there are also different groupings of classes of individuals.
The bottom line is that there are some people that are wealthier than other people. Some people live in poverty. Again, when we talk about the whole aging process, people age in different ways. Economics plays a very significant role. We want to make sure, again, that the people that are providing the advice to the minister are ensuring that the perspective of someone living at the poverty line is there. We want to ensure that there is a perspective of someone that is relatively well-to-do, if I can put it that way, that is there. Equally important, of course, is the middle class.
So whenever it is that you put committees together, and the reason why I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that whenever you put committees together you have to ensure that it is a fair reflection of the population in which, ultimately, it is that we claim to serve. When I see legislation that comes before the House that does not necessarily reflect what I believe is in, ultimately, the best interest of people, I think that it is important to get up, get on the record and to be as clear as possible to the minister responsible, in this case Bill 8, and say to the minister that there is a responsibility of that minister to ensure that there is better representation on this advisory committee than what would be there with just strict, "Well, I will appoint so-and-so because he helped so-and-so on the campaign, or this so-and-so was a contributor to our party." Far too often there are too many appointments based strictly on that. The government might say, "Well, you know, this is something that all governments have done in the past, different levels of government, and so forth." I would not deny that. I suspect there have been and there always will be. It does not necessarily mean that it is right, nor am I suggesting to you that you have to wipe out all political appointments.
* (16:10)
What I am suggesting to you is that there needs to be an agreement in principle among politicians of all levels that the idea of having apolitical appointments can be very positive, can be very beneficial. Sometimes, if we are too partisan, we are missing the boat. We lose. We do not get the type of people that could be, or should be, on a particular committee.
Yesterday I was at a local school in the constituency, and I had a constituent who approached me about the Film Classification Board. You know, I was somewhat wanting to give good advice to this individual. The person came to me and said, "Well, how does one go about getting appointed to something like the Film Classification Board?" The last thing I wanted to do was to tarnish this individual's chance to be able to get an appointment of this nature. What I had suggested to him was that, you know, I will look into it, but, generally speaking, these appointments of this nature are made by the government of the day and, unfortunately, some appointments are being made primarily where they are too strong of a political nature, and that I would get back to the individual.
Well, how nice it would be able to be, to say to the individual here that, you know, here is the department, here is the phone number. You give this department a call. Get your bio on file with the department and let the department–why can we not have a system that allows for certain numbers of positions in which it goes through more of an apolitical fashion, Mr. Speaker? I think at the end of the day we would have a healthier system as a result.
I had the privilege, and it was a privilege, to be able to sit on a special committee that went and looked at hiring an ombudsman and a child advocate, and I very much appreciated that opportunity. Even though everything might not have been the exact way that I would have wanted to have seen it worked out, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we got two wonderful people, two qualified, wonderful people, and Manitobans will be better for it as a direct result.
I think that there are certain positions in which this Legislature has to guarantee that, such as the auditor, our provincial auditor, our Elections Manitoba, and, as we have just gone through, the Ombudsman and the Child Advocate. These are important positions; they have to be done in an apolitical, as much as possible, fashion. Mr. Speaker, I trust and look forward to that to be able to continue.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, you bring it to this legislation that we are debating today. I would argue that if, in fact, a certain percentage of appointments were done in a more apolitical fashion, at the end of the day we would have better advice going to the government. So, in one sense, there is a bit of a political cost to pay because you are not getting as many political appointments that you are going to be handing out, but at the end of the day there is a better chance you are going to get better quality advice coming into the minister's office. So I look at that and I see that that is a net-benefit trade-off. At the end of the day, as I say, we all want to say that we represent Manitobans and that we are doing the best job that we can, and one of the ways we can do that is by looking at the way in which we fill the many different appointments that government makes.
Having had the chance to say those few words, I do want to hear what the minister responsible for Bill 8 has to say about my comments and the comments of others. I would hope and trust that the minister would see the value of possibly making some changes to the legislation, and look forward to this bill ultimately going to committee and hearing possible other input provided by, possibly, other organizations or individuals. But, most importantly, it will be interesting to see when it comes back in for third reading where, hopefully, it will not be necessary to bring a report stage amendment that the government would see the value in, in terms of what it is that is being talked about and debated inside this Chamber. Having said that, I appreciate the members giving me leave to go back to put my comments on the record in regard to Bill 8. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
We will now move on to–
An Honourable Member: 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: 5:30 p.m?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: I heard a no.
Bill 17–The Regional
Health Authorities Amendment and
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to Bill 17, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman.
What is the will of the
House? Is the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of
the honourable Member for Carman? [Agreed]
Bill 20–The Life Leases
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 20, The Life Leases Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 21–The Oil and Gas
Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Amendment and Oil and Gas Production Tax Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman.
