LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
November 16,
2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYER
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act; Loi sur la limitation des frais de chauffage en hiver, be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits any further increases in natural gas prices for customers at Centra Gas during the 2005-2006 winter heating season and allows the government to limit such price increases in 2006-2007. It also requires Manitoba Hydro to establish a stabilization and affordable energy fund.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr.
Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the
following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Insulin pumps cost over $6,500.
The cost of diabetes to the
Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 percent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations.
Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we do not take action now.
The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good control of their blood sugar and become much healthier, complication-free individuals.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the
Premier (Mr. Doer) of
Signed by Denise Veilfaure, Lorette Gallant, Gisèle Laflèche and many, many others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The background to this petition is as follows:
The Manitoba Government was made aware of serious problems involving the Crocus Fund back in 2001.
As a direct result of the government ignoring the red flags back in 2001, over 33 000 Crocus investors lost over $60 million.
The relationship between some union leaders, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP seems to be the primary reason as for why the government ignored the red flags.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus Fund back in 2001.
Signed by Arthur Trachyk, Pam Sinclair and Raghbir Singh.
* (13:35)
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Ninth Annual Report of the Office of the Fire Commissioner for the year ended March 31, 2005.
Up-Front Charges for Business Expansions
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Businesses in
Now, Mr. Speaker, we learn that the Doer NDP government and Manitoba Hydro have developed a plan to impose an up-front charge to existing or new customers that add additional load to the hydro system even if there will be no infrastructure cost incurred by Manitoba Hydro.
Mr. Speaker, why is this Doer NDP government continuing to punish the private sector and stifling growth and expansion in our province? Why are they doing that?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Thankfully, Manitoba Hydro is
still owned by the people of
It was interesting to observe the rebate
that was introduced by the Public Utilities Board with Manitoba Public
Insurance on Monday, Mr. Speaker. Have we ever had a rebate with the Manitoba
Telephone System that was robbed from the people of
Mr. Murray: I would remind
this Premier this is not an NDP convention. This is an issue that is important
to all of
The proposed changes at Manitoba Hydro
were developed by this Doer NDP government and Manitoba Hydro with no surprise,
no consultation or input from the province's business community. As stated
recently by Randy Brown, the president of the Brandon Chamber of Commerce and
Bill Turner, the chairman of the Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group and also
the manager of Brandon's Canexus, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, as they stated,
"that changes proposed by Manitoba Hydro and the provincial government are
disturbing and will have direct impacts on Manitoba business and Manitobans. If
utility costs take these unjustified jumps that have just been announced, it
will have dire consequences for business in
Why is this NDP government continually
asleep at the switch when it comes to supporting the private sector in
* (13:40)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I believe the individual that was quoted by the member is working in an operation called Nexen that I think has doubled its workforce in the last few years since the NDP was elected, because we have the lowest hydro-electric rates in North America, and we will continue to have the lowest hydro-electric rates in North America. I am shocked that the Leader of the Opposition would be talking about political conventions. I did not think that was very appropriate on the floor of this Chamber.
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I
would hope that the Premier would understand that Nexen is now Canexus, that he
should be current with that business in
Mr. Speaker, ERCO Worldwide in Hargrave had plans to expand their plant by up to 50 percent. With this announcement for the plan developed by the Premier and Manitoba Hydro for an up-front charge, these expansion plans have been put on hold.
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier today reverse his plans to levy an up-front charge on businesses seeking to build or expand their operations? Will he do the right thing and reverse that decision?
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the company that the member opposite is quoting has a preferential hydro rate, as I recall it, because we are dealing with their expansion. It has a preferential hydro rate because of the interruptible conditions. Let me explain this. It has a preferential rate because they use power on off hours with Manitoba Hydro.
Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite thinks he is smarter than Bob Brennan, in terms of dealing with the interruptible power, I am quite surprised because he is a very, very intelligent CEO that balances the needs of the public with the needs of corporations, corporations that have doubled their employment levels in Manitoba. There is a limit, though, because the interruptible power issues and the off-hour conditions have to not be exceeded where that condition of the rate would be changed.
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that members opposite were last week flailing away at the government about natural gas prices under the Manitoba Hydro, and, as I understand it, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chomiak) is going to announce after Question Period a policy that I think, I am not exactly sure, but I think it will be consistent and in the interest of all Manitobans, consumers and corporations.
Up-Front Charges for Business Expansions
Mr.
Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker,
industrial power users in
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and
Technology): First off, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, we have to weigh the cost of service against the rates across the revenue, and we have had both expansion but we cannot–[interjection] I remember members opposite wanting to bring aluminium factories here by guaranteeing rates forever which would be to the detriment of all the ratepayers in the province of Manitoba, and if members opposite want to give away our power like they gave away MTS, I am glad they are on that side of the House.
* (13:45)
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, companies like ERCO Worldwide that has its business based in Hargrave, Manitoba, a large user of electric power in Manitoba, and companies like it, want to expand their operations in Manitoba but are being penalized with an up-front expenditure, a tax, to expand their businesses in Manitoba.
Why is this NDP government collecting these up-front charges even when no new infrastructure costs would be incurred by Manitoba Hydro?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker,
there is no place cheaper in North America to use hydro-electricity than in
Mr. Maguire: Manitobans agree that low cost
electrical power is to
Why is this NDP government killing
expansion plans of existing
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I cannot believe the audacity
of the member opposite. Alcan located in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Yes, they had a
proposal when they were in government to equalize Hydro rates that would give
farmers and people in northern
Trafficking to the
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, while police in
Can the minister indicate how much of the
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr. Speaker, the strategy in
Perhaps the member
opposite did not know that one of the major initiatives of this government, Mr.
Speaker, is multifaceted, multi-approach on dealing with the challenge of
methamphetamine, a most serious drug. We have to ensure that this insidious
drug, Mr. Speaker, does not undermine the communities and the families of
* (13:50)
Mr. Goertzen: The minister does the dance of the seven veils over there, but he is not getting to the fact of the issue.
I want to table for the minister the 2005,
this year's Drug Enforcement Agency report for
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice indicate, I asked him before, he did not answer, I will ask again. How much of the marijuana being grown here in Manitoba by the gangs is going to North Dakota, and what is coming back in return; meth, cocaine and guns?
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr.
Speaker, the member raises concerns about the effectiveness, obviously, of
Mr. Goertzen: The problem
is that on this side of the border we do not have a Minister of Justice who is
doing his job. It seems like the new motto is
I want to ask the
Minister of Justice is he not taking this issue seriously because those drugs
are going across the border to the
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.
Speaker, if the member has concerns about the U.S. Customs and Immigration
service, he certainly can directly raise that with the
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is happening, and I
can also tell the member opposite that, when it comes to North Dakota, the
Attorney General of North Dakota has come to Manitoba as late as two weeks ago
to remind Manitobans how important it is that we all take action, individually
and collectively, to deal with the serious challenge of meth. We say to every young
person in
Principal's Resignation
Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, the principal of Leaf Rapids Education Centre quit abruptly recently because he was tired of crisis management. This northern school is experiencing serious problems, and the principal felt that they were not getting the adequate supports to function effectively. I would like to ask the Minister of Education why were these supports not provided, and why was the principal left in such frustration that he felt he had to quit.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education,
Citizenship and Youth): Well,
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite, their entire support for the education
system over five years is the investment of $1.6 million for the entire system.
Members opposite abandoned the public school system. This is a government that
has said that education is important to Manitobans. This is a government that
has been investing in education at the rate of economic growth since we have
been in office, $129.8 million, and the money that is used is providing the
resources that are necessary to provide effective education for the students of
Mrs. Driedger: Mr.
Speaker, we have another northern school in crisis here in
* (13:55)
Mr. Bjornson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member opposite of a letter that I had sent her outlining all the initiatives that we have brought forward to address bullying and the issues that we have addressed through Safe Schools Manitoba, through the Safe Schools Charter, a few programs such as the Triple P Positive Parenting, through Families and Schools Together, the FAST program, a multi-family group intervention, through the Early Behaviour Intervention learning and behaviour initiative, through base-support funding for counselling, through categorical grants for students at risk, through a number of different organizations that we have worked with, whether it is RespectEd through the Red Cross, whether it is Operation Respect, the Virtues Project, all programs that have been supported by this government.
We did not bury our head in the sand around issues of bullying as members opposite chose to do, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, with all that hot air, you would wonder then why his policies are not working. We have got a school that is in trouble. Teachers in this school are stressed out. Class sizes are ranging from 45 to 50 students. No wonder there is bullying and discipline problems in this school. The principal has said that teachers are going to jump ship or they are going to go out on stress leave–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Driedger: I would like to ask this Minister–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Driedger: –of Education why is he not addressing what appears to be a very serious crisis in this northern school. Why is he not doing his job?
Mr. Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, when we came to office we addressed a very serious crisis in the entire public school system which was neglected by members opposite for 11 years. On the issue of bullying, members opposite chose to do nothing. They put their head in the sand. We stood up and provided leadership to support the students, the teachers, the communities and will continue to do so.
Yes, there are challenges in various communities. We continue to work with those communities and provide the staff support through the department to assist in areas of crisis and will continue to do so. Members opposite abandoned the public school system. We are there for the public school system, all members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.
OlyWest Proposal
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, livestock
production is a significant contributor to our economy in
My question for the Minister of Conservation is what commitment has the Province made to the City of Winnipeg to upgrade the water, sewage and transportation infrastructure, or are city of Winnipeg taxpayers going to be on the hook for all of these costs?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to be absolutely clear with the Member for River East that the full transparent open public hearing will be held by the Clean Environment Commission to talk about the exact things that she has been bringing forward here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, we have yet to receive an application for an environmental licence. The members opposite are quite aware of the process that is undertaken. If they are asking me to short circuit that process, then I reject that out of hand.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Water and waste, water quantity and quality are intertwined with social, economic and environmental concerns. This government has already committed $27.5 million to this project when it has not seen a proposal and has not done its due diligence.
What guarantee has the government made to
the City of
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Speaker, all over this province, this government and local municipalities and the federal government have been working hard on sewage and water projects through the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program. Members opposite know that.
Members opposite also know that we have not received an environmental licence application from the proponent in this proposal. So, when we get that application brought forward to us, we will know then exactly what kind of a proposal we are dealing with so that we can give it the due diligence that I have committed to, the due diligence that we have committed to as a government and also the due diligence of public hearings by the Clean Environment Commission.
* (14:00)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, a $27.5-million
commitment by this government when they have not received any proposal to this
point. We know that raw sewage already is being released by the City of
What plans does this government have to
upgrade the City of
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I know today in light of the Isobord announcement that members opposite treat MIOP loans as losses. We actually have made money on MIOP loans, so forget that rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, Point No. 1.
