LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
November 29,
2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
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 Rachel Remillard, Renée-France Labossiere, Joseph De Pape 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 Russell Wasnie, Linda From, Jolene Kirkness and many, many others.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Human Resources presents the following as its First Report.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense?
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
Meetings:
Your
committee met on Monday, November 28, 2005, at 9 a.m. in Room 254 of the
Matters under Consideration:
Bill 5 – The Dental Hygienists Act; Loi sur les
hygiénistes dentaires
Bill 6 – The Dental Association Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association dentaire
Committee
Membership:
Mr. Aglugub
Ms. Brick
Mr. Dyck
Mr. Eichler
Mr. Jennissen
Ms. Korzeniowski
Mr. Martindale
Mr. Rocan
Hon. Mr. Sale
Mrs. Stefanson
Mr. Swan
Your
committee elected Mr. Martindale as the Chairperson and Ms. Brick as the
Vice-Chairperson.
Public
Presentations:
Your committee heard seven presentations on Bill 5 – The
Dental Hygienists Act; Loi sur les hygiénistes dentaires, from the following individuals
and/or organizations:
Shelly
Sheelagh
Smith, Private Citizen
Mickey
Mary
Scott, Provincial Council of Women of
Joanna
Asadoorian, Private Citizen
Salme
Lavigne,
Your committee heard one presentation on Bill 6 – The Dental
Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association dentaire,
from the following organization:
Bills Considered
and Reported:
Bill 5 – The Dental
Hygienists Act; Loi sur les hygiénistes dentaires
Your
committee agreed to report this bill without amendment.
Bill 6 – The Dental
Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association dentaire
Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment.
Mr. Martindale: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed
to.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Madam Clerk: The Standing Committee on Public Accounts presents the following–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please start over.
Madam
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Public Accounts
presents the following as its First Report.
Meetings:
Your committee met on
Monday, November 28, 2005, at 6 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Matters under
Consideration:
Provincial Auditor's Report on Compliance and Special Audits for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2001
Provincial Auditor's Report
– Investigation of an Adult Learning Centre ("The Program") in
Auditor General's Report –
Value-for-Money Audit, Student Financial Assistance Program dated September
2002
Auditor General's Report –
Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2002
Auditor General's Report –
An Examination of RHA Governance in
Auditor General's Report –
Dakota Tipi First Nation Gaming Commission and First Nation Gaming
Accountability in
Auditor General's Report –
Investigation of
Auditor General's Report –
An Examination of le Collège de Saint-Boniface August 2003
Annual Report of the
Operations of the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2003
Auditor General's Report –
Follow-up on previously issued recommendations on Business Planning and
Performance Measurement report dated December 2003
Auditor General's Report –
Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2003
Auditor General's Report –
Information Technology Report dated March 2004
Auditor General's Report –
A Review of Crown Corporations Council and Compliance Audits dated March 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Attributes of Managing and Reporting Results: A Survey of Senior Management
dated March 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Investigation of Hydra House Ltd. and a review of the related Department of
Family Services and Housing Financial Accountability Framework dated June, 2004
Annual Report of the
Operations of the Office of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31,
2004
Auditor General's Report – Investigation of Maintenance Branch of the
Auditor General's Report –
Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Voluntary Sector Grant Accountability: Perspectives and Practices – Enhancing
Board Governance in not-for-profit organizations report dated February 2005
Auditor General's Report –
Examination of the Crocus Investment Fund dated May 2005
Auditor General's Report –
Follow-up of recommendations made in our August 2003 report, an Examination of
le Collège de Saint-Boniface dated July 2005
Auditor General's Report –
Follow-up of report recommendations – a review dated July 2005
Annual Report of the
Operations of the Office of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31,
2005
Auditor General's Report –
environmental audit – Review of the Province of Manitoba's Management of
Contaminated Sites and the Protection of Well Water Quality in Manitoba dated
November 2005
Public Accounts Volumes 1,
2, 3 and 4 of March 31, 2003
Public Accounts Volumes 1,
2, 3 and 4 of March 31, 2004
Public Accounts Volumes 1,
2 and 3 of March 31, 2005
Committee
Membership:
Committee Membership for the November 28, 2005,
meeting:
Mr. Caldwell
Mr. Cummings
Mr. Hawranik
Mr. Lamoureux
Mr. Maguire
Mr. Maloway–Vice-Chairperson
Mr. Martindale
Mr. Nevakshonoff
Mr. Reimer–Chairperson
Mr. Santos
Hon. Mr. Selinger
Officials
Speaking on Record:
Ms. Bonnie Lysyk, Deputy Auditor General and Chief Operating Officer
Reports
Considered and Adopted:
Your
committee has considered and adopted the following reports as
presented:
Provincial Auditor's Report
on Compliance and Special Audits for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001
Auditor General's Report –
Value-for-Money Audit, Student Financial Assistance Program dated September 2002
Auditor General's Report –
Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ending March 31, 2002
Auditor General's Report –
An Examination of le Collège de Saint-Boniface August 2003
Annual Report of the
Operations of the Office of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March
31, 2003
Auditor General's Report –
Information Technology report dated March 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Attributes of Managing and Reporting Results: A Survey of Senior Management
dated March 2004
Annual Report of the Operations
of the Office of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 2004
Auditor General's Report –
follow-up of recommendations made in our August 2003 report, an Examination of
Le Collège de Saint-Boniface dated July 2005
Annual Report of the Operations
of the Office of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 2005
Reports
Considered but not Adopted:
Your committee has considered the following reports but did not adopt them:
Provincial Auditor's Report
– Investigation of an Adult Learning Centre ("The Program") in
Auditor General's Report –
An Examination of RHA Governance in
Auditor General's Report –
Dakota Tipi First Nation Gaming Commission and First Nation Gaming
Accountability in
Auditor General's Report –
Investigation of
Auditor General's Report –
follow-up on previously issued recommendations on Business Planning and
Performance Measurement Report dated December 2003
Auditor General's Report –
Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2003
Auditor General's Report –
A Review of Crown Corporations Council and Compliance Audits dated March 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Investigation of Hydra House Ltd. and a review of the related Department of
Family Services and Housing Financial Accountability Framework dated June, 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Investigation of Maintenance Branch of the
Auditor General's Report –
Audit of the Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 2004
Auditor General's Report –
Voluntary Sector Grant Accountability: Perspectives and Practices – Enhancing
Board Governance in not-for-profit organizations Report – February, 2005
Auditor General's Report –
Examination of the Crocus Investment Fund – May 2005
Auditor General's Report –
Follow-Up of Report Recommendations – A review dated July 2005
Auditor General's Report –
Environmental Audit – Review of the Province of Manitoba's Management of
Contaminated Sites and the Protection of Well Water Quality in Manitoba dated
November 2005
Public Accounts Volumes 1,
2, 3 and 4 of March 31, 2003
Public Accounts Volumes 1,
2, 3 and 4 of March 31, 2004
Public Accounts Volumes 1,
2 and 3 of March 31, 2005
Mr. Reimer: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed
to.
* (13:35)
Ms. Marilyn Brick (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.
Madam Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its First Report.
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr.
Speaker: Dispense.
Meetings:
Your
committee met on Monday, November 28, 2005, at 12 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Matters Under Consideration:
Re-appointment of the
Conflict of Interest Commissioner
Committee
Membership:
Committee
membership for the November 28, 2005, meeting:
Mr. Aglugub
Ms. Brick
Mr. Caldwell
Mr. Derkach
Mr. Dewar
Ms. Korzeniowski
Hon. Mr. Mackintosh
Mr. Maguire
Mrs. Mitchelson
Mr. Penner
Mr. Reid
At
the November 28, 2005, meeting your committee elected Ms. Brick as Chairperson.
At
the November 28, 2005, meeting your committee elected Mr. Reid as
Vice-Chairperson.
Motions Adopted
and Reported:
THAT this Committee
recommends to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that Mr. William Norrie be
re-appointed as Conflict of Interest Commissioner until February 1, 2007.
Ms. Brick: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed
to.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): I would like to, today, table the 2004-05 Annual Report of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for 2004-05 for the Manitoba Product Stewardship Corporation.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for 2004-2005 for the Manitoba Clean Environment Commission.
I would also like to introduce the Annual Report for '04-05 for the Manitoba Sustainable Development Innovations Fund.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for '04-05 for Manitoba Conservation.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the
Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today His Excellency David Wilkins the
Ambassador of the
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Also in the public gallery we have with us from Churchill High 39 Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. LeAnne Froese. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Training (Ms. McGifford).
Also in the public gallery we have from the Probus Club of Winnipeg 20 visitors under the direction of Mr. George Fellowes. This group is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Sale).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you all here today.
GDP Performance
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): We, on this side of the
House, recognize the importance of making our province competitive, Mr.
Speaker. Competitiveness is the single most important issue facing Manitobans,
particularly
When it comes to our GDP, the sum of all
the economic activity in our province,
Mr. Speaker, I ask this Premier why has he
continually failed to make
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in this 2005 year, our GDP is above the national average. In the 2006 year, it is predicted to be above the national average.
The endangered species of the building
crane has returned back to
Business Tax Reform
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a new report
from the
The Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and others have all said that Manitoba is just not competitive, Mr. Speaker. How many more signals does this Premier need? Why does he continue to ignore all of the evidence in front of him and simply bury his head in the sand?
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I believe when we came into office the corporate income tax was 17 percent. I also believe when we came into office the small business tax was 8 percent. In fact, when Mr. Martin from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was going door to door against the Minister of Health in Kildonan, he was running around with the small business tax of 8 percent. Under our government, corporate tax has been lowered from 17 percent. It is going down to 14.5 percent January 1. The small business tax has been lowered from 8 percent down to 4.5 percent effective January 1. We are not perfect, but we are sure a lot better than the members opposite.
* (13:40)
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker,
like so many things in this province, again the Premier puts misleading
information on the record simply because every other province is doing exactly
what this Premier said, but they are doing it faster so
The NDP government of
Mr. Speaker, when is this Premier going to
make
Mr. Doer: I am surprised
the member opposite is talking about brothers and sisters in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I
believe the corporate tax in
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: –that probably is not in that chart because members opposite did not care about it, but they raised tax on farmland when they were in office. They represent all those agricultural economies. We have just lowered education tax on farmland by 16 percent.