What is the will of the
House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 24–The Consumer
Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and
Miscellaneous Amendments)
Mr. Speaker: Bill 24, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Cost of Credit Disclosure and Miscellaneous Amendments), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 26–The Margarine
Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Bill 26, The Margarine Repeal Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman. Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 27–The Horse Racing
Commission Amendment and Horse Racing Regulation
Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 27, The Horse Racing Commission Amendment and Horse Racing Regulation Repeal Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman.
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 29–The Municipal
Councils and School Boards Elections Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 29, The Municipal Councils and School Boards Elections Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 30–The
Mr. Speaker: Bill 30, The Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation Act,
standing in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill
31–The Condominium Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 31, The Condominium Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to remain standing? Stand? [Agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Let me start off by indicating that I do currently sit on a condominium board. Actually, I chair the board. So one could say that it is a potential conflict of interest. If, in fact, it is a conflict of interest, I would indicate to others to stand and let me know that that is, in fact, the case. I do not believe it is. I do want to be able to put some words on the record on it.
An Honourable Member: You have disclosed it.
Mr. Lamoureux: I have disclosed it, so I think I am covered. Good enough. That is like legal counsel on the run.
Mr. Speaker, condominiums are a wonderful alternative form of housing that many Manitobans, thousands of Manitobans, have come to support in a very real and tangible way by going out and purchasing condominiums. I think, over the years ahead, that we are going to see the condominium industry continue to grow. I think that it is important for us to be able to do what we can to ensure that condominium purchasers and, ultimately, owners, are, in fact, protected in the best way that we can.
* (16:20)
Bill 31 does provide for additional protection, Mr. Speaker. I know, myself, now we are actually selling a condo. It is quite a bit different, in the process of selling one, and having sold a house, that there is a huge difference. There is a difference primarily because it is a whole lot more complicated in the purchasing of a condominium than it is for a house, because when you purchase a condo unit there are other things that you have to take into consideration, things that you would not have to take into consideration when you purchase a house.
So, for example, you can talk about the condo fees; that is one. I will comment quickly on that shortly, but the biggest one is probably the reserve funds, and the declaration of what is actually happening and getting a sense in terms of what has happened with the board itself.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that, for those reasons, in most part, it is important; and, by emphasizing that importance through legislation, at the end of the day, we are actually protecting the condo owner because, when you have someone that is going to purchase something, it is important that they be aware of what actually is happening, what is taking place within that condo complex.
The reserve fund is typically a fund that would be used in order to support surprises that might come up, surprise repairs that might come up time to time which can be fairly costly. That is the reason why you have a reserve fund, Mr. Speaker, and knowing how much money is in that reserve fund is critically important. From a purchaser's standpoint, they might not necessarily know to ask about the reserve fund, so it is important that they are protected with respect to that.
The condo fees, again there are individuals that will look at buying a condo and not necessarily be aware of the mandatory need to collect condo fees. I can tell you that that is, in fact, there, again, because I was talking to someone that was not aware that, if they bought the condo, they would actually have to pay a monthly fee for it.
Other things, Mr. Speaker, that you would pay for would be your property tax. You know, because you live in a condo, it does not excuse you. Your condo complex does not typically cover your property tax, so you are responsible for paying your property tax. As I say, it is quite different and very unique than when you purchase a house. That is the reason why I believe that the government and some of the measures that it is using in Bill 31 are, in most part, very positive, and I would have no problem in terms of seeing this bill going to committee stage to see what others might actually have to say on it.
Again, in principle, we do not have a problem with this bill going into the committee stage. In fact, I believe that it is fairly positive for condominium owners.
When we take a look at
the growing population that
I will not be a strong advocate on that one as of today, per se, Mr. Speaker, even though I believe that it is necessary for government to do something on it, but I no doubt will become an even stronger advocate for our condominiums very shortly after we have sold ours. Then there is absolutely no conflict of interest.
Having had the opportunity just to get those words on the record, we are quite, as I say, prepared to see this bill go to committee. As I say, in principle, I think that it is positive. We see the difference between, in particular, as I say, condo sales versus residential versus other commercial type of sales, and see it as a positive step forward.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. Any other speakers?
When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
Bill 32–The Rural
Mr. Speaker: We will now move on to Bill 32, The Rural Municipality of Kelsey
By-law No. 5/02 Validation Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member
for
Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 33–The Planning Act
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Bill 33, The Planning Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 34–The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 34, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, standing in the name of
the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 35–The Capital Region
Partnership Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 35, The Capital Region Partnership Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 36–The Courts
Administration
Improvement Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 36, The Courts Administration Improvement Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 37–The Municipal
Assessment
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 37, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 38–The Residential
Tenancies
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 38, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, standing in the
name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 39–The Investment
Trust Unitholders' Protection Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 39, The Investment Trust Unitholders' Protection Act, standing
in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 41–The Drivers and
Vehicles Act and The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 41, The Drivers and Vehicles Act and The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 42–The Health
Services Insurance Amendment and Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment
Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 42, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 43–The Regulated
Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 43, The Regulated Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat).