Point No. 2: The $7.5 million for
infrastructure proposed for the plant is less than went into the Maple Leaf
plant in
Point No. 3: All plants require an
environmental licence, Mr. Speaker, and, unlike members opposite, this will be
a public process. If one looks at the Maple Leaf plant in
Hog Processing Plant
OlyWest Proposal
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, the hog industry
is one of the pillars of the
Why has the Minister of Industry not done his due diligence with respect to that MIOP loan? How could he possibly approve $20 million without even receiving an application for environmental approval?
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic
Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the member
opposite. Under their watch the MIOP program lost millions. It cost the
What we have done is we have a proposal that will come forward. We will perform the due diligence and then we may look at how we are proceeding. We have not flowed any cash yet. We have not signed any deals yet. What we are doing is we received a proposal from the proponent and will do the due diligence and consider. We need no lessons from members opposite who lost millions of dollars under MIOP. Under our program and under our watch, the programs made money.
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the minister's response because all of those losses of Isobord were under their watch. This NDP government has never even received an application for environmental approval. No assessment has been done with respect to the infrastructure requirements to properly serve the plant. The minister stated yesterday, and I quote him, "the proposal has been not entirely fleshed out and that all the due diligence has not taken place."
I ask the Minister of Industry: How could he possibly approve $20 million when he has not done his due diligence?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I have seven press releases.
In fact, I do not think there is a former Cabinet minister sitting on the front
bench that has not been named in one of these press releases prior to 1999 on
the establishment of Isobord. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some serious
questions about Isobord. It is important for members opposite to deal with the
facts of the matter because there is some legitimate issues about straw and straw
residue here in
I am surprised the member from eastern
Mr. Hawranik: This NDP government has mismanaged MIOP time and time again. Time and time again this Minister of Industry has not done his homework. He gave $10,000 to a company dealing in pornography. He was offered a film and sound stage for $1, but he paid $3 million and told them he was not prepared to pay a penny less.
Now he offers $20 million of MIOP funding without an application for environmental approval and without an assessment with respect to infrastructure. I ask the Minister of Industry why did he not do his homework before offering $20 million in funding.
Mr. Doer: Every proposal,
Mr. Speaker, including this proposal, is subject to a full, public,
environmental assessment. I want to guarantee the House and the people of
In terms of Isobord: November 8, 1996,
November 9, 1996, I can go on and on and on when members opposite promised to
turn straw into gold. They turned straw into a $30-million loss for
Diking System
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Maybe the member opposite could help us with the federal Liberal government to–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: I am going to
lock up my children then if that is the case, but, Mr. Speaker, it is an
interesting case because there are two diking systems that we did build this
year. One was at
Mr. Speaker, there are some temporary dikes. They do need to be made more permanent on the south basin. They did provide a great deal of protection for some parts of the south basin on October 5. The lake level was at 719 yesterday. Some of those dikes protected people from 719, 723 and 724. We believe that those dikes should be seeded and more permanent for next year so that it will be less dissolvable. They were temporary dikes.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, it was recommended not only by our water engineers based on survey work, but it was also recommended by the mayor of Gimli, the mayor of Winnipeg Beach, the mayor of Dunnottar and other municipalities. If we have to take advice from people, we will take advice from the elected officials on the front line.
* (14:10)
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker,
let us stick with
Now we are left with tons, literally, of
filthy debris that has proven itself to be of no help during a minimal
rainstorm and an eyesore that has reduced the amount of useable property. With
the multitude of problems, will the Premier not admit he used a wrong approach,
a dike like on the Red River instead of erosion control, which is what is
needed for
Mr. Doer: The dikes did get wet and that is because the water level, the wave level and the wind level went up on October 5, and, thankfully, we had the dikes in place. Now there is a 200-kilometre permanent dike that was built by Ed Schreyer, Mr. Speaker, on the south basin. It did need work. It did need work in terms of the temporary conditions under which it was faced.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that there was
temporary work that was conducted. It was done in consultation with the mayor
of Gimli,
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has spent $8 million and many of these dollars have been spent in questionable ways. The Province has now spent these $8 million in six weeks for what they call three years of work. It has not provided the right sort of benefit. What we do not want now the property owners are saying is the reverse to occur, three years to rectify a situation that was created in six weeks.
Will the government guarantee to the homeowners and the cottage owners that the mess it created is cleaned up properly and that more appropriate measures will be taken in the future?
Mr. Doer: Well, the member
from Emerson, you know, the member from Emerson, Mr. Speaker, said that
Manitoba Hydro was part of the problem for the water levels on the lake. The
water levels were flowing out of
In terms of the dike, Mr. Speaker, we do believe that some of the dikes should be made permanent. Permanent dikes will be less vulnerable to wave action, but if we had not put the dikes in place the waves would have gone right onto the cottages and homes.
I would point out that one resident stated on the radio on October 5 that we thought the dirt dike was not needed. Now we are being proven wrong today, but, yes, we should make them more permanent and more stable, and we are glad we did that, Mr. Speaker.
Music Mentorship Initiative
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Well, yes, thank you for the question.
Mr. Speaker, the
It is an excellent opportunity to promote
the various genres of music that appeal to the young people in the
Access to Services in Rural
Mr.
Peter Dyck (Pembina): Due to recent changes made to the licensing of
highway tractors International Registration Program, it has become difficult to
add, delete and transfer vehicle registrations. Why has the Minister
responsible for MPI allowed these changes to take place forcing people from
rural
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.
Mr. Dyck: Shed some light onto this subject here. These transfers can take from four to six hours and travelling time is another four hours. So would the minister allow the local MPI agencies to make the needed changes? That is the issue.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, if the member is raising concerns and issues around
the licensing system in
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Gladys Simpson. On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, Mrs. Simpson was awarded an honourary mention at a reception hosted by the Manitoba Council on Aging. She received the award for her continued commitments to both seniors and the community at large, and I would like to offer my congratulations to Mrs. Simpson for this honour.
Mrs. Simpson is a resident of the town of
On top of all of this, she has been a member of the Valleyview seniors group for 15 years during which time she has served in all offices including president of the organization. Mrs. Simpson is truly a valued member to the community and is instrumental in the production of a countless number of community events.
I would also like to highlight the fact
that the award she received from the Manitoba Council on Aging is one that a
person has to be nominated for. Three fellow citizens from
Mr. Speaker, I would once again like to
congratulate Mrs. Gladys Simpson on her award from the Manitoba Council on
Aging and wish her continued success in the countless community organizations
and projects she is a part of in
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (
Sponsored by Age and
It is events such as the health fair that help seniors achieve the active participation and independence necessary for any vibrant community. Mr. Speaker, I need not remind this House that healthy living and healthy communities are bound by a common thread.
Consisting of presentations by such organizations as the Diabetes Education Centre and Manitoba Naturopathic Association, the health fair provided important information directly to seniors and gave them the chance to talk face to face with health care professionals. There were also one-hour sessions devoted to safety, fraud prevention and Tai Chi as well as free massages which were enjoyed by all.
In conjunction with this event, the Fort Garry Shuttle Bus was also launched on October 14, a service provided by my constituency to ensure seniors have a chance to access all the activities and services open to them. This free transportation service ensured that all who desired to attend the health fair could actually do so.
* (14:20)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers who helped organize the event and the various community organizations who attended the Health Fair. Without their efforts this event would not have been such a great success.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
draw the attention of the House to the achievement of our colleague, the
honourable member from Carman. Today, the Manitoba Division of the Canadian
Cancer Society honoured him with an award at the Magic of People Volunteer
Awards Luncheon. He was given the Silver Alliance Award and that was presented
to him for helping to make
Mr. Speaker, I think this award is very
important because it sends a message to all Manitobans that we in this Legislature,
as individuals when you come to represent a particular constituency, as the
honourable member does from Carman, I think it sends a signal that one person
can make a difference. I think we all rallied in this Legislature behind the
honourable member from Carman because we all believe that it was the right
thing for us to do for
So, I think, on behalf of all Manitobans, all members of this Legislature, families, relatives that have had some impact in their lives on cancer, we owe our debt of gratitude to the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) for standing up as an individual and making a difference in Manitoba.
Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr. Speaker, would I have leave, Sir, to make a very small statement to the House?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed]
Mr. Rocan: Mr. Speaker, I
would also ask leave, if you would not mind, Sir, because I would like the
record to show, as much as I appreciate the fine words that were just put on
the record, I would like to put the names of certain other individuals who were
on that committee. If it had not been for the all-party task force that was put
together by the Premier (Mr. Doer), indeed, the working relationship that I
have with the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale), all Manitobans are indeed grateful
for the fact that we had an all-party task force voted on by 57 members in this
Legislature trying to make Manitoba a better place for all Manitobans. So,
indeed, I wish the record to show that each and every one of the task force
members had an integral part in helping make
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, the increasing population
of the
M.O.D.E.L stands for Mark of Designed
Ecological Living. It is being undertaken by Anna Weier, a Master's student in
the Faculty of Environment, Earth and Resources at the
The project involves renovating a derelict
house on
All renovation decisions in the M.O.D.E.L
project will keep the environment in mind. The
As a component of her Master's thesis, Ms. Weier will document the barriers to incorporating sustainable house building practices in mainstream construction and renovation. Ms. Weier hopes to demonstrate what can be done to make the renovation of homes both sustainable and affordable.
I would like to congratulate Anna Weier on
this interesting and important initiative and the Winnipeg Housing
Rehabilitation Corporation and the
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Let me just make one brief comment on the award to Barbara Tascona. This was an award which was given for her effort to ban smoking on school property. It is an initiative which remains uncompleted. We should ban smoking on school property province-wide, and it is one of the jobs that this Legislature still needs to take up and complete of the work of the All-Party Task Force on Environmental Tobacco Smoke.
Mr. Speaker: Before we move on, I would just like to remind all honourable members, when making reference to other members in the House, it is by constituencies and not by names, a reminder to all members.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please refer to debate on second readings beginning with Bill 7, and the remainder of the bills in the order they appear on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler).
What is the will of the House?
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: It has been
denied. For clarification purposes, the honourable Member for
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: It is
standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Mr. Ron Schuler (
* (14:30)
But it really does have its roots back in
time. There have been difficulties between various groups in
However, what did happen is the ruling
laid out that legislation from a considerable amount of time ago would take
precedence and created a lot of concern in the building trades and amongst
individuals trying to get projects going in
If you were following newspapers of the time, you would have heard headlines like "Ruling could bump building costs," "Building their arguments," "A level playing field needed," "New rules aimed at engineers and architects," and on and on, Mr. Speaker. There are even some talking about "Developers say court order will slow boom," "Court puts big chill on developers." So, clearly, there had to be some kind of resolution to this.