Business Tax Reform
Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, the Finance
Minister's NDP buddies in
I ask the Minister of Finance: Does he
agree with his NDP buddies in
Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Actually, Mr. Speaker, I
disagree with the conclusion the member opposite made. He once again is
misrepresenting the information presented in the report in the
I have reported in this House earlier, it was confirmed in the Saskatchewan study and it is also confirmed in our budget documents which the member should take the time to read, when it comes to the cost of locating a business in Manitoba, whether it be a medium-sized city such as Brandon or a large city such as Winnipeg, we remain one of the most competitive, low-cost alternatives of anywhere in North America. I will give further information in my next question.
* (13:45)
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker,
I note that the two provinces with the highest business taxes in
I ask the Minister of Finance: Will he
read the
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the member opposite. He has become what I would call a persistent purveyor of propaganda in this House. He never actually presents any accurate information. What he does is he distorts the information to suit his political purposes.
The other measure that was looked at in
the
Mr. Hawranik: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Finance dismissed the Chamber of Commerce, he dismissed Statistics Canada, he dismissed all other studies as irrelevant, preferring to put his own false propaganda on the record.
Now the NDP government in
Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, once again the member opposite misquotes even what occurred in Hansard. The only person I criticized last week was the member from Lac du Bonnet. The only person last week that made an egregious error was the member from Lac du Bonnet. He missed the size of the provincial debt. He was out by a small amount of $9.5 billion. That was the size of his error and he was completely wrong. He was completely wrong on the cost of serving the debt. He argued that our debt costs were at a historic high when, in fact, they were 40 percent less as a percent of the GDP than they were during his time in office.
Let us review the facts. Corporate tax levels, 17 percent under them, 14 percent under us; 8 percent small business tax under them, 4 percent under us; manufacturing investment tax credit improved; capital tax credit improved; R&D tax credit improved by 33 percent.
Investments
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
Mr. Speaker, the Workers Compensation Board invested $4 million of employers' money into CentreStone which clearly noted the highly speculative nature of investing in its prospectus. I ask the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation did the minister support this risky investment.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it provides me with
an opportunity to set the record straight in regard to my relationship with the
WCB. As the Minister responsible for the WCB, I am responsible for the
administration of the act. The investment committee now, because of the changes
that we made in Bill 25 and I want to thank the members for supporting those
changes, has the strongest governance structure in
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, on April 29,
2005, CentreStone Ventures announced an investment in Medicure Inc., a
I ask the minister responsible: Is it the WCB's policy to invest in high-risk ventures with no assurance of successful product development?
* (13:50)
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the member might
know that the sponsor of the company in question, Dr. Bert Friesen, is
extremely well-known and respected in the business community of
Funding
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are
fed up with potholes and this NDP government's crumbling infrastructure. Industry
projections place road infrastructure needs at over $300 million a year. As the
Minister of Transportation admits himself with only $82 million going to
capital projects next year and with infrastructure supposedly such an important
topic at the August premiers' meeting, why is this Minister of Transportation
and his Premier (Mr. Doer) woefully underfunding
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I guess this must be a spend day because now it is lower taxes and spend, spend, spend. You know, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the critic opposite to take a look at Public Accounts where it shows the gas tax revenues collected are approximately $217 million. What we have done in Transportation is put in $299 million, approximately $88 million more than we collect in gas tax revenues. We are doing our best to improve the highway and transportation system compared to the 1990s where they let everything just run down.
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker,
when is this minister going to stand up for the department that he represents?
While the
Why has this minister risked the safety of Manitobans and allowed our roads to crumble even further by sending $56.4 million back to general revenue from his department?
Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker,
the critic opposite has a brand-new twinned highway going to
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Devolution Process
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, one of the minister's own staff is saying there is no direction or support from the Minister of Family Services (Ms. Melnick) through the transition of CFS to the four authorities. Front-line staff working with children in care are saying this minister has set up the authorities for failure because of her lack of leadership.
Mr. Speaker, why has the Minister of Family Services abandoned the children, families and staff affected by her lack of attention to the devolution of CFS?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, far from abandoning
either the children or the staff in this system, we are proud to be the first
government in Canada that has worked in partnership with the Métis community,
with the First Nations of Manitoba, to ensure that children are cared for in a
culturally appropriate way, so that the staff of this system will be culturally
appropriate staff. This has been a deliberately careful process stretching over
four years so that every child that is transitioned into the system is
transitioned safely and securely and that process is going very well. This
department supports both its staff and the children and families of
* (13:55)
Information Tabling Request
Mrs. Taillieu: Mr. Speaker, this just shows how out of touch this government is with their own staff. This staff fears for the safety of children. They say rules are not being enforced. They say nobody is telling anybody what to do and nobody is asking. They say the system is in chaos. The minister is responsible for establishing standards for service delivery and monitoring of authority compliance and that is from the annual report.
Will the minister responsible for the
children in care in
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, when we formed government, the Minister of Justice and Minister of Family Services took their copies of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, dusted off the thick layer of dust that was on top of them and said, "We are going to work with the First Nations and Métis people of Manitoba to respect the needs that they have for culturally appropriate justice services, culturally appropriate child welfare services." We are proud of the work that we have done in that partnership in honouring the collective agreements we have with staff, in honouring the relationships we have with foster parents, in honouring the relationships which were pioneered by an NDP government in 1981 to create the first Aboriginal First Nations authority that cared for children, to create the very first authority which was in the community of–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sale: –Sagkeeng. Thank you very much the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger). We are proud of that work, and we will continue to honour the First Nations culture in delivering Child and Family Services.
Operating Costs
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Health put false information on the record about the cost of MRI scans performed at the Pan Am Clinic and at the Maples Surgical Centre.
My question for the Minister of Health:
Will he admit that he misled this House and Manitobans about the cost of MRIs
in
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): First of all, Mr. Speaker,
the cost of the equivalent machine at St. Boniface Hospital, which is the
small-extremities-only machine, compared to the same small-extremities-only
machine at Maples, is precisely in the area that I quoted yesterday. In fact,
those numbers come from the appropriate authorities in the
* (14:00)
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health knows very well that he was specifically quoting the Pan Am Clinic, and he referred to Dr. Hildahl as the problem for the numbers. He blamed it on Dr. Hildahl, the CEO, for the misinformation that he put on the record and that is unacceptable. This Minister of Health should know those numbers and not put that information on the House.
Yesterday, not only did the Minister of
Health lead Manitobans about the cost of MRIs in
The real truth, Mr. Speaker, is that a response was sent on May 12, 2005, to the Deputy Minister of Health by the CEO of Maples Surgical Centre. Why did the Minister of Health mislead Manitobans again?
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the costs in the public system, an equivalent scan at St. Boniface Hospital for a knee, $299, Maples $844; a head scan $219, Maples cannot do it; a neck scan $219, Maples cannot do it; a chest scan $230, Maples cannot do it; an abdomen scan $230, Maples cannot do it; a spine scan $261, Maples cannot do it.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, on a point of order?
Mr. Derkach: Yes. Mr. Speaker. The member is quoting from a document and I would ask him to table that document, please.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order?
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I know the Opposition House Leader knows full well the rules of this House. When you quote from a private letter, Mr. Speaker, a member can ask that it be tabled. I understand if there is a private letter here, I am sure it can be tabled. My understanding is it is not.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the honourable Minister of Health was he quoting from a signed letter.
Mr. Sale: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a briefing document.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, that should take care of the problem.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member does not have a point of order. He is reading from his briefing notes. It is not a signed letter.
* * *
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, this Minister of Health has misled Manitobans about the cost of MRIs between public and private systems. He has now misled Manitobans about his willingness to consider partnering with private clinics. How can Manitobans continue to trust this minister when he repeatedly misleads Manitobans?
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, the costs that I have suggested are the true costs today and include staffing costs, indirect costs, capital amortization, interest costs, operating costs, cost of accommodation and, where indicated, costs of supplies. They are the complete accurate costs. The so-called cost at the Maples is not the cost. The member opposite continues to put that suggestion on the record and it is false. It is the cost plus an exorbitant profit.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the honourable Member for Tuxedo, on a point of order?
Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker: On a matter of privilege, okay. The honourable Member for Tuxedo, on a matter of privilege.
Mrs. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are two conditions that must be met. The first condition is that it must have been raised at the earliest opportunity, which I believe this is. Seeing as this matter is regarding the most recent answers from the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale), I believe this is the first opportunity to raise this matter.
The second condition that must be met, Mr. Speaker, is that there was a prima facie case that a member's privilege has been breached. The privileges of all members in this House have been breached by the Minister of Health.
I would refer to pages 59 and 60 of the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the
Legislative Assembly of
Again today, Mr. Speaker, by refusing to correct the public record, the minister is continuing to breach the rules of this House. We have just learned that the Minister of Health did, in fact, receive a response on May 12, 2005. Clearly, the Minister of Health has deliberately put false information on the public record.
Second, the remarks of this minister are
obstructing debates in this Chamber. I must take all honourable members at
their word when they make remarks in this Chamber, and I cannot, as a member of
the Legislature and specifically as the official opposition Health critic,
participate in meaningful debate about health care in
Third, and I refer
members to Beauchesne's Sixth
Edition, a recognized authority on parliamentary procedure here in
Fourth, and I refer again to Beauchesne's, page 18, "Reflections on the House as a Whole." Mr. Speaker, when the minister deliberately puts factually incorrect information into the public record it reflects poorly on this Chamber. It impacts each and every member of this Assembly and, in fact, deliberately putting false information onto the public record taints all politicians at all levels of government. By conducting himself in this way, the Minister of Health is essentially indicating that what he says does not matter. He can say one thing one day and say another thing another day inside or outside the Chamber. His indifference to the words he uses and the remarks he makes on the public record is unconscionable.