What is the will of the
House? Stand? [Agreed]
* * *
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call concurrence and third readings on page 5?
CONCURRENCE AND THIRD
Bill
12–The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 12, The Liquor Control Amendment Act, as amended from the committee.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill 12, The Liquor Control Amendment Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any speakers?
Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence third reading–oh, the
honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
* (16:30)
I know that I did ask the minister in terms of what impact the passage of this bill would have with the industry and the minister then had indicated that there are a number of businesses that are anxiously waiting for this bill to come and be passed because he believed that it was going to have a very positive impact. For that reason, at least in part, I think the minister, in this case, is actually right because there are some aspects to Bill 12 that will make a very real difference.
In particular, the one example that I would give is the unfinished wine bottle. You know, in the past, what you would do is you would speak on a, I should not say speak, you would be going to a restaurant, a licensed beverage room, have a nice meal, enjoy a good bottle of wine and, maybe, there is a little bit of that wine that is left, but you want to depart the facility, but you are not allowed to take the leftover wine. Well, this particular bill will allow you the opportunity to be able to take that bottle of wine with you so it does not force you to gulp it down and, maybe, possibly, get behind a wheel or something of that nature. That is one of the reasons why we see it as a good bill.
I think that it is important to recognize that sometimes it is important to work with industry reps. I suspect this is an idea that originated not necessarily from the government. It likely came from the industry, the hospitality industry as a whole. So it is encouraging sometimes when you get a sense that the government was actually listening to representatives from an industry that is really going to make a very positive difference.
You know, in this particular example, the example that I gave, everyone wins. There is no loser here. The restaurants did not know what they could technically do with the bottle of leftover wine. The consumer was upset with the fact that here you have valuable wine that is left in the bottle and they just do not want to finish it right now, and they are not allowed to take it with them. The restaurant would kind of lose out. Perhaps, maybe, enjoying a beautiful meal and having a little bit of wine, the consumer is a little upset because the restaurant will not let them take the bottle of wine. The restaurant owner says, "Well, I cannot let you take the bottle of wine," as much as they would like to do that, quite possibly, but they cannot do that, or they could not do that, or still cannot do that today. As a result, the restaurant owner feels bad; the consumer, obviously, felt bad.
So here we have a piece of legislation that actually the government, as I say, appeared to have listened. Now they have acted upon, and now we see an issue that is being resolved. So how has that changed the situation? Well, the simplicity of it is now someone that goes into that restaurant and enjoys that cup of wine or glass of wine with their meal and, at the end of the meal, if they feel that it is time to go, they can then go to the restaurateur, or the waitress or waiter and say that, "Look, can we take that bottle of wine with us?" The restaurateur is able to say, "Yes," and not worry about breaking a law.
So, in this situation, the consumer is happy because they get to take their bottle of wine. They are not being forced to drink the wine before they leave, or leave without being able to take the wine in which they have, in all likelihood, paid for. So the consumer wins. They get to have the product that they actually purchased. The restaurant wins too, Mr. Speaker. The restaurant wins because they have a happy consumer that is leaving. In that sense, as I say, everyone wins. That is why with this particular amendment, this change, that it is good to see. It is nice to see when government tends to work and be able to make a difference, a positive difference.
The bill addresses the serving of complimentary samples of liquor in retail premises, from its liquor vendors to sell the licences, and sets out when liquor vendors may deliver liquor to purchasers. It also enables a distiller to operate a store at its distillery to sell spirits it manufactures. Mr. Speaker, this is verbatim right from the bill itself. Again, it is positive stuff in which everyone wins.
You know a lot of people were quite disappointed when we had Labatt leave the province. You know the industry, the brewing industry, has left in a very, sadly, a very real way. Now we have the small-business man or business person coming to the forefront and establishing other types of breweries, Mr. Speaker, and, as a result of this particular legislation, again, now they are going to be able to provide samples of consumers that might be able to come in.
I know other jurisdictions you can do that. This bill is, in essence, allowing for that sampling to take place which, again, I believe, you know assists the industry, a different component to the industry. Again, once again, everyone wins. You know that is why Bill 12 receives the type of support that it is getting. That is why I think that people want to see it ultimately passed. For that reason, I will not continue any longer than that, but just to say that it is nice to see the bill, and we look forward to it passing and, ultimately, receiving Royal Assent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 13–The Milk Prices
Review Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. We will move on to Bill 13, concurrence and third reading. Bill 13, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill 13, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le contrôle du prix du lait, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Government House Leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education, that Bill 13, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Any speakers? No.
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 23–The Workplace
Safety and Health Amendment Act (Needles in Medical Workplaces)
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), that Bill 23, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act (Needles in Medical Workplaces); Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sécurité et l'hygiène du travail, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Government House Leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education, that Bill 23, The Workplace Safety and Health Amendment Act (Needles in Medical Workplaces), reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Mr. David Faurschou (
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 5:30? No?