One of the most sought-after solutions was an agreement between the various groups that would precipitate some kind of legislation that would have settled this. From what I understand, that was not going to happen, was not going to be the case. The lobbying and the meetings and the negotiations went from there.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
I know that over the weeks of the initial opening of the House, we had a petition put forward which asked for the Premier (Mr. Doer) to consider amending The Architects Act to provide engineers an exemption similar to that enjoyed by the architects under The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Act. What we saw come forward was Bill 7, and I would like to thank the minister's staff, the staff from the Department of Labour, certainly the deputy minister, Jeff Parr, and, in particular, Nancy Anderson, who had a hand in drafting the legislation, and all of those individuals that were part of the negotiations who worked hard to come to some kind of legislation.
Though I understand we are not allowed to go into details of the legislation, we understand from the briefings and from what we have heard from the various groups that we have spoken with that it probably does not please anybody and, in the end, might just be the saw that basically is necessary to get construction back on track and not slow down the building construction that is going on in the city and the province. I will not go into the details line by line. That is, of course, better for third reading.
I have, however, after the briefing with the minister, had the opportunity to meet with various groups. I have also had some feedback, and I would like to put some comments on the record. We received one from an interior designer that said, "We as a profession are not even named in any of the literature I have read concerning the dispute between the architects and the engineers. Yet, if they are including the planning of the building interiors in Bill 7, or the amendment to the Building Code, our profession in being wiped out with one stroke of the pen, my livelihood is definitely being threatened."
What we understand is that this was not the case. The interior decorators are covered, and I have spoken to the minister on this on numerous occasions. So we know that that has been taken care of. The interior designers, many of whom have 20, 30 projects on the go, have basically had their projects stopped at this point in time and have no livelihood. Clearly, their comments were that they wanted to make sure that they were protected under this legislation.
We also had a comment from some of the engineers who support the new legislation contained in Bill 7. "We appreciate your support over the past month as this process played out. I need to make it a priority to support the PC Party to help empower the party that will actually make decisions to support private business in the province to the betterment of our overall economic position in the country and globally." It goes on to state that it is time to move this legislation forward.
We also had someone from the construction industry saying, "Thank you for your continued pressure on the Department of Labour regarding the architects and engineers debate. As a design builder, this bill will allow us to continue to serve our customers as we have previously served them since 1978. I will also be able to maintain the employment of my in-house design draft department which is comprised of three people. Thank you for your assistance and support during this process."
Basically, the letter went on indicating that individuals wanted to see this legislation go forward.
I would like to say that we have pushed the government for some time to bring forward this legislation. Clearly, what we wanted to see was some kind of a level playing field and that, as we worked through this process and understood the severity of it, we came to the realization that something had to be done and had to be done quickly.
Bill 7, we would like to see it go to committee, pass second reading today, and move on to committee. It does have quite a bit involved with it and we want to hear what the communities have to say. I understand that there are approximately 120-some presenters and climbing. We think that it is important that we hear them all. I know from the minister's perspective and for myself as critic, we want to facilitate the opportunity for anybody and everybody to have their say to this legislation and then would like it to come back to this House.
I do have some verbal agreement from the minister that, once it goes through third reading, this legislation get Royal Assent and be proclaimed right away. We would like to see it done the day that it moves through third reading, that it then get Royal Assent and be proclaimed. We feel that this is important. We feel that it is important to have a proper legislative process look at it, and that we have done. We have taken the last week to consult all of those individuals who have a vested interest in and are being affected by this legislation.
So we have certainly done due diligence on it. We now would see this going to committee and getting a thorough discussion at committee. From the little time I have spent in this House, 120 people is very thorough, and we are encouraged that individuals find this legislation and this issue warranting their attention and the desire to come forward and speak to it. Again, I want to say to this House we would like to see it go through committee, come back through third reading, going through a proper legislative process and then get Royal Assent and proclamation.
I have also spoken to the minister and I know there have been concerns in regard to the regulations. The minister has assured us that the regulations are being drafted, and that they would be brought forward imminently, because a lot of the individuals, in particular the interior design, are affected and would not be able to practise in the full scope until the regulations are done. So what we want to make sure is that nobody's livelihood is put at risk. We want to make sure that this is done in such a fashion that the safety and security of all Manitobans are protected, and that commerce, the building that we have in our province, proceed in an orderly fashion.
I know from having travelled to other
countries I appreciate the building codes that we have. They are very
important, because they protect us from ourselves. That is very important. So I
do not want to spend too much time at this point in time speaking to the
legislation as it is important that it does get to committee and we hear from
the over 100 presenters that want to speak. We would like to see this moved
today on to the committee stage. Let us hear what the public of
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to
support this Bill 7, which, I believe, is very important, and I commend the
minister and her staff who have worked very hard over the last few months to
get this bill through. I think it is a situation that I would say is a win-win
for all, and, as the member from
* (14:40)
I had an opportunity to speak at the award dinner of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists, and they did make the concern that they would want to make it work between engineers and architects. I think both professions are very important. Both are very, very professional associations, and I think it is very important for us to see that this legislation is going to bring the issues for settlement and give the priorities, which, I think, we see from the government perspective, that it is to protect the public interest and ensure that construction delays and cost increases do not happen as a result of the recent court ruling.
The government has been consulting with
members of these professions and other stakeholders, such as the Association of
Manitoba Municipalities, the City of
I think it is the professional approach that we should take, and I think this particular legislation has addressed that. The ownership of the project would perhaps be the most logical institution to decide what type of engagement they want to have. The legislation clearly states certain requirements, and it defines when there is a conflict how they will be able to resolve it. I do have some appreciation for the work which has been done with the main thinking to protect the public interest, and I think the amendments to the architectural act will provide that the act does not limit the ability of a professional engineer to practise professional engineering, even within the scope of his or her governing legislation or may be required by the Manitoba Building Code.
Individual professional engineers currently planning certain buildings will be grandfathered under the act to allow them to continue their practice. This affects, Mr. Deputy Speaker, approximately one dozen engineers. The bill will also permit engineering firms to employ architects and offer both architectural engineering services. What will this mean to the architects? Architects will continue to be responsible for design, plan and review of the buildings as set out in their professional act.
The Manitoba Building Code will provide direction as to when an architect must be involved in the design of the building. For an example, residential office buildings and retail outlets over 600 square metres, approximately 6000 square feet, would require an architect, as would hospitals, prisons and places where people gather such as churches, libraries, community centres or restaurants. Industrial buildings, farm buildings, arenas and fixed-seating capacities of less than 1000 people and residential office or retail buildings less than 600 square metres would not require an architect. It is clearly defined, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in terms of when an architect has to be retained and when engineers can do it without the help of architects, so this is a win-win situation.
I think this particular legislation is something that both professions will honour, and I think that my personal endorsement of this bill comes very strongly about who gets to act as prime consultant on a project. This is very clear. This legislation will provide that nothing in the respective legislation will prevent an architect or an engineering firm from serving as the prime consultant on a project. These provisions will not limit any other person from serving in that capacity. These amendments will remove any uncertainty or dispute as to the consumer's right to choose the prime consultant of the project. Actually, this gives the rights to the consumer to hire an architect or an engineer to be the prime consultant, and then after that, either the engineer or the architect can hire the other depending on the need of the project.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
How will the disputes be settled is a question that is very clearly defined, that this will be a joint architect-engineering board that will deal with the disputes in a timely manner and make a joint recommendation to the board binding on both professions.
So I believe that this particular bill gives that kind of confidence in our government's ability to solve the problem that had created delays in the business of construction industry. I do believe that the minister worked very, very hard on this particular legislation, knowing that both architects and engineers were trying to really put their points across and make sure that their points are heard. I am certain that, after the hearings which will go on in the standing committee, with the 120 or more presenters, at the end this will be very good legislation that will keep Manitoba moving in the construction and building industries, and both architects and engineers will be happy to work together in a win-win situation.
I always take the approach whether it is engineering or technical or non-technical, the best way is to work together. On that night, on the award night, Mr. Speaker, I said, "Take a Gandhian approach. Try to work together." I think this legislation does that.
So I commend the minister for this. I
think this will eventually work out to be very good. Also, I thank the member
from
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
I think it is important to understand
where this problem comes from. This is a dispute, a problem in terms of the
activities of architects and engineers, which dates back many, many years.
There was an opportunity to resolve this under the former Tory government, but
the Conservative government at that point chose not to resolve it. The NDP have
had six years, right, to resolve this without it reaching a head, and they have
done essentially nothing in six years. So this fall we had a court order. That
court order essentially brought things to a head where there had to be a
long-run resolution to this important subject which is the relative mandates of
architects and engineers, the relative scope of practice of architects and
engineers in
I think it is important to acknowledge the
contributions of both architects and of engineers. Engineers have contributed
in a major way to buildings, dams, to all sorts of economic infrastructure
activities throughout
* (14:50)
Architects similarly have played a very
important role in
This particular issue that we are dealing with is a complex and a long-standing one. Clearly, there needs to be a clear definition of the scope of practice of architects and engineers in Manitoba, and that, of course, is the reason for this bill. We need to be guided by principles which relate to recognizing the importance of public safety, the importance of public good in its varied aspects in terms of beauty and design as well as functionality and safety, and we need to respect the particular backgrounds and training and expertise of architects and engineers in coming to a resolution of this dispute between the two professions.
So I welcome the move of this bill to committee stage. I welcome the contributions of many architects, engineers and others who may come to the committee stage to provide input to us as legislators in making decisions with respect to what is in this bill and any potential changes to it. So I am glad to hear that we have got agreement to move this on, and I look forward to this bill moving forward, hearing the various deliberations and comments and discussion at committee stage and then coming to a conclusion and being implemented. But I do think it is important that we listen carefully to the comments and contributions of everybody at committee stage, and we are ready to consider those carefully before making final decisions.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: Bill 2, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). What is the will of the House?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Some Honourable Members: Denied.
Mr. Speaker: Denied?
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Some Honourable Members: Denied.
Mr. Speaker: Denied. It has been denied.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen
(Steinbach): I rise to put just a few words on the record
regarding Bill 2, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act.
Certainly, I know that there has been some concern expressed throughout
I have had the opportunity to have a briefing with the minister regarding this bill and indicated that while we might have some questions about the regulations that we put in place, the training, the type of training that will happen, the registration and the cost for that, all those kinds of mechanics of the bill, I know that those will be brought forward at a later time. Some of that probably could have been built into legislation. Not everything would have been appropriate, obviously. Some of it would be better left for regulation, but I do know, Mr. Speaker, that after talking to the minister, I have some assurance in talking to the staff from the department that it has been looked at, that there has been some consultation with the industry.