This is not a simple
matter of he said, I said. This is a matter we are dealing with of the Crown
deliberately laying before the opposition, laying indeed before the people of
Not only does that make it impossible for me to fulfil my obligations as a legislator, to fulfil the obligations that I have to the people of Manitoba to hold this government to account, but it reflects very, very poorly not only on me but on all 57 members of the Legislative Assembly, so that is why I am raising this issue right now. I consider it to be an extremely serious issue, one that I would hope we would in this House be able to deal with. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we might even be able to deal with it today. If the minister would offer an apology and correct the public record, I would certainly be satisfied with that. Having said that, I wish to conclude my remarks on this matter of privilege.
I move that, as a result of the seriousness of this breach of privilege, this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs. Furthermore, I move that the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) be requested to apologize to Manitobans and to the honourable members of this Chamber for purposely and knowingly putting false information on to the public record and, in doing so, misleading Manitobans and the honourable members of this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen)–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before recognizing any other members to speak, I would remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether the alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity and whether a prima facie case has been established.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): The opposition, Mr. Speaker, is not only resorting to 60 questions in support and in promotion of the Maples private clinic, but now they are putting out matters of privilege to support the Americanization, the privatization and two-tier health care in this province.
Mr. Speaker, I think that what we have here is a problem on two fronts. First of all, matters of privilege have to be raised at the first available opportunity, and that was not the case here unless the member typed out that diatribe in terms of what she said in terms of the matter of privilege after 1:30. Clearly, the member came in here and they had made plans to ask two questions each so they could get a matter of privilege up before the Liberals had their questions. The matter of privilege is not something that should be delayed and half way through Question Period. All the information that she was alleging was in their possession earlier than 1:30.
On the second question, of course, the question as to whether there is a prima facie breach of privilege, clearly, what happened was the information that came out in Question Period today belied their angle that they were trying to mine on this. They were embarrassed by the information that was put on the record by the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale), comparing the costs of MRIs in the public system versus at the Maples. They continued nonetheless.
* (14:10)
I just cite earlier rulings by yourself. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, on June 13, you said, "Joseph Maingot, in the Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, advises on page 241 that to allege that a member has mislead the House is a matter of order rather than privilege." I would say this is a dispute on the facts. It is not even a matter of order, I would say.
In addition, it has been ruled by speakers
in
Also, last April, I understand a matter of privilege was raised in the House of Commons concerning whether a response given by the president of the Treasury Board was false in comparison to other available information.
Speaker Milliken ruled in February 2004 that it is not the Speaker's role to adjudicate on matters of fact. Mr. Speaker, it is clearly not timely nor is it a prima facie matter of privilege. I would suggest it is not even a matter of order. It is just a dispute that should be subject to the political discourse. Thank you.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same matter of privilege.
I have listened carefully to the Government House Leader, in terms of his response to the matter of privilege that was raised by the member from Tuxedo, and, indeed, he has either not been listening to the matter of privilege or he is just again trying to defend his colleague who has clearly misled this House, misled Manitobans and put false information on the record. Mr. Speaker, not only is this a prima facie case because the member from Tuxedo gave every opportunity to the Minister of Health to correct the record today, that is why she asked her questions in the manner in which she did, to allow the minister to correct the record.
Mr. Speaker, obviously a letter has been received by the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) in response to a letter that he said he sent to the Maples clinic yesterday. He said no response was received. We have received a copy of a letter that indicates that he, in fact, did receive a response way back in May. That is why the question was asked today, to allow the minister to correct the record. He refused to correct the record and this has become a characteristic of this minister.
Continually this minister is on the edge with regard to truth, with regard to putting factual information on the record. He is constantly on the edge and that is not acceptable. That does interfere with the work of members of this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, it disallows members of this Chamber to deal with issues as they are presented in the House because we question the validity, we question the truth of those statements made by this minister. He has earned a reputation of living on the edge of the truth.
For that reason, this is a case where the minister has misled this House and that is why we are asking him to apologize to Manitobans and to this House. There is proof now that he has completely and purposely misled members of this House, and, most importantly, the critic of Health who has a responsibility to hold him accountable for what he does in this province. It is for that reason that we rise on this matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same privilege?
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do have to say that, on the process of timeliness, I would concur with my House Leader that clearly it is impossible that this was the first opportunity to have a typewritten script some pages long, and it is clearly prepared well before this Question Period began. Let me deal with the substance of the privilege, because I want people to be very clear about my remarks and about the clarity with which we are dealing with this issue.
When we wrote to Dr.
Godley, and I will table this letter. Mr. Speaker, we wrote to Dr. Godley and
we said in our second paragraph, "
Now, Mr. Speaker, the actual response which we received through the Deputy Minister's office–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, the
response that we received from Dr. Godley's Don Copeman, it is signed not by
Dr. Godley and he, by the way, is the CEO of the clinic in B.C. which wanted to
charge $1,700 to enrol people and $2,300 to provide them with primary care
every year. He makes a specific proposal: "We will perform a thousand
pediatric dental cases for you over the next year for a fixed fee of $3.89 per
minute of surgery or $350.10 for a typical 90-minute case. This includes costs,
nursing facilities, equipment supplies, et cetera. Anesthesiologists would be
compensated normally by
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the
problem. We have a shortage of anesthesiologists. They did not propose in any
way to respond to my letter, or not my letter, my deputy's letter, which said,
"If you can provide services that are in addition to what is here in
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the letter says, "We will perform a thousand cataract surgeries." [interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order–[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are supposed to be arguing the prima facie case and the fact that this matter was raised at the earliest possible convenience. This is not the time to be arguing the merit or his defence of his particular action that he took with regard to this.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is a prima facie case where the minister misled this House by indicating he did not receive the letter, period.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order?
Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I get up because, reluctantly, I have got to respond to that. It is unfortunate that there was that interruption, Mr. Speaker. It is not good enough that somebody gets up and raises a matter of privilege, and allegations contained there, and they think that no one else should hear what the actual truth is and what the explanations are. I think that is very unfortunate. They cannot get away with just listening to themselves.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, members should be commenting on the prima facie aspect of the alleged matter of privilege and should not be debating the issue. I have allowed a lot of leeway on both sides in the past, that is why I am allowing the honourable member to continue because I have allowed it on both sides.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to continue.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, his second offer was, "We will perform a thousand cataract surgeries over the next year for a fixed facility fee of $675," which, by the way, is somewhat in excess of what Pan Am charges, "which includes all costs, nursing facilities, equipment supplies, et cetera, except the lenses themselves. Physicians and surgeons would be compensated normally by Manitoba Health."
Exactly the problem, Mr. Speaker. We do not have an excess of capacity in the human resource side of our system. We asked Dr. Godley for proposals that would address the issue of capacity without impeding the public sector capacity. He did not do so. He did not respond to our letter in any kind of acceptable fashion whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I
think I have probably heard sufficient argument. If the honourable member is
rising because he feels there is a point that has not been touched upon, I will
hear the honourable Member for
* (14:20)
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Now the second aspect is the question of whether or not there is a serious matter which needs attention of this House, and it is our view that indeed there is a serious matter here. I would say, from what we now know in terms of the content of the letter and the reply to the letter, and what we now know in terms of the statement of the Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) yesterday, and the Minister of Health said yesterday, and I quote, "They have never responded to that letter."
The Minister of Health did not say whether the response was adequate or sufficient or he did not qualify it. He just said they have never responded to that letter, and the quote in Hansard is very clear. It is unequivocal, and what we have today is very clear evidence that there was a response to that letter. It may not have been exactly what the government wanted. It may have been different but it was a response, and, clearly, in the comments that the minister made, there was an error. The minister should do the honourable thing and apologize. I think it is clear, and I think that the Legislature should ask for no less from this minister under these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker: Order. A matter of privilege is a serious concern. I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities, and I will return to the House with a ruling.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: We will continue on with Question Period.
Rate-Shock Protection
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, there is a bill before this Legislature that is seeking to hold back the price of natural gas. It could go up 20 percent to consumers, to single parents, to senior citizens, to non-profits and to hold it back in February, that member is against it. The same bill seeks to subsidize and hold back the costs over the next year so that people do not have to pay 44 percent out of their pockets in the middle of winter. It has a section that sets up a fund that puts and helps people to deal with DSM, deal with demand side, deal with insulation and protect their homes in conjunction with the federal program that pays money to people to do that. The members are opposed to helping people who have no choice in the wintertime but to see their heating bills go up 40 percent. I am surprised at members who took that position.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, that is a
remarkable distortion of the facts. Even Brian Postl is talking about the
exodus of Manitoba-trained doctors to
Now, as a result of the NDP's
cross-subsidization policy, Manitobans who use natural gas are going to be paid
by Manitoba Hydro electricity customers to buy more
Why is the Premier going to provide an
economic incentive for Manitobans to purchase
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think we have
over 250 doctors more, 240 doctors more. You know, for example, doctors actually
were trained in
Mr. Speaker–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just meeting with the U.S. Ambassador before Question Period and–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The clock is ticking.
Mr. Doer: –I noted that
the electrical sales based on Limestone, which was opposed by the Liberal
Party, they called it lemonstone, the electrical sales exports to the state of
* (14:30)
Home Heating Costs
Rate-Shock Protection
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Those seniors and others this government has turned their back on, Mr. Speaker, they are not helping these people because of their bizarre rebate system. They are ignoring and not helping people. My question is: How can a government provide consistent policy when it provides initiatives that penalize certain sectors of our population?
Hon. Dave Chomiak
(Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): It is very clear now what the
Liberal policy is. Market rates; oh, but what about the people in the North? If
the member looked into the bill, the bill provides for all Manitobans. It
provides for funding to deal with switching and providing services to all
Manitobans, not just Liberals that live in
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Flin Flon. [interjection] Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Official Opposition House Leader): Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Sale) has tabled a letter in this Chamber, and I would ask that this letter be reviewed because, from the copy I have in front of me, this does not look like an original. As a matter of fact, it looks like it has been tampered with, Mr. Speaker. I do not know. I do not know. I would just like you to verify that.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I am going to take it under advisement so I can check out the letter myself, and I will bring back a ruling to the House.
Government Initiatives
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, recently results of an inquest into the death of Calvin Wood were released. Mr. Wood died in January 2002 during the construction of a winter road.
Given the importance of winter roads, not only to many of my constituents but also to many Manitobans living in remote or northern regions, could the Minister of Transportation and Government Services inform the House of steps he is taking to address the recommendations that came out of that inquest?