An Honourable Member: Is it agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: It is the will of the House to call it 5:30?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed. Okay.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? There is no agreement.
* (16:40)
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied.
* * *
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you would call adjourned debate on second reading on Bill 38, please.
Mr. Speaker: Our rules in the House are that you cannot call bills twice in one day, so you would have to have leave. You would have to have leave to call a bill twice.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, is there leave to call Bill 38 for a second time today?
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement to call, for the second time today, Bill 38, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act? Is there leave? [Agreed]
Bill
38–The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: So we will call Bill 38, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act,
and it is standing in the name of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the
House? Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name
of the honourable Member for
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I am pleased to put a few remarks on the record regarding Bill 38, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act. This is something that, even without speaking notes in front of me, I know a little bit about. In fact, I have a long history with The Residential Tenancies Act.
I think it began with a demonstration out in front of the Landlord and Tenant office about 1985 or '86. I think the Minister of Housing of the day kind of panicked because very shortly after that he appointed a review committee to review The Landlord and Tenant Act and The Rent Control Act. I was one of the representatives on that committee, representing tenants. It was a very interesting process because it had landlord representatives on it, and it had civil service representatives, civil servants, and it had tenant representatives. We basically operated on a consensus model.
It is my understanding that that is what the minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs has done in this case. He had representatives of the different stakeholders, as they are known, who came up with consensus recommendations for the government to move forward on.
But we met very frequently, my recollection is approximately between it might have been 1985 and 1988. Anyway, eventually the bill was ready to be introduced sometime in 1988 or 1989, but the Filmon government stalled on it. They were lobbied by their landlord friends. Eventually, it did get introduced in 1990.
I happened to have been elected in 1990. So it was very interesting to be at the beginning of the process, criticizing the Landlord and Tenant office of the Pawley NDP government on behalf of low-income tenants because I was working for the United Church at the time in a prophetic ministry, then being appointed as a tenant representative, and being part of a very long process where we drew up a very thick document with recommendations to combine the Landlord and Tenant office and the rent regulation branch into one piece of legislation, and then to be here as an MLA in 1990 when it was introduced and debated and passed in the Legislature.
Actually, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) and I go back even further than that because the first time I was ever in the Manitoba Legislature, I believe, was in the summer of 1980, when the Sterling Lyon government was repealing The Rent Regulation Act.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
This is all a matter of public record, Mr. Minister, so if you presented, I do not know if you presented, but there were people from CEDA and the inner city who presented at the committee stage of the bill and, as I recall, there were maybe 20, 25 people there opposing the repeal of rent regulation. Then a year later or a couple of years later, in 1982, I was at the committee presenting, and actually Clayton Manness, a former Minister of Finance, about 10 years later, no, 15 years later, maybe longer, he said he remembered me making a presentation at the committee. Perhaps it was my beard or my appearance or something, I am not sure.
But the Pawley government brought back rent control as we know, and it was very popular. In fact, one of the reasons the Pawley government got elected in 1981 was because the Sterling Lyon government, a very right-wing Conservative government, had repealed rent control, and after the Pawley government was formed, we brought it back. Then, when the Filmon government took office, the landlords lobbied the Filmon government, the Minister of Housing, I remember Mr. Ducharme was one of those ministers, they wanted to get rid of rent control, and what they were told was that the NDP had won 10 seats in the 1981 election on the issue of rent control. So they were not about to do it. In fact, the Filmon government was in office for 11 years and never brought back rent control because they knew that it was such a potent political issue. They did not want to touch it, and so we still have rent control.
But I think our
government has moderated it. For example, there are exemptions for new
construction, I believe it might be 15 years, an exemption from rent control for new construction
to try and encourage the construction industry to build rental accommodation.
Whenever I talk to landlords, for example, my landlord at
But what happens when those capital expenses are recovered through rent? Does the rent go down? No, the rent stays on that plateau. It goes up because of the capital improvements and then when the capital improvements are paid for, the rent stays the same. Then, if they do more capital improvements, the rent goes up again from that plateau which, I think, is satisfactory to landlords, except depending on market conditions. They may not be able to raise the rent based on capital improvements in some low-income areas because there is not the demand, although I suspect that that has changed because rental vacancy rates are so low, this current time being an example of that.
The result is that rents
are going up everywhere and landlords are investing. For example, in the inner
city, in the North End, there is a company, I believe it is called Northern
Properties, and they have bought up a lot of properties in the inner city,
including in
I know of a place on
I think it is the same
company that bought the row housing behind the Lincoln Motor Inn
on
So I do not think that landlords have much to complain about. They can get their capital costs recovered through rent increases. But nonetheless, we still support rent control because it is important to protect renters.