I suspect also, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that during our committee time there will be people who will come forward from the security industry but also those who hold events on a regular basis to talk about what they might like to see in terms of the regulation as it goes forward or possible amendments to the act. I suspect because there has been consultation, I am going on the good faith of the word of the minister on that, that there would not be significant amendments that would come forward from presenters at committee. But, to the extent that there are, we will deal with those issues. We will look at them in a responsible fashion. So the legislation, I think, will ensure that there is some sort of training that is put in place, some sort of mechanism to attract those who are working within the industry. I hope that it will give some assurance to those who are attending events where there is a need for in-house security, which is what the bill largely covers, that they will feel that they have some assurance that their safety is not in jeopardy, that they have people who are professional and responsible looking after this particular area.
So there are times, Mr. Speaker, when we have great differences on legislation before the Legislature. There are other times when we can sit down as people from all political parties and say, "Well, this may be something that needs to be looked at." Certainly, we can work together with the government in a bi-partisan way, a co-operative way, to find the proper mechanism to ensure that individuals who are attending specific events will have that security and be assured that the individuals who are there are professional, are responsible, who have had some base level of training and that they do have the proper qualifications to be operating in a responsible position.
We know that these particular positions are not judicial in a sense that they do not operate like peace officers in our country, but they are operating in a way that people are relying upon their service for safety. So I look forward to the bill going towards committee, hearing any presentations that come forward. Maybe there are some positive suggestions for change to the legislation. I think we should always, as legislators, be open to those suggestions, always be open to the comments that come forward from the public and those working, particularly in the industry.
In my conversation with the minister and my briefing with the minister, I do not think he is of a closed mind on the issue. I think he is probably willing to hear suggestions that might come forward to the committee, I think that that reflects well on all of us here in the Legislature to do that, to hear what changes might be appropriate.
So, with those few words, I look forward to hearing any comments that other members of this elected body may want to put on the record regarding the legislation. I also look forward to hearing what the public has to say, those with a vested interest, those simply with an interest in the issue will have to say when it comes before committee at some point in the future. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Security is a very important issue, Mr. Speaker. I think, more and more we are seeing, and I ultimately argue, sadly, the need for having security guards. It seems to be on the increase. One has to ask the question why is that. Why is there a growing demand for security guards? This is just one component now. This is a relatively new component. I think in the past it has been done somewhat informally without any assurances of individuals being trained. It might be an individual that is designated at a particular plant that, "Look, we want you to hang around and watch for security," as informal as something of that nature. But, as time has progressed, what we have seen is that there is more of a need to formalize because we are seeing more problems in our communities. The employers of large and small businesses are feeling that there is a greater need to designate, literally designate an individual to do nothing but security.
* (15:00)
Mr. Speaker, as I say, for me, when I look
at it, the concern that comes to my mind is why is that happening today. I
think it says a lot in terms of some of the other problems that we have in our
society and the way in which our society, in particular, the
I think that we need to do more to address some of the causes that are ultimately causing employers and other businesses, whether they are hiring security or now they are looking at having in-house security, why is that happening. We need to be more aggressive at dealing with those types of causes, Mr. Speaker.
I think that, all in all, by having this particular piece of legislation, we will have a better sense in terms of what is actually out there in terms of in-house security, a better way of gauging the actual size of a potential problem or a potential demand.
It also allows for the employee, Mr. Speaker, to be given some sort of training because of a designation which we would see as a positive thing, because we do not want someone just to be told, well, you are the security person and that person has had absolutely no training whatsoever being provided. I think that this, in part, will go a long way in ensuring that there is a safer working environment, and it addresses unfortunately what seems to be a growing need for security guards. But I really do wish that we would be more aggressive on the issue of the causes of why the need is there.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, as I say, we are prepared to see the bill go to committee and hope and trust that there will be some other feedback from members of the public.
Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to follow the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) and the Member
for
An Honourable Member: Now hold on.
Mr. Swan: I say
"we," I say we tend to be strident when we go on the radio airwaves.
I am certainly glad to see that for today, today at least, the Member for
Steinbach and the Member for
So, certainly, I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the chance to speak to The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act. This is a bill which came about after extensive province-wide consultation with various stakeholders in the security guard industry, and it is with this wide level of consultation that we are now moving ahead to amend the act.
The main effect of this act, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that previously exempt security guards are now included to at least meet some minimum standards for licensing and security guard training. The act is being amended so that it will apply to security guards who work for a single employer or in-house security guards, as well as members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires who also act as security guards from time to time.
What this bill will require is these individuals to be licensed under the act and again to demonstrate that they have received some appropriate level of training. These requirements are going to include submitting an application, providing or allowing or authorizing a criminal record check to take place and successfully completing a mandatory training program and paying a prescribed fee.
The Corps of Commissionaires, which
provide a number of other services, will be required to obtain a licence as a
provider of security guards in the
Now, one of the other important features in this proposed act is that employers of private investigators and security guards will be required to maintain adequate liability insurance. At the present time, employers are required only to be bonded, which really does not address the issues respecting the actions of private investigators or security guards.
We hope that incidents involving security guards will be few and far between, but where an unfortunate event does happen, it is necessary for the public to know that the employers of those individuals will have adequate liability insurance to cover any of the acts of their employees.
Now, expanding the scope of the act, as I have indicated, ensures that all licensed security guards will be compliant with the requirements of the act and they will meet minimum training standards. It has been a long process to make sure that security guards get to this level. I think everyone in this House can agree that it is important that those who hold themselves out as security guards have attained a minimum level of training.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, there have been extensive consultations including those exempt security guards and training standards. These have been conducted on a province-wide basis and the word from the industry has been positive. Certainly, we have heard from some private companies which are now seeing other security guards being covered by this bill being happy, saying now there is a level playing field, that security guards whether they work in-house or for an outside firm will now have the same licensing standards.
We have also heard from the
There are some training opportunities. The
I am glad to hear from my friends on the other caucuses that they are prepared to move this bill to committee. I am certainly pleased to have the chance to speak to this bill which is another step forward for our province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is a great
pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 2, The Private Investigators and
Security Guards Amendment Act. I am always honoured to be able to add some
contribution to the debate in this House. I want to congratulate our Minister
of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) for bringing forward another important piece of
legislation that will make
I hear from my colleague the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen). I do not know why. He should be out there signing up delegates for his leadership convention. I hear that his colleagues are running out there, Mr. Speaker, his colleagues are out there signing up members. [interjection] He claims he is already their leader. He claims that he has enough members right now and does not need to do any more work.
This is an interesting piece of
legislation. In a past life I used to co-own and manage a hotel in the city of
At that time, of course, we were not licensed. We were not required to license any of our employees. We had no training at the time on how to deal with individuals who may be causing problems in those types of licensed premises or any premise.
I am pleased that this act is going to apply to security guards who work for a single employer or members of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires who are security guards, Mr. Speaker. My father, when he was alive, in the latter part of his life, served as a member of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires and was a commissionaire at Lower Fort Garry, just outside of Selkirk, for many years, a job that he was very, very fond of and was very proud to do. As I have mentioned, both in-house and corps commissionaire security guards were required to meet licensing criteria under this act.
* (15:10)
Mr. Speaker, the requirements also include
submitting an application, a criminal record check, and, as well, successfully
completing a mandatory training program and paying a fee. As the Member for
Minto (Mr. Swan) has said, the course will be offered here in the city of
Winnipeg as well and, of course, the Assiniboine Community College in Brandon
and as well will be offered in the University College of the North, which I am
very proud that our government is moving forward. Regrettably, the members of
the Conservative Party voted against it. But, anyway, we are proud of the
Mr. Speaker, as I said, there will be an extensive training for individuals. It is my understanding that some of the training will include professionalism, public relations, legal authority, traffic control, bomb threats, personal safety at work, fire detection and prevention.
An Honourable Member: Sounds like an NDP convention.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the members of the Conservative Party could have used one of these security guards at their recent convention. I believe the leader of the party over here requires a guard. He could have used some extra security recently as he had a bit of a falling out with some of his colleagues.
Getting back to the very important topic of the private investigators and security guards, it is my understanding that there will be a 40-hour security guard training program, and the new standard is based upon the Canadian General Standards Board basic security guard training program.
Mr. Speaker, I am once
again very pleased to be part of a government that is doing many things out
there to improve security. I know this is probably based upon a regrettable
incident here in
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 2, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: Bill 3, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House? Remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, it has been denied.
Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and talk about The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act. I think it is very apropos to make note of the fact that we now live in a society where people are able to move around very easily. They are able to move from province to province, and I think that this act, which allows people to move without having to take a look at whether or not their personal safety would still be at risk, is very important to Canadians and to Manitobans.
People move for a variety of reasons: sometimes family reasons, sometimes employment, sometimes business opportunities, and I think that this move that we are making is very favourable, particularly for women who have been in abusive situations.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, which is based on a model uniform act, was developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, and it will provide recognition to Canadian monetary and non-monetary orders on a full faith and credit basis.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, people are very
mobile now and, as a result of that, we do not want to have to have women go
back to the court system to apply once again to have their civil judgments
looked at. This law will, like other Canadian jurisdictions, have reciprocal
enforcements of civil judgment legislation. It will allow for monetary
judgments from reciprocating jurisdictions to be registered and enforced in
Many of us, Mr. Speaker, attended the Silent Witness program that went on here at the Legislature. I must admit it was very, very moving to see these 10 silhouettes of women who had been killed as a result of domestic violence. They still stand today in the Manitoba Legislature, downstairs in the area by the main steps. I think many of us who were here to hear family members talk about the impact of losing loved ones can attest to just how very, very heart-wrenching it was to hear those stories. The Silent Witness display will travel across the province and it will demonstrate to all Manitobans the significance of domestic violence and it will remind us that we need to do as much as possible to prevent this problem from happening.
Our Province, Mr. Speaker, has been very forward-thinking. The Province has provided an additional $315,400 for 34 community-based agencies dealing with domestic violence. Since 1999, funding for a comprehensive range of services has increased by over 50 percent and it now totals $10.4 million per year. The Province has also provided $17,400 for this month-long public awareness campaign on domestic violence. As I mentioned, it really was very heart-wrenching to hear children, mothers, brothers, uncles talk about the impact that family violence has had on them and the loss of a dear one to them.
It was also interesting to note that all the people who had suffered through domestic violence were women. I think that is something that our society needs to take a look at, that women are the ones who are being impacted by domestic violence and they are the ones who are actually having to suffer the impacts of this.
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, November 5, I attended the 20th anniversary of Women In Second Stage Housing event at the Norwood Hotel. The Women In Second Stage Housing is an organization that is located in St. Norbert, although it prefers to be somewhat under the radar. It does not like to have its address publicized just due to the fact that there are women who are in that organization who are, in essence, trying to seek counselling and seek assistance but do not want their whereabouts known to their partners. The event brought together about 60 different people, and I have to say that the women and men at that event talked very favourably about this legislation. The Women In Second Stage Housing assists 11 women and their children with counselling and resource services to assist them in dealing with the long-term effects of domestic violence.
Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects
of this bill is its provision respecting Canadian civil protection orders. When
a person who has been subjected to domestic violence or stalking has obtained a
civil protection order from another province or territory in
Mr. Speaker, some of the other things that this legislation will do is that it will provide protection to those who are victims of dating violence, which means that they do not have to cohabitate together, that even if they are partners and together in a relationship but not living together they could then seek some compensation through this legislation. It will also allow court orders to require a respondent to receive counselling or therapy which I think also is very important. We have to realize that there are two parties in these kinds of relationships and that often counselling and therapy can be of help to the partner who is precipitating the action.
* (15:20)
It will also allow designated people other than lawyers and police officers to assist victims to apply for protection. I think this is important, Mr. Speaker, because often it is a counsellor or a friend who could be of more assistance, and you could have the person look at the positive impacts of getting a restraining order. It will also better protect children by specifically allowing financial compensation for losses incurred by them due to violence, and it will establish a new child focus publication ban related to proceedings for orders of protection.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be on the government side who has introduced this legislation. I think that our strategy for the overall countering of domestic violence, which includes supporting A Woman's Place, a one-stop clinic that brings together lawyers, social workers and others who support victims of domestic violence, it speaks well to our government's commitment for families, for women and for the individuals who have perpetrated these kinds of crime.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I am very, very pleased to be able to stand and speak in favour of this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): It is a pleasure to rise to put just a few comments on regarding Bill 3, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act.
Certainly, again, I have had the
opportunity to speak to the minister regarding this particular piece of
legislation. I have had the opportunity to meet with staff who are involved in
the drafting of the legislation. We recognize that there is an importance to
ensure that, between jurisdictions in
I know this is an issue that has come out of the uniform law commission, and I would hope that other provinces are actively looking at a reciprocal agreement, so that we can have this legislation in place really across Canada, so that if an order is issued here in Manitoba, then, in fact, it could also be applied and enforced in another jurisdiction in Canada.
I have raised that issue with the minister in our briefing. He has given me some assurance that he is working towards that, and in First Minister meetings or in Minister of Justice conferences, that he will raise those issues in terms of uniformity across jurisdictions. I do think that that is important because in the end it is about protecting individuals. It is about ensuring the safety of people, largely women in relationship issues, if they have that sort of protection, that they can move really freely throughout the country and know that that order will go with them and know that they will be able to get that protection.
It is not, though, enough, Mr. Speaker, simply to pass legislation that says you can enforce an order from one jurisdiction to another; it is also very important to ensure that the resources are there to ensure that the order is enforceable. We have heard of too many cases here in the province of Manitoba where somebody does have a protection order that has been granted to them by the courts, yet, when it is time for that, when they need that protection order, when they are in danger, there is not a quick response. There is no one to enforce that order. Whether it is the police in a particular jurisdiction or whoever is going to be there to enforce the order, there is concern that it is not acted upon soon enough.
We have heard of tragic situations where women did have protection orders, but they were not able to ensure that the safety that they thought that they were getting from the protection order was brought to bear. In fact, in some ways it was almost giving a false sense of security because they thought that this piece of paper, in and of itself, would ensure that they would have proper protection, but, of course, when you do not have the resources in place, whether it is coming from a 911 system or coming from a law enforcement aspect, when you do not have those resources in place to ensure somebody is going to get a quick response when they are calling for help on the enforcement of a protection order, then, in fact, it is not particularly helpful.
The other issue I know which is specifically excluded from the act–it deals with maintenance enforcement, and there are other schemes in place, both here in Manitoba and across Canada, that deal with the issue of ensuring that spouses who have an order for maintenance support, when they move to another jurisdiction, they can, in fact, have that enforced in the other jurisdiction.
I continue to hear, however, that it is a cumbersome process, that it is difficult for spouses who are moving from one jurisdiction to the other to continue to have that enforcement of the monetary order. I also continue to hear that the Maintenance Enforcement Program is not operating in an efficient way and that it is difficult to get a response back at times from individuals. That is certainly no reflection on the individuals who are working in the Maintenance Enforcement Program. They simply do not have the resources to ensure that they can actually get responses back quickly to people who are having a difficult time receiving the funds that the court has instructed one particular spouse to pay to another as a result of a divorce or a settlement.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I remember well
somebody who came to me and said that they had phoned into the Maintenance
Enforcement Program, and the message on the machine from the officer whom they
were phoning in, who their caseworker was, had said, "Leave a message and
we will get back to you within seven days." That was shocking to me to
hear that it would take at least a week for a response back, and that is, of
course, if that person was quickly reachable. You know, they might have missed
each other on that return call, and then the person phones in again. We see
that that system is very much overburdened, and the ability to have those
monetary orders enforced, on maintenance enforcement, is not working properly
here in the
That is an issue I have raised with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) in the past. I know it has been raised by other members of the Legislature to the minister. I am sure that the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick), who has some parallel jurisdiction with the issue, has probably heard concerns as well about maintenance enforcement, about getting those orders in place.
So it is not a new concern that I raise here in the Legislature, and I know that this is a specific exclusion from this particular act. But I do think it is worth repeating, and it is worth making the point, that simply having legislation to bring forward protection orders, just like simply having legislation that brings forward the ability to have a maintenance enforcement, really does not do the trick if you do not have the resources behind the legislation. Women in the province may, in fact, be safer because of the legislation that allows for the transferability and the enforcement of these orders from other provinces. They may, in fact, be safer if there are those resources in place. But, if there are not the resources in place, then it is, again, simply false security that is being put forward for women, particularly women who are in danger or feel that they are in harm, and that is why they had the protection orders there.
So we are, in principle, supportive of the bill and the legislation because we do think it has the possibility of improving safety for those who are in a vulnerable situation or a dangerous relationship, but it is not going to do enough if there are not resources in place. So I would encourage the government, if this legislation goes forward, to also bring forward a plan that will ensure that the resources and the wherewithal are there to support the legislation, and that it will not be simply legislation that is on the books to give some sense of security that truly is not there. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services and Housing): I rise in support of this legislation. I do work very closely, and my department works very closely, with the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh). What we are doing is putting together what we believe is a package of safety for women, as well as supports. So what I would like to do is speak about the bill in front of us today, as well as talk about the other supports that have been developed in this province since 1999.
I think it is very important to note that
The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act is the first of its kind in the
country of
* (15:30)
This legislation also allows protection orders and other judgments from other provinces to be enforced. This is very key, Mr. Speaker, because if someone who has been through the trauma of having to survive whatever actions have been brought against them, and then to seek out protection orders, chooses to move to another jurisdiction, particularly chooses to move to Manitoba in this case, we believe it is very important that the protection follow her, and that she be surrounded by the protection that was achieved in other jurisdictions in Canada, and that she does not have to begin again for herself or for her children.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
It is also based on the model uniform Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act developed by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. So, again, I would like to congratulate our Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh) for this courageous move on behalf of women and children who need this protection.
It was only a short time ago that the
Attorney General and I attended the silhouette project which was organized by
the community here in
I think it is very, very important to note that since 1999 there has been a focus on protection for people in family violence situations, and a comprehensive range of services has, in fact, doubled. Our total expenditure on an annual basis is now over $10 million, Mr. Speaker. So we speak about the protection of women not only in the deeds that we do but also in the funding that we put behind the announcements that we have. This past year has seen the Province provide an additional $315,000 to some 34 community-based agencies who are dealing on the front lines. Again, we put our money where our mouth is when we talk about the need to be protecting people in very critical situations.
I want to go into some of the other actions that we have taken since 1999 that complement the actions of bringing forward this bill today. In 1999, we began a public awareness campaign which is called "Promises aren't the only things that get broken," and this campaign happens annually during the month of November. It is a public education campaign with several different layers. The campaign lets people know what domestic violence is, that people do not have to suffer in silence, that there are a lot of supports for them throughout the province, and I will be talking specifically about rural women and the supports that are available to them a little later. But we believe that domestic violence is a societal issue, that it is not a women's problem, and that we as a society have to have the courage to speak the words and then to deal with what is happening; that is a lot of what one of the first steps that we took around domestic violence in 1999 was when we talked about rolling out the public awareness campaign.
It is also education around what little tolerance we must have as a society for this behaviour. Shortly after, we brought in the Victims First Cellular Program, which loans victims of domestic violence cell phones for times of extreme risk which will provide them with an added level of protection through quick access to emergency services.
Now we on this side of the House know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a woman is at highest risk during the first three months after which she has left a domestically violent and abusive situation. So we know that there has to be an awful lot of support during that time. Part of that support has to be her ability, for wherever she might find herself, to communicate about any dangerous situation that she believes is happening or that may happen and give her a way to communicate very quickly as to what situation she is in, where she is, and then it is our job to make sure that she is helped out of that situation. That is the focus of the Victims First Cellular Program.
In November 2004, last year, during our
Domestic Violence Month here in
The focus of this is that it would provide
women who, again, are leaving situations of domestic violence, perhaps with
their children, information as to what is available to them legally through the
justice support that is there. It also provides information that women may find
helpful when they are having to start over and that could mean how to access
low income or affordable housing, how to get child care if child care has not
already been arranged and what services would be available to them through this
government for Family Services, Housing and in some cases, Mr. Speaker, persons
with disabilities. We wanted to create a one-stop shop, if you will, for women
who may be needing all sorts of services as they take this very brave and
courageous move to say no more. When
a woman says no more, it is our job as legislators, as members of the
We have also specialized domestic violence victims services, expanding from five to some 28 communities throughout our province and this will allow for better access outside of urban centres.
I would like to focus for
a few minutes on services on this point that are available to rural women. We
provide funding to nine women's resource centres of which two have also a
residential component. These are distributed throughout our province. There are
three in
It was very interesting, a woman has
recently moved here from another jurisdiction and has taken on a position
within our women's resource centre and our women's shelter community here. We have
10
Additionally, in rural areas, if there is a problem with a woman actually fleeing a situation, she may not have a car, she may not have a vehicle at her disposal, may not even be able to pay for public transportation or Greyhound to get to a shelter, we will cover that in Family Services and Housing through employment and income assistance. We want to make sure that women are able to leave difficult and dangerous situations and get into better situations.
* (15:40)
So how do women find out in rural
I will just get back now to some more of our major initiatives. We have expanded the mandate of victim support service workers to help victims obtain civil protection orders either before or after charges are laid. This is very important that women are able to develop what we hope will be trusting relationships with front-line workers and relationships that allow women to learn of the services that are available to them as well as learn what their most pressing issues are, whether it is the laying of charges, whether it is finding an accommodation, whether it is making sure that where they are is secure and safe.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
So we know that very special relationships can be formed by front-line workers with people who have gone through domestic violence, and we wanted to ensure that the victim support service workers were able to deal with as many questions as might come forward during that very crucial time.