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Our government recognizes this area as a priority, and we are committed to promoting the highest level of safety on our winter road system. We have established a winter road safety working group to oversee all of the recommendations made by Judge Murray Howell, and we intend to implement those.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we have taken approximately 600 kilometres off of the ice and put them on land to increase the safety of the winter road system up North. Not only that, we have more than doubled the funding to winter road systems, as compared to the government opposite.
Four-laning
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): In 2002, according to the
then-minister of highways, the four-laning of Highway No. 32, a provincial
highway running through the city of
My question is: What has changed? In fact, if you need to remove a birdbath from my front yard please do so.
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): You know, Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a member, when we added $15 million more to the highways capital budget, he voted against it.
Mr. Speaker, we as a government have put in approximately, compared to the last five years of the previous government and comparing that record to ours, we have put in approximately $50 million more into the highways capital budget than they ever did.
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Speaker, we
have heard this rhetoric before. The city of
Why will this Doer government, this minister, not share some of its revenue resources with the city of Winkler, take its responsibility and four-lane provincial Highway No. 32, please?
Mr. Lemieux: You know, Mr. Speaker, we get $2 billion worth of requests for transportation infrastructure every year, and the reason in part why this community is growing is due to our great immigration program. That is the reason why this community of Winkler is growing, and the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) should be commended for that with all of her policies with regard to that area.
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is the member that continually votes against budgets that try to increase our budget overall with regard to transportation. I have to tell you in the year I believe it was 2001 or the year 2000, we put approximately $10 million, I am advised, into the main street of Winkler.
Now I understand that it is "What have you done for me lately?" in politics, Mr. Speaker, but this minister should get with it and vote for budgets that are very progressive with regard to construction and transportation.
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Speaker, the
Nominee Program was started under our government, under this minister at that
time. The City of
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dyck: Mr. Speaker, the
City of
Mr. Lemieux: You know, Mr. Speaker, the community of Winkler is a tremendous community. We all know that, a tremendous community. We all agree with this, and I applaud the hardworking people of Winkler.
You know, this government, on this side of
the House, has put transportation and infrastructure projects in the western
side of the province, the eastern side of the province, the southern side of
the province, $10 million approximately on the main street of Winkler, but also
approximately 25 percent of our budget is in northern
Upgrading
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Now, Mr. Speaker, this minister is full of huff and puff, but absolutely no substance.
Pizzey's Milling, located on the west side of the province, employs 52 people and does about $2 million of business every month. The only bottleneck in this industry, it is a nutraceutical industry, one of the ones that this government says it is so proud to promote, but the only bottleneck in this industry is that they cannot get their product out on a timely basis because of the condition of Highway 278, which runs right by their door. Mr. Speaker, for months now they have been trying to get the attention of this government to rebuild this road or else there may be a danger of them leaving this province to another location.
I ask the minister: Where is this project in terms of his priority in rebuilding Highway 278 past Pizzey's Milling?
* (14:40)
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Glen Pizzey, their corporation and their operation is a very successful one, granted. Again, I have to refer to the $2 billion worth of requests for transportation infrastructure that we have in this province. You know, Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot. We have accomplished a lot and we have more to do. Granted, we are not perfect, and we continue to look at all the projects that keep coming our way. The Department of Transportation works very, very hard and diligently to take a look at all the needs in this province. We put in $16 million more.
What gets me, Mr. Speaker, is that members opposite vote against those kinds of budgetary items that we put forward, voting against them on the one side. Now, I know it is opposition. They say we can have it both ways. Well, the public of Manitoba, the electorate of Manitoba and Manitobans in general take a look at that kind of cynical approach saying, on the one hand, do this, spend more, spend more, but yet they vote against budgetary items like increasing the budget–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, again, I say a lot of huff and puff, but no substance, Mr. Minister. This minister–[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, this minister turned back $57 million of revenues that came from licences and registrations. He turned that money back to the Treasury. That is money that was supposed to go to building highways. It would take one of those $57 million, $1 million, to build this road past Pizzey's Milling who employ 50 people and do $2 million of business a month.
Why would he not consider making this project a priority with that amount of money that he turns back to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger)?
Mr. Lemieux: Mr. Speaker,
I thank the member opposite, or the surrogate for the heavy construction
association, for that question. I have to tell you, for the first time in
I have to tell you also, Mr. Speaker, that with regard to a lot of the projects that we are trying to tackle, and this past summer with the wet weather many of the projects we were not able to do. So what we did is took approximately $22 million worth of projects and did them this summer and applied that money to them this summer, as opposed to letting dollars lapse.
Mr. Speaker, we have moved on many fronts and this is one particular one we have tackled and we have moved on to ensure that those dollars are spent.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Today I would like to pay
tribute to a group of Manitobans whose vision, hard work and community
involvement has had a lasting positive impact on the city of
Triple E is a family-owned company that
was started in 1965 by P.W. Enns, Peter Elias and Philipp Enns, who now remains
as chairman. They are
It is exciting to see that the founders' original vision is being carried forward into the next generation. Phil Enns, who is the chair of the board, Terry Elias, president of the company and Lloyd Elias, general manager, their success and commitment to the community is something of which the citizens of Winkler are very proud.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Triple E and Lode King on reaching these great milestones and in thanking them for helping to make Manitoba a great place to work, to live and to raise a family. Thank you.
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, recently I was
pleased to attend lunch with Santa at Winakwa Community Centre in
Mr. Speaker, Winakwa Community Centre
plays an important role in
Thanks to the hard work of many volunteers this community centre has recently been remodelled inside and has a new parking lot. I am pleased to note that our government provided a Community Places grant process with this project.
I would like to
congratulate Pat Krueger, the new president of Winakwa Community Centre, on her
recent appointment. I look forward to working with her and the new board to
make
I would like to conclude
by thanking the many volunteers at Winakwa Community Centre and throughout
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
Teulon Collegiate Institute organized a variety of activities to increase awareness of addictions. Grades 7 and 8 students participated in an anti-smoking poster contest. Senior 1 to 4 students created slogans to encourage Manitobans not to drink and drive. The students also expanded their understanding of the serious impact addictions can have including loss of life.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituency
of
Such initiatives will hopefully encourage understanding in a new generation. This is a proactive solution to promote healthier Manitobans with the knowledge to avoid becoming trapped by addictions. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, such activities can give young people a new perspective and appreciation for what Manitobans living with addictions face. Addictions can cost people their friends and family so much with emotional, personal and financial burdens.
I would like to close by encouraging our communities, schools and honourable members to encourage prevention and education. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
inform the House about an exceptional citizen at Seven Oaks School Division,
Ms. Edie Wilde, an educator and administrator devoted to the creation and
maintenance of inclusive school communities. Ms. Wilde was recently named the
top school superintendent of the year in
* (14:50)
This type of recognition is well deserved, Mr. Speaker. For nearly 30 years, Ms. Wilde has worked in Seven Oaks School Division as a teacher, a principal and, most recently, in her role as the division's assistant superintendent of student services. In this capacity, Ms. Wilde has continued the work she started several years ago as head of the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. She has a passionate commitment to inclusive education, focussing on Aboriginal and special needs students. Her work has brought many different voices together to create a dialogue in which the needs of all the students of Seven Oaks can be met.
To that end, Ms. Wilde has pioneered the creation of the Village Centre, where parents and members of the community can access vital services, such as child and family services, housing agencies or health services in a community-based setting. In this manner, a school is better integrated into the life of the community, providing students with universal and proper access to education and parents and the community at large the opportunity to access important essential services. Her democratic vision of a school as the local centre of community life for each member to enjoy is to be commended.
I call upon all members of the House to join me in congratulating Ms. Wilde for her achievements and ask her to continue the pursuit of educational excellence for all students, which has been characteristic of her work so far. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
These are the reasons why: (1) For not being able to see the negative impact of his government policy to force Manitoba Hydro to cross-subsidize natural gas rates; (2) For politically manipulating–
An Honourable Member: D'oh!
Mr. Lamoureux: That is good.
For politically manipulating Manitoba Hydro to the detriment of the long-term interest of all Manitobans; (3) For not using a rebate system that would have more fairly protected Manitobans from huge sudden price increases; (4) And for not having the courage to acknowledge he made a mistake.
Even former NDP Premier Ed Schreyer has stated that the policy is, "It is 180 degrees opposite to the long-term public interest."
And if I can quote, Mr. Speaker, a very famous man and just say "D'oh!" Thank you.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable Member for
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the award for the Premier.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: To continue, Orders of the Day.
(Continued)
House Business
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the wind energy resolution will be considered next Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker, would you please call, in terms of Government Business, Bills 11, 7, 18, 15, and then the remaining bills that are listed for debate on second readings.
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House?
Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand. It has
been agreed? [Agreed]
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Well, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be able to put a few words on the record here in regard to Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, that the New Democrats have brought into the Legislature in Manitoba for debate, under the auspices of reducing the amount of heating bills for those who are using natural gas. It was brought in on November 16, and its objective was to prohibit any further increases in the natural gas prices to customers of Centra Gas during the '05-06 winter heating season, and allow the government to limit such price increases in 2006-2007.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points around the activities and actions of the government on this bill. One of them is, certainly, the fact that the bill was not necessary, from the point of view that they had already taken care of hedging the natural gas that would be consumed this winter by the minister's own admission in this House a number of times. That is the only responsible action from a business perspective, that they would hedge the costs of those heating costs. The situation with allowing the hedging to take place had to have been done earlier in the fall, late in the summer even, to protect through the length of term that this bill is. I am assuming that it is a very good move on behalf of a business like Manitoba Hydro to take this kind of action. Any company would do it.