Mr.
Speaker in the Chair
* (16:50)
We know what had happened
in places like
So, in Bill 38, the amendments to The Residential Tenancies Act, we have a package of changes to rent regulation. This is a balanced approach. There are some changes to benefit tenants and others to benefit landlords. These amendments do not undermine rent regulation.
There was, as I mentioned, the landlord and tenant advisory committee appointed by the minister who reviewed and approved this package of amendments. These changes were discussed with the landlords' organization, the Professional Property Managers Association or PPMA. The president and two representatives met with the minister on April 11, 2005. These changes are meant to stimulate the rental market and to encourage landlords to refurbish their rental stock and to invest in new construction.
This package includes changes that are a benefit to tenants, for example, rent discounts. Landlords will be required to give tenants a three-month notice of a reduction or elimination of a discount.
Secondly, compensation for unreasonable delay. This bill introduces provisions allowing tenants to apply to the director of the Residential Tenancies Branch for compensation through a temporary rent reduction where there has been an unreasonable delay by a landlord in repairing and maintaining a rental unit.
Thirdly, extension of prohibition. This extends the prohibition against rent increases that are made with the intent to include tenants in rental units that are exempt from rent regulation. As we know, this is a problem where landlords in the past have raised the rent in order to get someone out. This prohibition is going to extend to units that are exempt from rent regulation.
There are also changes to benefit landlords. There are three of those as well, the first one being unit rehabilitation. It would allow for unit rehabilitation where a unit has been voluntarily vacated subject to an annual maximum number. A rehabilitated unit would be exempt from rent regulation for up to two years depending on the level of investment. The program would be reviewed after a pilot period to determine whether it should continue or needs modification.
Secondly, compliance. This bill gives the director of the Residential Tenancies Branch discretion to validate rents on a one-time only basis where the landlord has increased rent by the annual guideline or less, but did not fully comply with the act with regard to notice to tenants regarding the rent increases. The director will weigh whether the landlord's failure has resulted in unfairness to tenants.
The third refers to distressed properties. This bill provides an exemption from rent regulation for up to 15 years for rehabilitation of a distressed property on the condition that some units are to be kept at or below median rent levels for a specified period. This is a new rehabilitation category. We certainly hope that this encourages landlords to renovate suites.
In addition, as was announced in the budget speech, the exemption period from rent regulation for new construction will increase from 15 years to 20 years. I need to correct myself because I had used the figure 15 years and, in fact, it is 20 years.
I also have lots of information here about rent regulation and the guidelines, but that is not totally relevant to this bill.
It is interesting,
though, to compare provinces. For example, four other provinces have rent
control:
So I commend the minister for this modest group of consensus amendments. I think it is important to note that landlords and tenants were part of the review process and that they came to consensus recommendations which the minister has approved and brought in, to the benefit of both landlords and tenants. I think this is typical of our government, of our balanced approach which you have seen in balanced budgets, putting more spending into social programs, putting more money into the rainy day fund, reducing debt, reducing taxes, but investing, nonetheless, in Health and Education and other important departments like Conservation, for example.
An Honourable Member: I was just going to say that.
Mr. Martindale: I am glad I mentioned that before the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) had to prompt me. Well, we cannot refer to the presence or absence of members. That would be against our rules.
I am always pleased to speak on a bill like The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act because many tenants in Burrows constituency are renters, and many of them are low-income renters. In fact, we have a fair amount of public housing in Burrows constituency, especially Gilbert Park, being the largest, and other Manitoba Housing Authority units scattered throughout Burrows constituency. I have often thought that if we had a plan, it would be good to turn some of those units into co-operative housing.
I think people would be much better served to
be in self-governing organizations rather than in MHA. In fact, I was
privileged to go with people from the North End Housing Project and the North
End Community Renewal Corporation to
Their model, instead of being rent-to-own like North End Housing Project, which has some problems because people are tenants until they become owners and they have had problems with collecting rent, but in the Quint model, everyone belongs to a co-op. So they have 10 families, 10 houses and one co-operative. They have a number of these co-operatives all with a maximum of 10 families. So they have to have their own by-laws and they screen their own applicants, and there is a pressure because of the fact that people belong to co-operatives, on people to make their monthly payments and to be good co-op members. I think that is a good model. It is something that we are encouraging.
In fact, I just had lunch
with the acting director of North End Housing Project just last week at a
wonderful Lao Thai Restaurant on
I have lived in a co-op.