We have helped to establish a new Interlake Eastman Visitation Service to provide a safe, neutral place where divorced or separated parents can drop off children for visits to avoid confrontation and potential conflict. Again, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that this is being done in any other jurisdictions. But I know that it is very important to maintain safety and security for children and for members of the family, and we know that at times, actually, just seeing a person after you have experienced violence at their hand can be a traumatic and terrifying situation.
So we have tried to put together a model that is going to be successful in making sure the members of the family are safe and secure even when children are moving from one parent to another for whatever time period. My understanding is that this has proved to be quite successful, and certainly it is something that we are monitoring. I know that there is high demand for this service and we know that people are relying on this as a way to communicate in some very difficult situations.
We have built stronger prosecutions by establishing a one-prosecutor, one-case system on domestic violence so that cases are handled from beginning to end by the same Crown attorney. We know that cases of this nature can be very, very difficult, and it is very important that you have the same attorney from the beginning to the end. So, for continuity as well as for, again, the special relationships that can develop, we wanted to make sure that we recognized the difficulty of the situation and going through a legal action of this nature, but making sure it was as easy as possible. We believed that by establishing the one-prosecutor to the one-case system that we would help that along.
We have also invested $131,000 in
additional funding for the 34 community agencies that are dealing with domestic
violence. We know that we have a tremendous support network here in
Again, we have expanded our public awareness campaign in urban, rural and northern communities. We send out every year now, Mr. Speaker, over 10 000 packages. These packages go to–[interjection]–yes, to our shelters and to our women's resource centres, but they also go to public libraries. They go to recreational centres. They go to places where we believe the public will be coming by and where it would sometimes be safe for a woman to pick up a package to learn if she is experiencing a difficult situation, to learn about how to get out and how to stay out. We have found, again, across the province, a very, very positive response to our annual campaign and we are committed to doing this.
Now, I have spoken a lot about women. We
have to recognize, too, that there are men who struggle with these issues, and
so we are the second jurisdiction in
I was very pleased when I was still a very new minister to be the one to have attended the official opening of this resource centre, and I have heard, again from the community but also from individual men who have attended the various programs that are offered at the men's resource centre, what a wonderful resource this is for them, because we do know that when men are wanting to say "no more" and wanting to make positive changes that it is, again, our responsibility as legislators and as members of the community of Manitoba to help them do that.
I even know of one individual who went there for support and has begun to provide programming himself. So to my mind this is a very, very successful story of how we have been able to help someone make changes in their life in a very personal way, and they are now empowered to help other people make those changes. So I would like to congratulate the men's resource centre for the very good work that they have done.
Now, leaving a situation of domestic violence is a very big step, but we also have to ensure that, when people want to make the changes necessary in a permanent way, they do not end up going back to that same situation, that again we have the supports.
I would like to speak for a moment about
second-stage housing here in
I very much congratulate and applaud the folks at W.I.S.H. as well as our three other second-stage housing, non-profit organizations in Manitoba, and I want to assure the House that there is never a waiting list, that we are always able to accommodate through these organizations good living situations for women as well as programming. But it is only with the front-line workers that we would be able to do that.
Again, I want to talk a little bit more about staying out of a situation of domestic violence, and I want to congratulate the Native Women's Transition Centre. About 18 months ago, I believe it was, they opened Oyate Tipi. This is actually a warehouse of household items that could be large furniture items such as couches, beds, kitchen tables, as well as the smaller, cutlery, silverware, dishes, bedding, et cetera. This service provided through the Native Women's Transition Centre actually provides household furnishings for women so that as they move into a house, as they move into an apartment, that they do not move into a place with four walls in an empty building. These are gently used articles, as they like to say, that are going on to provide safe housing for new families. These articles are available free of charge to women who are wanting to start.
I know of a story that came out, I believe it was on CBC, around the opening of Oyate Tipi where a woman talked about leaving a very bad situation and was able to go to one of our women's centres, was able to go through second-stage housing, and now, almost a year after leaving that situation, was actually able to move into an apartment. She was very concerned because she felt that she and her children would be sleeping on inflated mats on the floor and sometimes sharing one or two blankets. She went to Oyate Tipi and found that she was able to actually furnish her apartment in a way that was welcoming and home-creating for her and her children, and it was the first time that they had actually lived in their own place, their own apartment, with their own items, and created their own safety.
* (15:50)
So I think it is, again, important to recognize the efforts of the front-line workers, and let them know that this is a government that wants to work with them.
The Domestic Violence Front-End Project is another initiative that we have brought forward, and it has reduced the time for domestic violence cases to go from the first court appearance to entering a plea for more than seven months to as little as two months. So, again, recognizing the trauma of leaving a situation and wanting to do the healing that is necessary to be doing, we know that women want to get through the court process and that it can often be a very trying time, so we have tried to reduce the time necessary to go through a court process, so that the real work of the healing can begin.
I am very proud to say that this is a program that recently won a prestigious national award for excellence in public service, and it was Chief Judge Raymond Wyant in the Free Press just this past September who said we were able to realize some pretty dramatic results. We were able to cut the total backlog. I think that that speaks to the holistic approach of this government. It is not just having women leave, it is not just providing second-stage housing, it is not just providing a path through training and through availability of a safe-living situation, but it is also working in the court system and making sure that we make that as smooth as possible.
One of our most recent announcements was when the new Governor General was in town. I was very proud that we were a government who announced that training funds up to the amount of $5,000 would also be made available to women. So it is helping women get out, stay out, go through the court process, set up safe housing, but also build towards the future, where they can be independent, because a lot of women who are in these situations have, in the past, been forced to go back because they certainly do not have the alternatives needed to build the future for themselves and their children. But this is a government that is committed to working with them through every stage.
I think I will close my remarks here, but, again, I want to bring us back to the bill at hand, and talk about the significance of Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba, not being afraid to bring in new initiatives, to work with the community around suggestions that come forward, and to look at ways that we can continually improve the safety of women, of children and of families who may be experiencing domestic violence and ensuring that we will be able to help them move out. It is in that vein that I am hoping that we will all be able to be supportive of this bill and, again, I congratulate the Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh) for yet another initiative that he has brought forward, the first in Canada, and I can tell you I shall be very, very supportive of this bill as part of our continuum of care for women and families to leave domestic violence situations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Well, for a lot of people, that is not necessarily the case. As a result, I believe it is important that we have legislation of this nature, because this type of legislation, Mr. Speaker, protects the interests of all Canadians. You know, when we have these ministerial meetings, national ministerial meetings, whether it is the First Ministers, or the ministers of Justice, or Health, or whatever it might be, at times I believe that they can be exceptionally productive if, in fact, they attempt to deal with issues like this, issues in which, ultimately, what you see is the country represented by those provincial ministers working towards harmonizing a system so that everyone benefits.
You know, I trust the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) or he will have a staffperson reading through a Hansard. I would very much appreciate the spreadsheets, not only on Bill 3, but also on Bill 2, because I suspect that we are going to be passing these two bills. Actually, we have already passed 2 to committee, but I suspect that the likelihood of 3 passing to committee is very strong, too. So I would appreciate the spreadsheets before we go to committee. If they could forward that on to my office, I would welcome that.
But anyway, what I was saying was that
everyone benefits if, in fact, we have governments across
That is why we do not have a problem in terms of seeing this bill go to committee, Mr. Speaker. In fact, it is a positive bill, and I suspect there will not be very much for public input. I have not heard anyone address it to me personally, no calls or anything of that nature. But, having said that, that does not necessarily mean that people do not have an interest in the bill because I think that the impact it will have is actually fairly significant.
I would be interested in hearing from the
Minister of Justice as to where reciprocal legislation is being worked on today
in other jurisdictions. Maybe the minister will have the opportunity to talk
about that in committee, if not, in third reading, because when the minister
goes to the Justice meetings, we trust that the issues of this nature do garner
significant attention. I know there is always this natural inclination,
especially with this Minister of Justice, to use those types of meetings to
take shots at
So, with those few words, Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to see the bill go to committee. Thank you.
* (16:00)
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (
In my past life as a social worker, I
dealt intimately with people involved with domestic violence, the victims as
well as the offenders, and the victims, as they came into Manitoba and into
Winnipeg to resettle from Saskatchewan, would have to go through a process of
applying for a new protection order, which was very onerous and also put them
at jeopardy for their safety. Because of that, they would have to contact the
offender, and they would start a whole court process yet again. So I am very
proud that this government and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh) are bringing
this legislation forward. It is going to continue to support and protect people
in
Some of the highlights I would like to talk about are expansion of the specialized domestic violence victim services from five to 28 communities for better access outside urban centres. Domestic violence does not just happen within the Perimeter. We acknowledge that it is an issue that affects Manitobans in rural and northern areas as well.
I am proud that one of the services that provides support to families regarding domestic violence is the Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre. They provide individual counselling as well as support for groups. They also help individuals resettle and begin their new lives in a manner that they can feel safe and productive.
As well as expanding services across Manitoba, we also expanded the mandate of victim support workers to help victims obtain civil protection orders either before or after charges are laid, so, again, simplifying the process for women and children to ensure their safety.
Investing: We have invested $131,000 in additional funding to 34 community agencies whose focus is domestic violence. We have expanded public awareness campaign in urban, rural and northern communities. That campaign promises are not the only things that get broken reinforces the important message that people can take steps to help end domestic violence in their communities.
After being elected in 2003, one of the privileges that I had was when we launched this campaign. I was able to represent the minister and the Premier (Mr. Doer) at this event and the hope that service providers as well as victims had during that campaign launch, that we are going to prevent other women and children from being impacted by domestic violence as well as provide support for A Woman's Place with $40,000 in funding, as well as services of the Crown attorneys and victim support workers. Again, this is a service, a strategy that will cocoon victims of violence in a way that gives them the supports that they need individually, as well as family supports, but also a prevention model.
I think it is very important that all sides of the House support The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, Bill 3. It is also going to make sure that, when a person is relocating to another province, the law enforcement officers or agencies are going to be protected, too, with liability from any action taken in good faith in the enforcement of a Canadian protection order. So, when they are presented with a protection order, they will trust that this is a valid protection order, and if it is not, they will be protected from any concerns that will happen after that.