The problem that you have with this activity is that they must have felt that the heating costs were going to continue to rise as the price of natural gas continued to grow this past fall. I guess, Mr. Speaker, that, if this kind of activity was something that the government was speculating with, speculating in the fact that they were speculating that the natural gas rates would continue to go up, then they took into their own hands what every broker in commodities would tell you never to do, and that is to speculate in the commodities market. You must use these tools as a hedging mechanism, but here we are with a government that went ahead and took the power into its own hands and decided that it would cross-subsidize the natural gas costs to homeowners by technically increasing the amount of electrical power rates in the province of Manitoba.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the
bill carries on for two years, so fortunately, the price of natural gas has
come back down on its own somewhat, along with the price of other energies
here, in the last few weeks, and that is a good move for all Manitobans,
something that we certainly applaud. It will make the costs of driving and
heating our homes more bearable, I guess, if you will, with the increases that
have taken place over the next few months, but it is not something that I would
encourage the government to be in and not something that, as a minister, I
would have encouraged my colleagues to have done if we were in government
because of the kinds of speculative nature of this business. You are certainly
interrupting the normal decisions that businesses would make in doing their
daily business. While the costs of hedging are also being borne by the members
that are presently using those natural gas costs in
Mr. Speaker, this is definitely
cross-subsidization. There is no other way of describing it. In spite of the
fact that the minister himself is quoted as saying that he does not believe in
cross-subsidization, that is a very small solace for all of the citizens of
Manitoba, because, in fact, he is increasing the electrical power rates to many
users here in the province of Manitoba by cross-subsidization of this bill. We
will not know what those total costs are at this particular point, but you can
rest assured that
* (15:00)
I will just outline a little bit briefly.
You know, when I was Finance critic, we looked at the debt of Manitoba Hydro
and how it compared to the debt of the Province. They were somewhere in the
$7-billion range each back in the days when this government came into power in
the late nineties. But it has been allowed to rise now to over $9 billion in our
Hydro utility in
Now, Mr. Speaker, the government even has a target of 75 to 25, but they are not even going to be able to meet that target. Their projection is not even to do it for seven more years, and that is 2011 to 2012. So, when these dates keep getting pushed back that they are going to get on track with reducing the debt of this particular entity, it is a shame that Manitobans have to bear these increased power rates at the same time when, in fact, if the government was able to manage the debt, particularly the debt of Hydro or even the operating debt of Manitoba better, then these kinds of costs would be much more bearable for us in Manitoba because these costs would not increase. They just would not be going up.
Mr. Speaker, this is only
a short-term fix to a long-term problem. Heating costs are going to continue to
go up in
The reason that is a problem is, of
course, because in other jurisdictions where this has been tried before, where
government has intervened in what would be the normal flow of business, when
these kinds of bills are pulled, there are most times huge increases in the
costs to the consumers. Of course, I guess if you were cynical and wanted to
look at the fact that the government has put this bill in place for two years,
you could say that any of those increases on the consumers of
So, Mr. Speaker, it is purely, as has been
said by others, an opportunity of this government to buy votes through the next
short while amongst citizens of
Of course, I think the height of that exchange would come from the fact that a former Premier, Premier Ed Schreyer himself, indicated to the Winnipeg Free Press, on November 18, that this was a perverse, if I could use a quote, Mr. Speaker, a perverse plan. He made reference to the fact that it was the most retrograde step the government could possibly take in regard to this kind of pricing. So I think it is incumbent upon the government, upon the Premier, of the day, to listen very closely to their colleagues from the past as well. So what does the Premier of the day say? That, "Oh, well, it is only a short-term problem anyway. It is a short-term strategy."
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is a bad strategy
and that has been pointed out a number of times by many groups that are within
the government's own–by many people within the government's own jurisdiction. I
know this has been put in place in regard to trying to help, or under the
attitude of being able to try to help some citizens in
Mr. Speaker, this government does not know
the implications of putting their bureaucracy in place to administer these
kinds of bills, these kinds of decisions, kinds of regulatory issues that they
have brought forward, the same as they did not understand it when they
announced a rebate program for education tax in the rural areas. This
government had chosen to ask for a rebate of some 33 percent; then they went to
50 percent. Now they are dealing with 60 percent in this last Throne Speech.
But, if they really wanted to help those rural areas, they could have just
eliminated it entirely or even, at the very least, eliminated the education
taxes off the statements at 33 percent, at 50 percent, and now at 60 percent.
That would have saved the bureaucracy. They assume that these rural people,
these farmers and the residents of
I had many people refer
this issue to me last week at the Association of Manitoba Municipalities
meeting that took place in
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Mr. Speaker, I find it most intriguing that a government that gives lip service to wanting to help Manitobans would do it in the form of a rebate that people have to apply for, and it is consistent with the kind of bill that has come forward under Bill 11. They did not do it in any other mechanism. They did not say that they would take some tax off of gasoline at the pumps. They did not indicate that they would keep hydro rates for electrical users at the same rates. They did not indicate that those will not go up. In fact, those are going to be set and going forward by the Public Utilities Board. Now we see that the last time that they went for an increase there of 5 percent, the Public Utilities Board chose to just up them another 5 percent, even though they did not even ask for it. So to say that it is an independent organization any longer puts it into question in regard to the kinds of activities that are taking place.
Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned for the
future of
* (15:10)
While that sounds good, there needs to be much further explanation in regard to this type of a fund. This fund is being set up under the auspices of being used to, as I said earlier, level out the peaks and valleys of energy costs to Manitobans in this province. Of course, it is only for two years.
What is going to happen to that fund, Mr. Speaker, after the two years is up? What will the government use that for? The timing seems to be right around the next election, so will they then just say, "Well, we are going to use all of those funds to freeze those rates in the future as well and make the end result even a much greater increase down the road, in the middle of our government's next term when we are there to clean up the mess."? Or are they going to use it for strictly their own endeavours in regard to election purposes?
Mr. Speaker, I know that they are saying they will watch the hydro rates, and that they will use some of the electrical revenue that they get from consumers to put this fund in place. We do not know how big it is going to be. There have been references to $100 million. That is what it has been in some other areas. We would like to know just exactly what the government's intention is with some of these revenues. They have not indicated what the exact percentage of the revenues dedicated to the fund will be, but they have said that they will be determined by the minister.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if there has ever been a much more open-ended area to go at than just leaving it up to be determined and under regulation by the minister in the future, this bill certainly leaves Manitobans with much to worry about. I would go further and say as well, from a question that I raised in Question Period a few weeks ago on a letter in the Brandon Sun that was brought forward by Mr. Bill Turner, the general manager of Nexen out of Brandon, the makers of sodium chloride there, and the chairman of the Brandon Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Randy Brown, the letter that they brought forward where they dealt on behalf of the Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group in Manitoba, basically the top eight users of power in Manitoba that use 22 percent of the power generated in Manitoba. I just want to outline their concern here again under a bill like this, because it is so pertinent as to where will you get the money for this kind of a slush fund, for want of a better word, a better term on this fund.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that the government–I just want to back up for a minute. Let me be very clear that those top eight users in Manitoba received a letter from Manitoba Hydro that indicates that, if they were going to make an expansion, any of these eight companies, whether it is the mine in Thompson, the mine in Flin Flon, Nexen in Brandon, whether it is ERCO Worldwide out in Hargrave, west of Virden where I represent, whether it is Simplot, one of the largest power users in Manitoba as well, and certainly a large natural gas user in Manitoba, producing fertilizer in this province, and that fertilizer goes everywhere–certainly the taxes on any that come into it get levied back to the farmers, to the consumers of that product, and you know there again this government stings the farm community for the increased taxation through an indirect mechanism. They do not seem to understand that there is only so much ability to pay out there when the farm support programs that they support do not meet the farm support needs of the farmers today.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the
letter that indicated that all of these power users would end up having to pay
an up-front fee to the Manitoba Hydro, basically based on what that power rate
could get in export markets, if they want to make an expansion or an addition
to an existing business that they have in this province. Well, that is why we,
as an opposition, the Conservative Party of Manitoba, in the last election ran
on the fact that we need to maintain Manitoba Hydro rates at the cost-based
rate so that we can attract new businesses to
Mr. Speaker, this government does not
understand that. They think they can ding or hurt big business in
In that brief that was brought forward by
the member from Lac du Bonnet today, that question in Question Period, it
points out very clearly that we are 20 percent above the median when it comes
to corporate tax rate in Canada. If it was 1 or 2 percent that we were over,
that would be something, but we are 20 percent over. That is a shame, because
it will not attract new business on a sustainable level to
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of departments that are already, I guess, if you could say, not spending the balance of the money that they are already budgeted for, but I want to finish off this issue of the user fee that these–basically, the up-front fee that these Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group are being forced to pay if they want to expand. By the way, most of them indicated to me they have put on hold or are not going to proceed with any expansion plans in the province, but I daresay the government has already received letters from these people. I would refer to the North, where the members talk quite openly about the fact that, you know, they are the only ones that know where the North is. Well, why would they, then, get a letter from their own mining companies and indicate that they are making expansions–and they are because they are doing well enough to be able to put their business plans forward so that they can plan for their future in those areas–why, then, would the government knowing that there is going to be an expansion in those areas, turn around and say, "You are going to have to pay us an up-front fee to do business here in Manitoba."? Is it because they just think that, as well, those companies have a plethora of money, a Brink's truck walking around behind them that they can just afford to reach into and pull out and put money on the table once in a while?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the increase in this stabilization and affordable energy fund is not going to come necessarily from the users of electrical power across Manitoba, but it is going to come directly out of the Industrial Power Users Group in Manitoba and be offloaded onto everybody else that uses any of those products that are made by those groups in Manitoba, by those top eight users of power in this province, that that is where they are going to get it, the funds, and this is no small amount of money that they are asking these larger industries to put up. It is in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars that they would have to put forward depending on the scale of the project that they wanted to come forward with.