I lived in Willow Park East Housing Co-op
for three years and was on the board of directors, and I helped organize
Charles Cathedral Housing Co-op in
the former
When I organized Charles Cathedral Housing Co-op, we had a problem in naming it. The board members wanted to name it Nellie McClung Housing Co-op, and we have this crazy policy in the former Department of Co-operative Development where they would not allow the co-op to name it after a person unless you contacted all of their living descendants, and we decided that that was almost impossible to do in the case of Nellie McClung, and so they want to name it Martindale Housing Co-op and I said no, which I was quite glad I made that decision subsequently, because whenever there was problems, they used to phone me because I had got the co-op going. So, when there were problems, I was kind of glad it was not name Martindale Housing Co-op. Now they have kind of forgotten about me. They do not phone me anymore, but when they did, I would say, "I am sorry, I cannot–[interjection]
* (17:00)
Well, the Member for
When people from a housing co-op phone me, whether it is Charles Cathedral Housing Co-op or MAPS Housing Co-op or Willow Park East Housing Co-op or Willow Park Housing Co-op in my constituency, I tell them, "Sorry, I cannot solve your problems as your MLA." I refuse to get involved, because co-operatives are self-governing organizations, and if they cannot solve their problems, the only recourse that they have with the provincial government is if they are not following their charter by-laws, in which case they can call the corporations branch, I believe it is, to intervene.
I think that more self-governing organizations that we have in Manitoba, the better, regardless of what kind of co-operative they are with, whether it is a retail co-op or a housing co-op. There are many different kinds of co-operatives: agricultural resource co-op and–[interjection] Well, I could talk for hours about housing co-ops.
It is an alternative kind
of housing. It is a very good kind of housing, and I am very happy to say that
the largest continuing or oldest housing co-op in
I have lots of good
things to say about housing co-ops,
especially for low-income people, for example, MAPS Housing Co-op, which was started by Tom Simms and the staff at CEDA. MAPS
is actually an acronym; I believe it stands for Mountain, Andrews, Parr,
Selkirk. They have townhouse units on
If you drive down these
streets like
It is very frustrating dealing with the slum landlords and the absentee landlords. That is why we need rent regulation, and that is why we need a residential tenancies act, not just for tenants. We need it for landlords, because sometimes landlords get ripped off, sometimes their suites get trashed, and so they need a process where they can go to have an adjudication done, to have a hearing. In fact, the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan) was a representative appointed by the government, I believe, on one of the panels at the Residential Tenancies Branch, and I am sure that, when the members opposite are in government, their appointees will be on the Residential Tenancies Branch panels as well.
The only person that I have ever heard say that they did not believe in these kinds of appointments in the Manitoba Legislature was the former Member for River Heights, Sharon Carstairs, who said that she was opposed to all those kinds of appointments, until she got the big one, the Senate appointment. Then, when they asked her, "Well, we thought you made a speech in the Manitoba Legislature opposed to patronage appointments, what gives?", she said, "But this is a good appointment." Kind of a big flip-flop, I would say.
A big flip-flop, but that is a Liberal, both sides of every issue. It is hard sitting on the fence, because those pickets get awful sharp. I am sure she is enjoying herself in the Senate of Canada, and I am sure she has totally repudiated her remarks in the Manitoba Legislature now that she is a senator, at least I would hope so, that she has had a change of heart.
Well, I am running out of inspiration on Bill 38, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, but if other people would like to speak on this side, we now have speaking notes, but I only–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Martindale: I could tell you whose name is on the bottom. It is one of the staff in the minister's department. I thank her for providing the speaking notes. It is not the person being mentioned by the members opposite, I can assure you of that. The speaking notes are quite helpful, and I did refer to them a little bit. I read the changes that benefit tenants and the changes that benefit landlords, which are all in Bill 38, if members opposite care to read it.
We look forward to hearing their remarks on this bill to see whether they support it or not, or whether they are going to vote for it or not. If they vote against it, then we know that they are totally in support of landlords and have no sympathy for tenants. So we will be looking forward to see how members opposite speak and vote on this bill. Thank you.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): The moment you have all been waiting for.
Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to have this opportunity to put some comments on the record about our marvellous Bill 38 amendments to The Residential Tenancies Act. I very much want to applaud the sentiments of a previous speaker, my fine colleague, the MLA for Burrows, and begin with a big thank you to our minister for bringing forward this positive language.
An Honourable Member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Altemeyer: I am going to get to this for a bit.
I also certainly want to thank the members of the committee, both people advocating from a tenant's perspective and also those advocating from a landlord's perspective, who sat down together in what is normally a very acrimonious environment–I am not mentioning any names of members in the Chamber at the moment–and managed to negotiate a package which they all felt had some components in it that would move their cause forward. That has now been brought forward to our Legislature for us to debate and, potentially, amend and improve. I certainly want to commend the process that was used to bring this fine document forward.
This probably will not come as a surprise to anyone who knows the riding of Wolseley, but residents there do not have much difficulty articulating or sharing their views with their MLA. It is one of the many things I love about them. So I actually will not need speaking notes for this presentation. I will be talking about the impact that this legislation is going to have in our local context, at the local community level and in my riding, and very positive impacts that they will be.