The legislation will allow a party
Canadian civil protection order to register with
The Healthy Child Committee of Cabinet also does prevention work through the
parent-child centres as well as through programs such is Triple P, a parenting
program which is going to provide support and information to families in
So I want to conclude my remarks, again, by saying let us take this bill to committee and pass it through and make sure that Manitobans and newcomers to our province will continue to live and thrive in a safe and nurturing environment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 3, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker: Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Leave it standing? Okay, there is agreement that it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure, once again, to be able to speak on another fine piece of legislation brought forward by this government. Earlier on I had a chance to speak to the security guard amendment act and now The Dental Hygienists Act. It is amazing that it really is an honour to speak to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, as members have said, the time for this legislation has come. The act will provide better accountability for Manitobans. It will allow the dental hygienist profession to be self-regulated. I think all of us in this Chamber have been lobbied from time to time by dental hygienists. They get you in a very, kind of, vulnerable state. They are prodding you with these various instruments; they have these drills and other instruments of their profession. They get you back there and say, "Oh, by the way, can you guys move forward along with our dentist hygienists act?" Of course, we are saying that, well, it would probably be the wise move on our part, that we certainly would do so. I am pleased to say that our government is doing just that.
We know that this new college will be accountable to our government, Mr. Speaker. It will be required to submit an annual report and, as well, will include public representation on the board. So there will be members from the public. There will be, obviously, individuals, dental hygienists from the profession who will be able to sit on the board to ensure that their representations are heard.
As well, the college will attract more
professions to practise here in
As the members know, in the recent Speech from the Throne we have announced that we are going to be providing better care for children's dental health. This act will help us, Mr. Speaker, in meeting that important goal because it will allow individuals who work in this industry to help expand their industry and to govern themselves.
As the members know, in 1993 I sat in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I voted against, I know several of my colleagues that are here, some of them that are here now were here then, in 1993, voted against the Member for Steinbach and his colleagues when they cancelled the children's rural dental program. I know that, as members in this House, we strongly protested that move. It was an attack upon young rural Manitobans and northern Manitobans, and the members opposite, when they were in government, decided to cancel that program.
* (16:10)
So now, Mr. Speaker, we have inherited a
problem where tooth decay, particularly among children, has become a great
problem, particularly in rural northern
With this legislation, the dental
hygienists in this province will join 92 percent of their colleagues across
I believe there are over 500 dental
hygienists practising in
An Honourable Member: Point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order. The
honourable Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Same point of order, the honourable Member for Steinbach?
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, certainly I suspect a ruling will indicate and properly should that the quorum relates to those who are actually within the Chamber, but I do take the member's point to heart that there are very few Cabinet ministers here. There are very few individuals in their place and position, and I think it shows disrespect for this Legislature that the government does not take these issues seriously.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, on the same point of order?
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, it is not part of the dealings of this House to address who is in the House and who is not in the House. However, it is obvious from this side that there is just about triple the number of all the other parties in the House at present time. I do not believe the member has a point of order and, certainly, he is being disruptive to the member that is speaking. I do not believe there is a point of order being addressed.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for
* * *
Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, I want to continue on with my discussion here about the importance of
dental hygienists and how it is important that we get this legislation passed.
Regrettably, the Member for
As I have said, we have introduced pediatric dental services in Thompson. We are bringing care closer to home for northerners. We have repatriated surgeries to all communities. I believe we are going to do children's dental surgeries in the community of Beausejour. The wait list has come down from 1400 to 900 and we know that there is more to do. This legislation is part of that, it is one aspect of that, Mr. Speaker. We realize that it is long and overdue. The Conservatives, when they were in government, did not do it when they had their chance, but I am very proud to be a government that is. Thank you.
Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act. One reason is health is a very important matter to our movement over the years. Since the days of Tommy Douglas, we have always been the party of health. In fact, Tommy Douglas won the greatest Canadian award. He is our greatest Canadian. Let us continue the work of what Tommy Douglas started way back in the 1940s. That is why this bill is quite important to us.
This bill will define the practice of
dental hygiene and provide for the regulation of the profession, so it sort of
cleans up and clarifies many issues in dental hygiene. It also includes provisions
to establish the college of dental hygienists of
Mr. Speaker, our party does more than just
put out MRIs, as you know, and CT scans across the province. We have done more
than just, you know, build and expand, renovate hospitals such as
Mr. Speaker, as already pointed out, the
Tories are rather weak on health care. In this area, they are very weak.
However, during election time, they will come out with some slogans and say,
"Hey, here we are." But they really do not have an agenda on health.
This is just one area that we are modernizing where they have done nothing for
years. In 1993 the Tories cancelled the children's dental program, and we
inherited the situation where children's tooth decay was becoming a problem,
especially in northern
The dental hygienists are a very important
part of health care. Our oral health affects our overall health and well-being,
and oral diseases affect our whole health system. I know people in the
opposition think it is a small bill, but to us dental care is most important.
Oral diseases require dollars to treat. In '99 it was estimated that private
spending on dental care in
So we are pointing out that this is very important to us. Dental health care is very important to Canadians and we are just modernizing dental hygienists' work.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (16:20)
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to put a few words on record regarding Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act, which, among other things, defines the practice of dental hygiene and formulates regulations for the profession. It also establishes a college of dental hygiene, a governing council and processes for registering dental hygienists and dealing with discipline and complaint issues.
I was listening, with bated breath, to my colleague from Rossmere, who was trying to put this into some larger context, and I am very happy that he referenced Tommy Douglas and the New Democrats, the CCF at the time, in 1944, for whom health was a No. 1 issue. It has always been for this party. Of course, dental health is part of that much larger package.
As a matter of fact, oral health is of
great importance to all people, because it affects you, not only in the terms
of physical health, but also your healthy self-esteem. I mean, I often wonder
when I see pictures of
It is, Mr. Speaker, a
huge business, not only in
About six weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in
Now, some of my colleagues have referenced
the fact that dental care is not at 100 percent optimal level in northern
So I thought I would put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, because our isolated areas could use a lot more support, both medical and other supports. So, anything we do to improve the situation is a positive, and this Bill 5, certainly, does improve the situation by creating a self-regulating dental hygienist system.
Mr. Speaker, we did have, as I mentioned earlier, a very good children's dental program years ago, and it was also in the schools, and in 1992 the Tories cut it. It was referred to in some quarters, and I will just quote a few people, The Winnipeg Sun, in May of 1993, called it "a heartless attack on poor and middle-income families." That should not, of course, surprise us. We have had the Tories having heartless attacks on poor and middle-income families for a long time. It is nothing new. I think it was The Interlake Spectator that called the cuts "mean," or "mean-spirited," which I think they were. The Tories said, "Well, you know, we should have maybe put them back and replaced the cuts." But they had lots of time in office to do that and they did not do that.
As well, I should point out, in 1993, when those fairly mean-spirited cuts were made, it put an awful lot of people out of work. It put dental hygienists out of work, dental nurses, technicians and, I imagine, even some dentists because those massive cuts have their impact, not only on the health care of people, but on the people in the profession itself. When they laid off thousands of nurses–well, thousands; hundreds of nurses, you know–that obviously had a major impact on the health care of Manitobans.
So I am happy to see that we are doing something. This is an important step in the right direction. We are dealing with front-line workers. Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act, is a good step in the right direction. I commend the government for having introduced this bill and I hope all members support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? Seeing none–oh, honourable Minister of Family Services and Housing.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Family Services
and Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise in favour of
The Dental Hygienists Act. There are over 500 dental hygienists in
I think it is important to recognize that the new act will actually create a college of dental hygienists in Manitoba and that this college will be delegated the authority to regulate the practice of dental hygienists so that we know that dental hygienists will be able to make decisions that are necessary to advance their profession and make decisions that are necessary also to advance the care that they provide to so many of us in the province of Manitoba.
I think it is also important to note that
I think it is also important to recognize that there has been a very positive response from the dental hygiene community to this act and to this legislation. I will just quote Kristin Carter, who is the Manitoba Dental Hygienists Association president, who said, "Dental hygienists look forward to accepting the responsibility for helping to improve the public's access to primary oral health care," and "the MDHA praises this government for tabling this bill," stating that they, too, "congratulate the Health Minister for this important initiative."
So, again, this is another example of this government working with our community–in this case, it is the dental hygienists of Manitoba–and putting together an act that I hope will be supported and become the law in this province that recognizes and respects the important work done by hygienists, but also recognizes that hygienists are professionals in their own right. So I encourage the House to be very supportive of this piece of legislation. Thank you.
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 Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
* (16:30)
Bill 6–The Dental
Association Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 6, The Dental Association Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina. [Agreed]
Any speakers?
When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Mr. Speaker: Bill 9, The
Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable
Member for
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the
will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
Member for
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Mr. Speaker, as a member of this Legislature who represents a number of farmers, it is very much a pleasure to stand in my seat, not stand in my seat, sorry, to stand in my place next to my seat. Lest those people who read Hansard over and over got the idea that I am standing in my seat, I want to correct myself on that. I am standing next to my seat, still very proud of the fact that I can stand next to my seat and talk on behalf of those people in my constituency who make their living off of the land.
I want to make, I think, a very important point, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill is not good just for farmers, it is good for farmers and the communities in which they live. I think, if anything, we have to get across to people who may not live on farms or in very small communities, is how important that connection is between the farmer and the community, more so, even in small, little communities, in small, little districts who do not have, maybe, the modern conveniences of large urban centres. But there is something about these little communities that I very much like, and that many people in this province, I think, understand and to their credit–
An Honourable Member: They are dying.
Mr. Struthers: Well, the
Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) says they are dying. I do not accept that.
I absolutely do not accept that. We can roll up the sidewalks in these streets
if that is what the Member for Steinbach thinks we should do. We can take the
approach of the Member for Steinbach and tell little communities all over rural
I was struck last week when I was
participating in the Remembrance Day ceremonies in my constituency in Dauphin.
I saw some pictures from very small communities that contributed many, many
young men and women to the cause back in World War II. I was amazed at how many
young men and women came from some of these little districts, little districts
today that are, indeed, struggling. That are, indeed, today fighting to stay
alive. What the people in these communities need is not the negative
doom-and-gloom attitude of the Member for Steinbach and his colleagues across
the way, what they need is a government that is positive about their futures.
That is us here on this side of the House. What these communities need is a
government that is willing to take on the very tough issues that face little
communities and farmers. That is what they have in this government, on this
side of the House. We want to be positive about living in rural
We need to be positive about all of the benefits about living in little communities in Manitoba, and we need, as we have been doing for six years in government, to put forth ideas and resolutions and bills and programs that support people who live in small communities, who support the farmer who works day after day after day to put food on our tables. There is nothing more important than putting food on our tables.
We always have to remember that we cannot undervalue the worth of people who toil on the land to make sure that the rest of us can eat. Now, the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) again encourages us to kill those communities and that is not–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Steinbach, on a point of order.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, I believe that Beauchesne is very clear that information needs to be factual brought before the House.
The minister is saying that I am suggesting that communities be killed, but what I have suggested is that, in fact, when hospitals are being closed in Rivers, when schools are being closed in Westman, that this government's policies are killing these small communities. That is the issue and they need to address it.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Steinbach, points of order are not to be used for debating purposes.