Mr. Speaker, I just want
to make the point, as well, that if it is a small company, and I would say like
ERCO the one that was beside me there, Worldwide, they employ 20 people in
Hargrave, 20 people in my constituency in western
So, Mr. Speaker, I would
say that if the government is going to tax these companies by making them put
up a user fee up-front that could end up being used for this Winter Heating
Cost Control Act, for the second part of it is the slush fund that this
government wants to set up for that area, then I would suggest that they
rethink that and leave the funds with the companies and allow them to invest
those millions of dollars, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of
dollars, into their own companies so that they can continue to put forth
product that they are processing or mining on a regular basis. If those companies
are allowed to use their own capital to expand their operations,
We go to great lengths
most times when something is announced new, Mr. Speaker, a new project for
* (15:20)
Mr. Speaker, the bottom
line is these companies should be allowed to invest in capital in their own operations,
so that they can use power on a much more variable rate than they have, to keep
the generation of their industry going at the present time. Take out the peaks
and valleys. Let them work more at night when the lights are shut off in
So what does this government do, Mr. Speaker? Instead of allowing them to use their own money that way, to invest in Manitoba anyway, they go and tax them and put it into a fund so that they think they can use it to, you know, attract more people to Manitoba because our gas rates are going to be a little lower, at the same time when all of the people that are paying for it, the electrical users of this province, are being forced to pay higher rates than they otherwise would be.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, it just seems like NDP logic to me that this kind of flawed legislation must really mean that this government has not got much of a legislative agenda for this particular session. It bothers me that the purpose of this bill is that actually the government will disallow Hydro from going for a rate increase in February.
The prices will be cushioned
over the next two years and the warning will be given that prices will increase
after the bill dies so users should seek alternate measures. You know, Mr.
Speaker, I applaud anyone who wants to insulate their home or try to improve
the power source that they have for heat in
But to do it in this manner, it is very confusing in regard to sending the signals to Manitobans because, when it is over, as I have said earlier, when this two-year projection is up that this bill covers, it will be just like the government did when they brought in the bill that allowed them to take 75 percent of the profits of Manitoba Hydro over three particular years in a row. It is the same kind of an impact. Only now they took the whole $205 million in two years because of course there were not any profits in Manitoba Hydro in that third year.
We had a drought, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about that. This year we have had excessive moisture and, of course, there has been an extreme amount of water flowing and we have generated good profits in Manitoba Hydro this year. There is no doubt about that. But that is the time when, any business that I have ever been involved in, you use the opportunity when you have receive those kinds of benefits to reduce your debt load, to bring down the total cost and, as I said in my opening comments, to be able to get the debt-equity ratio back in line somewhat.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is fine to go ahead and
borrow more money as well, to have more debt in place, provided you have got
the contracts in place to generate the revenue to be able to finance those
mechanisms. I would submit that, unlike all other provinces in Canada that are
presently trying to reduce the debt they have and reduce the debt of any of
their Crown corporations, this government, this NDP government, and the member
from Elmwood well knows that this government is not responsible in regard to
managing its affairs. He has indicated that in the House many times. I think it
is unfortunate that this government is trying to unload this kind of a slush
fund and revenue exchange on the backs of the electrical power users of
Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is
what happened in
Believe me, we need energy in our homes in the winter, Mr. Speaker, in this province. I think that this government is being very, very short-sighted in regard to the kinds of bills that it has brought forward. This is certainly one of them.
Mr. Speaker, if I could close there with only the few comments, that I would say that this government needs to be much more cautious in regard–
Mr. Speaker: Order. Any other speakers?
Seeing none, when this matter is before the House again it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
Mr. Speaker: There are
three amendments in the name of the honourable Member for
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
THAT Bill 7 be amended in Clause 3(2) by striking out
"or has planned" in the proposed clause 15(1.1)(a) of The Architects
Act.
Mr. Speaker: It has been
moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 7 be amended in Clause 3(2) by striking out
"or has planned" in the proposed clause 15(1.1)(a) of The Architects
Act.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the architects and engineers act has clearly been one of–
Mr. Speaker: I forgot to mention that the amendment is in order.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the architects and engineers act has been one of the most contentious pieces of legislation brought forward by the present NDP government. There were more than 180 oral presentations and 17 written presentations to this legislation. In the more than six years that I have been in the Manitoba Legislature, this has been more presenters than at any other bill. Clearly, there are significant concerns with this bill.
My colleague, the MLA for
It became abundantly clear during the presentations and in my discussions with both engineers and architects and others subsequently that there are areas of the legislation being proposed by the government which are not clear. Perhaps the government's intention was to be obscure, but, Mr. Speaker, it is far better to have legislation which is clear in its intent and even if the legislation is not clear, it is important that the government very clearly sets out its intent to provide clarity in its goals in putting forward this legislation.
In my discussions with various individuals
around this bill it is also apparent that there are distinct advantages to
having certain issues in legislation rather than in regulation. From a legal
perspective, it makes better and fairer law if things are spelled out clearly
in legislation as to the government's intent. Indeed, as those of us who
attended the committee meetings heard clearly, many of the architects see that
the scope of practice for architects should be in The Architects Act. Indeed, I
am led to believe that in every other jurisdiction in
In making the amendments that we are proposing, we have two goals. Our first goal is to put forward amendments which will highlight areas of controversy, of lack of clarity, areas where there is debate about the interpretation of the present legislation as put forward by the NDP government. We are going to highlight these areas of concern, and we would ask the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) to speak to these issues in order to clarify the government's intention with respect to these matters.
* (15:30)
To date, in some areas, the government has been less than clear on its own interpretation of its own bill. It is vital, we believe, that the government clarify for all what its intent is, what it expects to happen. That certain of these areas of lack of clarity, I will bring forward and illustrate some of the aspects of the controversy.
The second goal
represents our attempt to listen to many, many architects and architectural
students who came forward to indicate their desire that the scope of practice
of architects be included in The Architects Act as, I understand, it is
included in all other jurisdictions in
We have listened to the
presenters who presented a point of view as to the balance needed among architects,
engineers, interior designers and others involved in the design, construction
and alteration of buildings in
We have, in this context,
for example, a letter from David Ennis of APEGM that his expectation is that
architects will be required on more projects than before September 16, 2005,
not fewer, and that young architects will have increased
The balance that we provide may not be perfect. It is difficult to get this exactly right. But I hope we put forward an option that the government will have a look at and be able to discuss and to consider in moving forward as we move this bill forward through the legislative process.
Now, the first amendment deletes the phrase "or has planned," so that section 15(1.1)(a) would read "engaging in that practice in relation to the erection, enlargement or alteration of a building where a person or firm entitled to practise as an architect plans the erection, enlargement or alteration of the building."
Now, we are looking here for clarity in terms of why the government put in the phrase "or has planned." We heard concerns, whether real or not, that the phrase could have been put in there to allow designs to be downloaded from the Internet, designs from other jurisdictions without a stamp of approval from a Manitoba architect, and that this could mean that certain buildings would not have to need architectural designs, as we now understand them, because people would just download the diagrams from the building without having the usual stamp, et cetera.
What we are asking for is the minister to indicate to us why you put this "or has planned" in this phrase, in this clause, in the act, and tell us at the same time what the reason is. If there is not a legitimate reason, if there is not a real reason for putting it there, we suggest that you accept our amendment and take it out. We are dealing, really, with a situation where architects plan the erection, enlargement or alteration of a building. We do not understand the need for the specific phrase "or has planned."
This is an example of where there is a potential for confusion and misunderstanding and we would ask, at this point, just for some clarity. If the minister sees that there is not a need for it, then we presume the minister would accept this amendment. If she thinks that this is a vital clause, then we would ask her to explain clearly why this should be there.
That is the reason for our amendment is that we do not see that this is vital and that we see that it could be confusing and create some uncertainty. Thank you.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that the only people in this Legislature that are confused would be the Liberals who have brought forward these amendments.
An Honourable Member: It would not be the first time.
Ms. Allan: As my colleague the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) has just said, it would not be the first time.
I would like to explain further to the Leader of the Liberal Party exactly why we put the words "or has planned," in the clause, Mr. Speaker, so that, hopefully, there will not be any more confusion on this issue.
This clause of the bill, clause 15(1.1)(a) "Work by a professional engineer," allows professional engineers to practise their profession on those buildings that require an architect. Now, examples of where a professional engineer would be required would be the structural engineering, the heating ventilation or perhaps the air conditioning; the systems of the building, Mr. Speaker. The clause says that professional engineers can practise their profession where an architect plans or has planned the building.
A construction project is a very dynamic undertaking. The work of an engineer and an architect may occur at the same time. However, the work of an engineer may also occur after the architect's plans have been completed. Removing the phrase "or has planned" from this clause creates ambiguity as to whether a professional engineer is entitled to practise engineering once the architect's work has been completed.
The Leader of the Liberal Party, when he was speaking, he was saying that what he wanted this legislation to do was provide clarity and that is what this clause does, Mr. Speaker. It provides clarity. His amendment provides ambiguity, and that is why we will not be supporting his amendment on this side of the House. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
As the Leader of the Liberal Party has pointed out, we were wanting to see clarity from the minister on some specific clauses, and I appreciate the fact that she has provided probably more clarity on that clause now than she has previously. Yet one of the other concerns that was raised by the Leader of the Liberal Party was the issue of designs that could be downloaded from the Internet and to what degree that could have impact, either favourably or negatively. I am not sure, all I know is that this was a legitimate concern that has been expressed.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) has to be very careful when she talks about confusion, because when she talks about confusion, the remarks and the comments that are put on the record are not necessarily from just members of the Liberal Party. These are concerns that have been expressed, right, so I think it is important that we be very careful and not insult others who might have participated in making this decision.
* (15:40)
Having said that, another comment that was made in reference was concern in regard to what impact this legislation will have on the overall number of projects for architects. Does the minister feel that there would be an overall increase, based on September 16, or is there going to be a decrease? [interjection] Okay.
But, as I say, these are some of the issues that were very clearly expressed, as the Leader of the Liberal Party, in addressing the amendment. The Minister of Labour, as we hear the other two amendments, I think, should at the very least listen and maybe respond to the concerns that have been expressed through us into these amendments and then provide clarification on all the points. [interjection] I appreciate that. I appreciate the fact that she will provide more. The example I give is the Internet.
So, having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am quite content to leave it at that. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is the proposed amendment to Bill 7.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: We will now move on to the next amendment.
Mr.
Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA
for
THAT Bill 7 be amended in clause 10 by replacing the
proposed subsection 25(1) of The Architects Act with the following:
Work that may be done by non-members
25(1) Subject to subsection (2) and any regulations, nothing in this act prohibits a person or firm from preparing or altering plans, drawings or specifications in connection with:
(a) the erection, construction, enlargement or alteration of a building,
i) that does not exceed three storeys in height
A. does not exceed 600 square metres in building area if it is a one-storey building
B. does not exceed 300 square metres in building area if it is a two-storey building or
C. does not exceed 200 square metres in building area if it is a three-storey building; and
ii) that is used or intended to be used for residential, business or personal services or mercantile occupancy or medium or low-hazard occupancy as those expressions are described in the Manitoba Building Code established and adopted under The Buildings and Mobile Homes Act;
(b) the erection, construction, enlargement or alteration of any building outside a city or town used or to be used for a private dwelling or for farm purposes or for out-buildings or auxiliary buildings in connection therewith;
(c) the erection, construction, enlargement or alteration of any grain elevator or grain warehouse;
(d) the erection, construction, enlargement or alteration of any arena with an occupant load of less that 1000 as described in the Manitoba Building Code;
(e) the erection, construction, enlargement or alteration of any industrial building as described in the Manitoba Building Code;
(f) the alteration of a building, provided that the alteration:
i) is under the direction of a Professional Engineer registered under The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Act,
ii) only affects or is likely to only affect the integrity of
A. life safety systems
B. the structural system or
C. the heating, ventilation or air conditioning systems;
(g) the alteration of the interior of a building, provided that the alteration does not affect:
i) fire compartments or separations,
ii) exiting routes,
iii) changes in occupancy,
iv) useable floor space; or
(h) any other work prescribed in a regulation made under subsection 1.1.
Regulation by Joint Board
25(1.1) The joint board may make a recommendation to amend subsection (1) if all the members of the joint board are in favour of making the regulation and the regulation is only made for the purpose of:
(a) enlarging, limiting or varying any of the matters set out in clauses 1(a) to (g); or
(b) prescribing other work for the purpose of clause 1(h)
Mr. Speaker: It has been
moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 7 be amended in Clause 10 by replacing the
proposed subsection 25(1) of The Architects–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The amendment is in order.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, this amendment is fairly long, because, in fact, it addresses a whole series of areas of uncertainty, and it attempts to look at what would be an approach to putting back the scope of practice for architects back in The Architects Act, which was what, indeed, many architects had asked for.
It highlights in this amendment, as we have put it forward, some of the areas where there was lack of clarity. We heard, during the days of committee hearings and the roughly 200 oral and written presentations, concern about the clarity around the 600 metres squared building area as described in the process, not in the act, but in the Building Code table. In certain other jurisdictions, the term refers to gross areas. The minister apparently wants to use the words "building area" and be consistent as that is also in the Building Code.
The concern that was raised was that you might be able to put fire walls between two buildings of 600 metres squared building area and get a building that had 1200 metres squared building area. Because that is three floors that would be not 1800 metres squared but, in fact, a building of 3600 metres squared. If you kept on putting fire walls or links, you could get a huge building complex that could be built under this legislation.
What we are looking for again is clarity. What I can say is this: What we heard at the presentations from the architects was their concern that this would be used for the potential for people who are not architects to proceed with this designing huge complexes of buildings. I talked to the engineers and the engineers said, "It is unlikely, for cost and other reasons, that engineers would put fire walls in between two buildings of 600 metres squared." I went then to the architects and I said, "What you are saying is that this would not make a lot of sense because it is not economic." The architect said, "The interesting thing is that as a building gets larger, you have requirements for sprinklers, you have requirements for steel and concrete instead of wood, et cetera."
So, in fact, the economics are potentially there that you could have big complexes. What I am looking for, from the minister, is a clear statement of the intent of the minister. What I have heard from the engineers is that their expectation is that this would be buildings of building area 600 metres squared and that this would not be used to build big complexes. I think it is important that we get a very clear statement of intent and a minimum from this government as to what their goal is.
* (15:50)
The second area of
controversy clearly was with regard to arenas and arena design. The concern was
raised that could you in fact design an arena the size of the MTS Centre
without needing an architect because you do not, at the initial phase, have
more than 1000 fixed seats. Well, clearly, there is the potential for loopholes
and uncertainty. Let us, at least, get clarity of the minister's intention. We
suggest this as a way to put clarity into the act, but that is something the
minister can decide or not decide to accept. We have chosen, in the
600-metre-squared area, a solution which was largely taken from practice in
The third area we are looking for clarification on, and we put it in here, deals with the alteration of a building. We heard concerns that, in fact, you would not need architects necessarily for the new Millennium Library. Well, that is a huge alteration to an existing building, and clearly, what, in fact, is the intent without necessarily going to the situation of a Millennium Library-type project? What is the intent here of dealing with alterations? We have put some measures here which would deal with the balance between engineers and architects and the role of interior designers and so on in the exemptions here. What we believe is that there is an opportunity for the minister to provide clarification and comment.
We have also put in here a mechanism for some flexibility or change. That mechanism would be that the joint board could make regulation where there is unanimity of the members, that those regulations would then go into the Building Code, and their third amendment will, in fact, deal with that issue allowing those regulations to vary these exemptions to enlarge, limit or vary the matters set out in clauses (1)(a) to (g) or prescribe other work for the clause of (1)(h). This would allow for matters to be brought forward without necessarily having to have the minister being an arbiter where there are reasonable and agreed to changes which make sense in clarifying these issues.
Our amendment here provides an opportunity for clarification and it provides a mechanism, if the minister so chooses to clarify these issues. It provides a mechanism, if the minister so chooses, to put a scope of practice for architects back in The Architects Act. We are offering this initiative after some careful consultation with a number of people who have indicated these concerns about lack of clarity because we think it is important that we have this legislation coming through as clear as it possibly can be and that is important to what is the impact.
The fact is that whether
more architects or less are required on projects than prior to September 16,
2005, will depend in part on the interpretation and how this act actually
works. Whether young architects have increased
Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, there are not that many days in this House that I am borderline speechless, but I have to say that I sat through 28 hours of committee hearings and so did my colleague, the Labour critic. We sat through 28 hours of committee hearings and I have to tell you that I certainly do not need any lectures from members opposite on listening.
I have to say, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that at the end of the 28 hours of committee hearings, I made a very clear statement of intent on this legislation. I walked through every one of the issues that the Leader of the Liberal Party is talking about right now: gross area, arenas, firewalls and alterations.
We will get a copy of that speech for the Leader of the Liberal Party so that it can provide clarity for him, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that our bill does provide clarity. I think that he might be a little bit behind here, in regard to what our legislation is saying, so we want to help him out.
In regard to the amendment, the second amendment that the Liberals have brought forward, there has been a long-standing dispute between architects and engineers as to the respective scopes of practice. For the last 15 years, the associations representing architects and engineers have been attempting to resolve this dispute but have been unsuccessful.
In the weeks leading up to the introduction of this legislation, my department officials worked very hard with the representatives of the architects and engineers, as well as the authorities having jurisdiction; the City of Winnipeg, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, interior designers, contractors and other key stakeholders to arrive at mutually acceptable language that would address the scope of practice dispute.
It was apparent, Mr. Speaker, that there was a need for a flexible legislative instrument to determine which work may be done by engineers, interior designers or non-design professionals. With that in mind, we chose the Manitoba Building Code to specify which work could be done by non-architects. The Manitoba Building Code is a regulation under The Buildings and Mobile Homes Act. As a regulation, it provides the flexibility that is needed. The Building Code is also the instrument that municipal and provincial governments use to regulate building construction.
The Liberal amendment appears to ignore
the fact that detailed discussions were undertaken with architects, engineers,
interior designers, the City of
We need more discussions on some of the areas of concern that were raised by architects and engineers. We now have a flexible mechanism to continue those discussions and continue that dialogue, Mr. Speaker, but it will be the elected officials who will make the regulation. That is who will make the regulation. I know it probably comes as a great deal of surprise to you, but we will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to say I enjoyed the lecture from the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan), but, you know, it is interesting, she says that she put all these things on the record. I think that what is important to recognize, much like, she put in a great deal of time as the minister responsible for the bill in committee, as she should.
I would suggest to you that the Liberal Party also put in a considerable amount of time, and listened, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest to you that the Leader of the Liberal Party put in more time than the leader of her political party in committee. So, if you want to get into the discussion about who cares more type-of-thing, I would suggest to you that maybe you might end up losing that particular argument.
* (16:00)
If, in fact, the government would have done what it should have done, it should have come back in, in September, to deal with this issue as opposed to holding it off. Then you get it into committee, and before Hansard is even printed, we have to put in the amendments. There is a question of process and concern.
So do not try to come across on some high horse, Mr. Speaker, that we are the ones; we are the saving grace for the engineers and the architects. The bottom line is it is because of this government's incompetence that we have had to deal with this bill in the first place. That is the reality of it. Had the government shown leadership in the issue and sat down with the architects and the engineers, this would not be here today, or we would have a bill that would have unanimous support. Do not be critical of the opposition because the opposition chose to listen to the presenters and raised the concerns.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with raising the concerns and trying to draw more information out of the minister responsible for the legislation. Do not be critical of what little respect you have of the Chamber, when we decide to use the rules to try to get more information from the minister who brought in the legislation. There was a great deal of concern in regard to issues like the fire walls, the scopes of practice.
Did the minister comment in terms of other
provincial jurisdictions? I heard the Leader of the Liberal Party indicate,
"Look, are we the only jurisdiction in
But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, once again, she has provided the opportunity to answer some specific areas which have been addressed. We are doing what we can to make sure that they are adequately addressed. If the minister has to repeat herself on occasion, she should not take great offence to it. I can assure you that there are members of this Chamber that have to repeat themselves many, many times. In fact, I would suggest to you that this is an amendment that the minister should have addressed in even more detail. Whether it was the engineers or the architects, the fire wall issue was something that both sides had raised.
To get clarification, I sat in committee when she was posed the question, and here you saw this design or this paper that was brought forward, and it had one fire wall after another fire wall after another fire wall. It looked like a maze of sorts. Her response was "Well, technically, yes, that could be done" or something of that nature. I do not want to put words in her mouth, Mr. Speaker. But the minister is quite capable and, hopefully, maybe in the next response to an amendment she might choose to be a little bit more. The more specific she is, I think, the better it is. That is, as the leader had indicated, part of the process of bringing forward these amendments: it is to try to get the minister to be even more specific, more concise on the concerns that are being specifically raised today.