Shortly after being
elected, and even before then, it was very apparent to me that housing is one
of the biggest issues in the Wolseley riding. Not everyone might know this, so
I will share a little geography. The Wolseley riding is actually made up of
three very different neighbourhoods. The Wolseley part most people are probably
familiar with, to the west of
In West Broadway, for instance, over 90 percent of the people who live there are living there in a rental context. There is enormous turnover in West Broadway and in Spence neighbourhood, far more so than in a more stable neighbourhood, more stable in the housing context, in Wolseley.
* (17:10)
So, very early on, after becoming an MLA, I have launched several initiatives to help inform my constituents about the existing rules and the procedures under The Residential Tenancies Act. Just last night, I was very proud to join one of the newest MLAs in the Chamber, my colleague the MLA for Minto, as we co-hosted an event right on the border, right on Ellice Avenue, at John M. King School, the border between our ridings, where members of the public could come out and learn about the existing rules governing residential tenancies, and also learn a bit about some of the new pieces that we are bringing forward in this legislation.
The evening was very well received. I want to commend the staff that came out from the RTB to provide the information packages, and be there to answer a wide range of questions that citizens had on their mind. There were both tenants and landlords present. These are the types of initiatives that I really believe quite strongly in as an elected official, that the more information that we can provide to our citizens so that they understand what their rights are, what their obligations are, it leads to a much better situation for them, and for everyone in the community. So I am sure that my colleague and I, the MLA for Minto, will be hosting future events like that on this issue and many others.
To continue on with the
impact of The Residential Tenancies Act in Wolseley, and by Wolseley, I mean
the Wolseley riding, because of the complete abandonment of the inner city
under the previous administration throughout the 1990s, we saw enormous decay
in the quality of life for people
living in the inner city, and in the physical quality of the apartments, rental
apartments in particular, that people were forced to live in. The federal
government is also quite culpable in this. In 1995, that infamous budget, which
the current leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party voted in favour of when he was
a Cabinet minister there, slashed all support for public housing throughout the
entire country. Absolutely nothing was done here in
What a remarkable
turnaround that has been accomplished by our government, our hardworking
ministers, many of them here today in the Chamber right now, the Minister of
Housing (Ms. Melnick), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith)
and our Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), who together all have very
significant pieces in a new strategy, and a new renewal of the inner city in Winnipeg, and also in other communities
in Manitoba. We are not just a perimeter party. We have programs for housing
happening in the North. We have programs for housing happening in rural
With that enormous abandonment of the inner city and the declining quality of the housing stock, and now with the enormous renewal and revitalization and enthusiasm that is happening in what were once abandoned neighbourhoods, we are seeing an enormous amount of investments happening in the inner city. These investments are not without their negative consequences. Everyone knows the stock markets are a pretty difficult place to make a living these days, unless you are a multi-millionaire and not many of us get to be in that situation. So an enormous amount of investment capital is now being directed into real estate with the result that low income people are being displaced from homes and communities that they have stuck with, through thick and thin, throughout the 1990s, when so many of their concerns, so many of their legitimate issues, were completely ignored by the governments of the day.
I am so proud of the
accomplishments which we heard about
today in Question Period. The number of new units, new affordable housing
units, that have been built in
A key part of our new emphasis on providing affordable housing is on the low-income rental side to address this issue of private-sector money coming in to formerly undesirable communities, ratcheting up the rents through investments in properties, and then the economic relocation of low-income residents, one of our top priorities now.
I commend the Minister of Housing (Ms. Melnick) for dedicating the entire current round that just finished under the Affordable Housing Initiative. She dedicated all of the resources to low-income rental initiatives. I commend her for that. I commend our government for that. The results that we will see in West Broadway and Spence and elsewhere will be legacies of our government for years to come. Those buildings will stand strong. There are so many innovative approaches being taken to how these will operate. The previous speaker, the MLA for Burrows, my colleague, talked about the importance of co-ops in his part of the community. They certainly play a strong role in my neighbourhoods as well.
A big focus of late for us also has been trying to incorporate environmental approaches to new housing, in addition to maintaining the affordability features that we are so desirous of. There are projects now at the planning stages, and also others that are nearing completion, which could have some very important lessons and some very exciting developments which could be copied right across our province, and even across the country in this area.
The Residential Tenancies Act amendments play into this because, of course, it is so important that we make sure that the rules are clear when rents are increased and when disputes arise between tenants and landlords. Regardless of who the tenant is, or regardless of who the landlord is, the process is consistent for everyone involved, and that everyone knows what the rules are in advance.
Some of the new features that we have brought in with our proposed legislation are, I think, going to be very beneficial for the tenants, many of whom, of course, have contacted my office since being elected with exactly these types of concerns, which will now be addressed.