On the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Steinbach, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Struthers: What I think it was, Mr.
Speaker, was a point of guilty conscience on behalf of the Member for
Steinbach. He can sit at his seat and he can chirp away here all day, as he
does day after day, about the doom and gloom that he sees happening in rural
He can chirp away over there all the time about these little communities being negative, and he can doom-and-gloom it all he likes, but that is not going to stop this government from moving ahead and doing the right things for rural Manitobans, doing the right things for farmers, doing the right things for rural communities, communities like Alonsa in the constituency of my friend across there from Ste. Rose.
Whenever I stop at the community of Alonsa, they talk to me about the good things that their conservation district is doing. They talk to me about the good things that that conservation district is doing, not just in terms of drainage, not just in terms of the usual kinds of projects that conservation districts get in, but that is a good example in Alonsa of local communities, local people working in a very creative way with government, with local private interests, with the local producers to produce very good results.
So, if the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) wants to join in with his colleague from Steinbach in being negative and doom and gloom, then he can, but I would suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Ste. Rose has been here long enough to know that there are a lot of good things happening out there in rural Manitoba, that there is a lot of very positive action that is being taken.
I think way down deep members opposite know that there are some very good things that this government has done to help farmers, to help small agricultural communities. [interjection] Well, I would encourage, though, the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), I would encourage that Member for Emerson to dig into it and take a good hard look, do some research for a change and take a good look.
I will even help the Member for Emerson to see some of the good, positive things. When he was in government, Mr. Speaker, did they do anything in terms of farm taxes?
An Honourable Member: Nothing.
* (16:40)
Mr. Struthers: Oh, no. I want to caution people, do not fall into the trap of thinking they did nothing. They raised taxes on farmers. They raised the portioning on taxes. They raised it, Mr. Speaker. It would have been better if they had done nothing.
We, on the other hand, have taken a different approach. We have dealt with portioning, to begin with. Then we started to take seriously the requests that we were getting in terms of the education tax on farm property. We have moved on that, not once, not twice, but three times now. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent, we are 60 percent ahead of what the Conservatives did when they were in power. That is a real savings for my constituents who make their living off the land, who provide food for all of us to eat.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is a good thing. I think members opposite understand that that is a good thing. I think, deep down, they know that. I think, deep down, they kind of regret not having voted for a Throne Speech that included the movement towards that 60 percent number.
One thing that I hear a lot about, and I
know all of us have heard this, and to the credit of people who do live in our
largest city, our capital here in
An Honourable Member: That is the average age of people over there.
Mr. Struthers: You are a lot of help.
They would like to move off the land. They would like to retire and have some sort of a life living in dignity. They would like to be able to do that. More still than that, they would like to be able to bridge the generation. They would like to have their land, their holdings transferred to a younger farmer with a young family who can enrol their students in a nice, little rural school, whose kids can go and learn to curl at the local curling rink. They can skate out on the pond and then play on the local hockey team and be members of the community club. Their kids can join the 4-H. I mean, there is no better way to live. There is no better lifestyle.
But what they are finding is that that is a tough transition for the older farmer to do that. That is why we have come forward with the Bridging Generations Initiative. That has provided in excess of $40 million to assist this very thing to happen, an inter-generational transfer of the farm from a farmer who wants to retire to somebody younger.
Now, this is not just good for the farmer
who wants to retire; it is good for that person. It is not just good for the
younger farmer who wants to get into agriculture as a way of life. This is good
for our communities. This is good for our districts, our regions. This is how
you go about building stronger communities in all parts of rural
If rural
From time to time, agriculture is faced
with extraordinary circumstances. There are events that put rural
One of the main things that we have
understood that our predecessors did not seem to get is that we do need to
expand the capacity to slaughter cows in this province. In their world, when
they had the chance to do things back in those dark 1990s, they dropped the
ball. They did not expand our capacity to slaughter. They actually watched as
it slid backwards. That is not the approach of this government. We have already
moved forward with increasing the slaughter numbers. If anybody on the opposite
side does not think that the BSE crisis is relevant to The Farm Practices
Protection Act, they better give their heads a shake. They had better go back
to the books and figure out what makes rural
Our approach has been, in order to protect
farm communities, to increase our ability to slaughter cows in this province,
right here in
Mr. Speaker, the $11.5 million in support of the Rancher's Choice co-op is nothing for members opposite to laugh about. That is nothing for them to laugh about. Even before that, we were so far ahead of the numbers that they were able to produce, that they are way behind. They are in the dust on this gravel road, so far behind. We will continue to take that challenge seriously.
Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, there are issues
that seem like they are small, but when you think about them, they are very
big. I am thinking about the Rural Stress Line, the Farm and Rural Stress Line.
Now, this is an important line in and of itself. This is an important line for
farmers and people living in rural
An Honourable Member: What does the bill have to do with that?
Mr. Struthers: Well, if
the member from Emerson does not think that the Farm and Rural Stress Line is
connected to farm protection, then he knows even less about rural
Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s, when our friends across the way had their chance to send the message to rural Manitoba that they were important, that their problems were important and that it was important to allow rural Manitobans a valve, a mechanism in which to bring forward their problems and talk about these pressures that we have in the farm communities, they said no.
* (16:50)
They had a chance to do the right thing
with the stress line. They said no. They did not get it, Mr. Speaker. We get
it. We have reinstated that Farm and Rural Stress Line after the former Tory
government removed it. They said no to rural
I also want to talk just a little bit
about how important it is for a government to invest in the infrastructure that
we so much depend upon in rural
We need to have highways infrastructure.
My colleague the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr.
Lemieux) can show where we have increased year after year from the paltry
amount that was available under the previous government. We can show every year
where we have increased that, where we have done more work on the highways
infrastructure in our province. Mr. Speaker, I think drainage needs to be
considered part of the infrastructure that we invest in, and we have been
increasing those amounts in terms of drainage. That is a very important part of
rural
I want to add to that
that we also need, as rural Manitobans, we also need to see the infrastructure
in kind of a 21st century light as well. I represent some communities who do
not have access to high-speed Internet. One of those communities is
The best kind of an economic strategy for
a province is to have a good education plan, but you know what? More than
anything, it is a matter of fairness; it is a matter of equity. People living
in
I think we need to start labelling it as important infrastructure because too often I think we see the high-speed Internet as an add-on, as a bell or a whistle. I do not see it that way, Mr. Speaker. I see it as infrastructure. I think every community needs to work with us, even through their local MLAs, to get hooked up to that infrastructure, because whether it is a school, whether it is a little library, whether it is a community club, whether it is the local R.M. office, they need to have that kind of a connection with the outside world, and our government has been working to do that.
Part of what we announced in the last
round of Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure was an approach to broadband, an
approach that will include many, many rural communities and rural people. It
also included an approach to northern
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that Bill 9 is an important act, The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act, and I am very proud today to stand in support of it. Thank you very much.
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): You know, I was not going to speak on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker. This is such a disappointment that this is the idea that this government has in terms of important legislation on behalf of agriculture and rural development. I am appalled. What it is is another one of a series of light bills that we have introduced in the House. Excepting the bill around engineers and architects, most of the legislation we have seen in this session has not been of a weighty nature or one that has a significant impact on the future of this province.
The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act,
Bill 9, on the proposed motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk),
talks about protecting the Farm Practices Protection Board from liability. I
think that anybody in rural
What has provoked me to speak, frankly, is my colleague from Dauphin who has used this as an opportunity for a platform to talk about all of the things that he believes his government is doing on behalf of the people of this province in rural Manitoba and how well they are doing on behalf of my constituents and others in terms of what is happening on their behalf in terms of initiatives from this government.
Mr. Speaker, in my response to the Speech
from the Throne, I vented my frustration about the lack of leadership on the
part of this government to deal with the issues that are current and ongoing in
rural
But the government took great umbrage at
being asked, at simply being asked what their plans were to help put this
company into the infrastructure of this city, help them to be put in a place
where they will function comfortably within the livestock industry. That refers
to the transportation corridors that may be necessary. It refers to whether or
not the government has given adequate consideration to environmental issues,
and I see the member from Dauphin is staring blissfully off into space,
undoubtedly thinking about the environmental quality of the Assiniboine where Maple
Leaf was added to the infrastructure in
* (17:00)
Mr. Speaker, in chirping across the way, I
ask the member from Dauphin if he would take a little detour through Alonsa
next time he was coming to
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean that in any other sense except that, as an individual and as a neighbouring politician, I know he has some friends in the Alonsa area. I also know that, and the member, I think, will not object to me putting this on the record because it is true, if there is one area in Manitoba, that is the region between Alonsa and Amaranth and the area east of the community pastures in the area bounded on the other side by the lake, it is pure ranchland, in the main. These people have–[interjection]
Is my House leader about to give me the hook?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, with your agreement, I will step down for a minute.
Mr. Speaker: When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have 25 minutes remaining.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on House business.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think, according to our
agreement between House leaders and according to the new rules that have been
established, we are to signal which resolutions we are going to be debating
tomorrow morning. I think it is with leave that we ask that the resolution
regarding the appreciation of
But, in addition to that, I am wondering whether or not there is still an ability for House leaders to meet to discuss other votable resolutions.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to not see the clock for a few minutes? [Agreed]
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Monday, November 21, at 6 p.m.; Tuesday, November 22, at 9 a.m. till 12 noon, and then from 3 till 5, by leave; and then that evening, Tuesday, November 22, at 6 p.m., to consider Bill 7, the architects and engineers legislation.
I have a second one, Mr. Speaker. I would like to announce the Standing Committee on Justice will meet on Tuesday, November 22, at 6 p.m. to consider Bills 2, 3 and 8.
Mr. Speaker: I guess there
is agreement for tomorrow morning to deal with law enforcement. There is
agreement on that; that has been announced.
It has also been announced that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 6 p.m., also on Tuesday, November 22, 2005, at 9 a.m., by leave. Is there agreement on that? [Agreed] From 9 a.m. to 12 noon and then from 3 p.m. till 5 p.m., so there is agreement on that.
Also on Tuesday, November 22 at 6 p.m.–[interjection] I will just finish this–to consider Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended).
It has also been announced that the Standing Committee on Justice will meet on Tuesday, November 22, 2005, at 6 p.m. to consider Bill 2, The Private Investigators and Security Guards Amendment Act; Bill 3, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act; and Bill 8, The Official Time Amendment Act.
Mr. Mackintosh: With regard to the sittings on Tuesday, while the House sits, there is no quorum or votes, of course, on Tuesday morning, but, Mr. Speaker, from the 3 to 5 time, is there also agreement for no quorum?
Mr. Speaker: Okay, so, for Tuesday, November 22, 2005, is there agreement that there will be no quorum and also no votes between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m.? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
So the hour being 5 p.m., the House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).