One example of these is, of course, discounts. Sometimes a landlord will offer a discount to a renter so the rent may perhaps, let us say, be $500, but the landlord will offer a discount of $75 to get someone to move in, and they pay at the reduced rate.
At the moment, though, there is absolutely no protection, no matter how many years have gone by or what the circumstances may be, for a landlord to immediately remove that discount. It is just at the whim of the owner of the building. This, of course, can cause extreme hardship for someone on a limited income or fixed income when, suddenly, they have to pay $50, $60, $75 more each month, 12 months of the year on a budget which probably is not much more than $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 a year in many, many instances for seniors on a fixed income or low-income working people.
So, with our new legislation, we have put in a provision that a landlord now who is offering a discount must provide a three-month notification period so no one will have this extra cost sprung on them on such a short-term basis. The landlord will have to provide three months' notice that they intend to remove the discount, giving a tenant a reasonable amount of time to decide, okay, am I able to afford to continue to stay living here, or do I need to find alternative accommodations which still match the amount of rent money that I have to pay for my rent?
Another very important issue that numerous tenants have brought to my attention concerns repairs, both to the building as a whole and repairs to their individual suites. I had visited rooming houses and apartment blocks in my riding, which are in appalling condition. Up until now, there has been no mechanism for a tenant to be able to force a landlord directly to fix the repairs that are owing.
The current process has been that a tenant can go to the Residential Tenancies Branch. They can indicate they have asked for a repair to be done, and indicate that it has not been completed, and then their rent can be paid to Residential Tenancies Branch which could then use that rent to effect the repairs. But there has been no direct mechanism to get a landlord to actually do what they should have been doing all along, and that is maintaining the equity of their building and providing decent accommodations for low-income people to live.
* (17:20)
With our new proposal, there will now be a mechanism whereby a renter in this situation will be able to apply to have their rent partially or fully reimbursed if that is determined to be appropriate by the director at the Residential Tenancies Branch.
It is a relatively small change. I am sure there will be other initiatives that we will look at in the future. But it is a very positive step forward to trying to address some of the really deplorable living conditions that far too many of our residents are currently faced with.
On the landlords' front, there are also some improvements there, addressing some long outstanding issues that some landlords have brought forward. One of these is that, if a landlord has failed to follow the proper procedure for notifying a tenant when their rent is going to go up, the director under our proposed legislation will now have the discretionary power to decide if the amount that the rent has gone up is in compliance with the rent control which we have brought in, in each of the years in question. This results, at the end of the day, in an appropriate level of rent being charged to a tenant, if it is simply that, whether through oversight or a mistake on the part of the landlord, they did not follow the proper notification process.
This notification process is very important. If a landlord has, in fact, been found to have charged too much in a year that is in question, then they will not be given the power to proceed under this section of the act. However, if it is found that the rent increases that have been applied by the landlord in the years in question have been in compliance with the rent controls which our province has established, then this enables for the situation to be resolved without undue hardship on either the tenant or the landlord's part.
There is also, of course, in our proposed legislation, a new opportunity for landlords who either already own a badly deteriorated building or who acquire a badly deteriorated building to apply for an exemption from rent controls. The important condition to this is also a benefit that goes to tenants in this circumstance. Exemption from rent controls enables a landlord to increase rents beyond what has been established provincially by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) each year. But an exemption in this circumstance will come only if a landlord agrees that a certain number of the units in the apartment block, or units in question, remain at a median market rent or lower.
So a landlord is able to receive a financial incentive to invest in the building and fix it up so it does not end up becoming a boarded-up building like the ones which dominated my riding throughout the 1990s. Instead, the landlord has a mechanism for improving their property, improving the quality of life for the people living there, but a certain number of units in the apartment block are going to have to be available at median market rent or lower, which is an affordability mechanism that our government remains very committed to, and this is another excellent reflection of that.
I am going to close, Mr. Speaker, if I may, with some supportive comments for our Minister of Finance and his strong stance in maintenance of rent control. This is a key aspect of affordability and ensuring that low-income people have the ability to live in decent accommodations, and to do so with a reasonable understanding of what the rents are going to be from year to year to year. Particularly for single parents with one or more children, it can be so disruptive when they are forced to move to another community through economic hardship because their rents have increased unreasonably.
The rent control regime means that there will be a maximum of a couple of percentage points increase each year, and that amount is determined purely on economic factors of what the costs have been for landlords to operate their buildings in the previous year and inflation. This is an absolutely vital component to ensuring that our citizens have the ability to live with decency and respect and affordability in our province, wherever they may choose to live.
I want to conclude my remarks with a very strong personal endorsement to our Minister of Finance for maintaining this aspect of our legislative regime. So, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important item of legislation, very important to my riding and to many of the residents living there, and I look forward to more exciting housing developments from our government in the years ahead. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
Okay, when this matter is
again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable
Member for
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Speaker:
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5:30, this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.