Much like in the closing of the committee room, I had indicated to the minister that I would like to get some input specifically in regard to the interior designers and the impact of the decision and its legislation on interior designers. I trust, I hope that, in fact, she is going to be addressing that in third reading because that is what I suggested that she do because, again, even in the committee stage, the Manitoba Liberal Party has consistently sought to get information from this minister on some of the specifics of the concerns that are being raised by architects and engineers. That is what, in part, Mr. Speaker, this is about. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question
before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable Member for
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to the next amendment.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the MLA for
THAT Bill 7 be amended in
clause 17(2) by striking out "as subsection 15(2)," and by adding the
following after the proposed subsection The Buildings and Mobile Homes Act:
Building Code regulations
subject to Architects Act
15(3) A regulation made under clause 1(c) is subject to subsection 25(1) of The Architects Act and any regulations made under subsection 25(1.1) of that act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the intent of this–
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has been moved by the honourable Member for
THAT Bill 7 be amended in clause 17(2) by striking out–
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The amendment is in order.
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I will address this amendment. The goal of this amendment was to match the passage or the items which were included in the second amendment. This amendment will not, at this point, be necessary, but I want to use some time to speak to this amendment. I had asked the minister to tell us specifically her intents with regard to the construction of firewalls, the 600-metre squared building area, the issues around arenas, the issues around alterations, and unfortunately, the minister chose to completely ignore any of those specific issues.
She referred to a speech which is in Hansard, but in fact, it is not yet in Hansard. It is not, in fact, on-line, whether that is because we are rushing this legislation through. You know, the Hansard people are working overtime, so I am sure it has nothing to do with the situation in terms of the Hansard staff, but it has only something to do with the fact that the minister is wanting to push this through before this material is, in fact, available either on-line or in print in Hansard.
Although my colleague was there for when this was presented in committee, we were taking turns, it is very important to have this material in writing so it can be discussed and debated properly here when we have these issues in report stage. The fact that this material which the minister says is available in Hansard, but is not available in Hansard, because this material is not yet on-line, this is an issue and is a problem and is a reason why the minister should not be critical or on a high horse or what have you.
The minister could deal
clearly with the issue of the 600-metre squared. She could deal clearly with
the issue of the arena. She could deal clearly with the issue around the
alterations. The fact of the matter is that we put in here some suggestions
which were designed after what is in the Architects Act in Alberta, and yet the
minister clearly, as I talked about earlier on today, she and her government
are interested in subsidizing Albertans and creating a situation where there
may be more people moving to Alberta. She is not interested in using the
We would appreciate if the minister would actually address the issues we have raised rather than going on a rant and a rave about this and that. One of the things that we raised was an expectation from APEGM, from David Ennis, that architects will be required on more projects than prior to September 16, 2005, not fewer. Is this the minister's expectation? If it is, will the minister, in fact, be monitoring this to find out whether there are more or fewer architects being needed? Will the minister, in fact, be looking at the situation whether we have an exodus of young architects and whether, in fact, her government is causing problems?
There is a concern which has been raised
by me, by people in the
* (16:10)
Will the minister tell us how she is going to monitor the situation, how she is going to observe whether there are more or less jobs for architects, how she is going to measure and monitor the situation with young architects? Clearly, what is the minister's expectation?
The minister has an opportunity to talk specifically about what her expectation is with regard to the use of fire walls, what she will do if, all of a sudden, a lot of buildings are designed with fire walls in spite of her expectation, what she will do if there are a lot of arenas being designed which are using some modification of the number of fixed seats? What will the minister do if the alteration's vagueness in the clause is being used as a loophole?
Has she got any plans or is she just going to speak here as she did in committee? Tell us what her intentions are. Tell us what her plans are. I think that these are important matters which deserve to be addressed here in this Chamber, rather than referring to something which is in Hansard, but is, in fact, not available either on-line or in paper. She says that she will make this available to us. But she has not made it available to us, and we have now moved past that last amendment, and we are onto a new amendment.
So the minister seems to be promising things which she is not delivering, and we will give the minister an opportunity to talk and see if she will address the issue plainly and straightforwardly, rather than making promises on which she is not delivery.
Ms. Allan: I just wanted
to remind the members opposite that officials from my department phoned their
office shortly after we had done a briefing with the MLA for
In the first day of the hearings, and there were three full days of hearings, we made an offer, once again, when the Leader of the Liberal Party continued to ask questions of presenters in regard to some of the specific issues in the legislation. I made the offer again that I thought it would be a real good idea if they came to my office and took advantage of a briefing. You know, Mr. Speaker, I have never seen either member of the Liberal Party in my office to have a briefing on this very complex issue.
Then, Mr. Speaker, day three, day three of three very long days, 28 hours of committee hearings, day three, about halfway through the day, the MLA for Inkster comes up to me and goes, I am not kidding you, "Have you got a side-by-side on this bill?" I said, "Yes, absolutely, of course, we do. I will get that to you as soon as possible." He goes, "Oh, it is no problem, it is no problem. I can just have it any time after Question Period. Later on this afternoon would be fine." Then he comes up to an official in my office later that afternoon, after the side-by-side had been delivered to his office for many hours and goes, "You know that side-by-side, have you got that side-by-side yet?" We said, "Well, we delivered it to your office hours ago. Have you not seen it yet?"
So, yes, I guess, when you snooze you lose. I mean, you know, Mr. Speaker, I really, honestly believe in committee we made every attempt to provide information on this legislation. I made every attempt to provide clarity on this legislation. I have a speech that I said I would provide to the members opposite in regard to some of the concerns that they have raised, in regard to scope of practice, on gross area, arenas and fire walls and alterations.
I have made it very clear that these issues will be dealt with in dialogue with the two professional associations, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to work with all of the stakeholders, unlike what members opposite have done. I am not sure whom they have worked with, but they certainly have not had any discussion or any dialogue with the authorities having jurisdiction, who are a critical component, a critical stakeholder, in regard to the legislation that you have before you.
So, in regard to amendment (3), that the Leader of the Liberal Party has brought forward, it adds a provision making the Building Code regulation subject to The Architects Act. The effect of this amendment is to shift the authority for making future regulation changes about when architects are required on certain buildings away from government where it belongs, to the non-elected body, The Engineering Geosciences and Architecture Inter-Association Relations Joint Board.
It is the authority of Cabinet to make
regulations on behalf of the public interest, Mr. Speaker. This is the job that
government is elected to do. You talk about what goes on in other
jurisdictions. I know of no other jurisdiction in
Mr. Speaker, we will not be supporting this amendment.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, wanting to at least attempt to rise to the challenge that the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan) puts on the record, in terms of research, and, maybe, implying that we are not as prepared as we could or should be.
Again, the minister amazes me with the way in which she tries to portray opposition incompetence, when, in reality, the incompetence is not with the opposition. The incompetence is with the ministry. This minister has failed, and failed miserably, in being able to address this issue. I made reference to that earlier, Mr. Speaker.
You know, there are engineers that came
and talked to us the moment that the court decision was made, Mr. Speaker. Ever
since that court decision was made, there were aggressive discussions that were
taking place. You know, I would suggest to you that if I was to indicate, and I
hope I am not breaking any confidence by saying this, it was one of her former
colleagues, MaryAnn Mihychuk. I am sure she recalls who that individual is who
was very much concerned in terms of what the government was doing and the lack
of action the government was taking, and so forth. Do not try to come across as
if you have been on top of this issue, Madam Minister. The minister should not
be attempting to do that, because nothing could be further from the truth. She
tries to make a mockery of, "Well, oh, the member from
An Honourable Member: Three days.
Mr. Lamoureux: Oh, three days. I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because I wanted to be able to get a spreadsheet or a side-by-side or something of this nature. What is wrong with wanting to pull more information? How can you be critical of a member of the opposition for trying to get more information on legislation?
Mr. Speaker, we have it. I have it right in front of me. That is one of the things that we have requested. On occasion, I have requested it from other ministers, but most importantly, I listened, as the Leader of the Manitoba Liberal Party does, to the presenters.
I sat through hours and hours of those committee meetings, as my leader did, and I wonder whether or not the minister was actually listening herself, because the moment after the hours and 170-plus people made presentation, what was the minister doing? Twiddling the thumbs, waiting for her opportunity. So that everyone was done, "Fine, let us go; let us pass it," and, boy, they passed quickly. To what degree did she really listen to what the presenters had to say, Mr. Speaker? I believe the opposition was far more sympathetic in listening to what presenters were saying, and actually listening, than this Minister of Labour was.
* (16:20)
Mr. Speaker, we did
research, whether it was in
I do not need to be lectured on how it is that I should be researching, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the minister that I believe I put in just as many hours as that minister does in regard to my MLA responsibilities. It is a question of time management. And one minister says, "Well, I do not think so." Well, you know what? I do not have to justify my time to that government or to that minister. I justify it to my constituents and, at the end of the day, I can tell you that the constituents of Inkster spoke in the last provincial election when over 50 percent of the constituents voted for the Liberal Party in the constituency of Inkster. You lost that seat, and that is because you take Manitobans for granted. If you provide the opportunity for people to really communicate with Manitobans, you will find that you will lose out, and you will lose out big time.
You know, this is probably a great opportunity for me to get into the reasons why this government, through The Elections Finances Act, put in limitations to prevent communication. But that is another bill. That is something else that is a little off-topic, and I will remain relevant, Mr. Speaker.
But, when it comes to doing work, Mr. Speaker, or effort, I do not need to be taking any sort of lesson from the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan). I put in the best effort I can. At least I had the courtesy to go to the minister and ask for the spreadsheets. I appreciate and I still appreciate the minister providing me with the worksheets within that 12- or 14-hour time span of it. I did get the chance to go through it, and it is beneficial to be able to have that. I would encourage ministers, they should not have to be asked to be provided this type of information. It should be, virtually, standard procedure. If you table legislation, why would you not want to provide the spreadsheets? Why do you need to wait to be asked? If you want to ensure that there is a better response to legislation, then provide the information.
Mr. Speaker, with those few words, I think that I have had opportunity just to express–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, if you really like, I think I have 15, 20 minutes, and I am more than happy to continue the discussion, but I understand we are going to be into actually debate on the bill, and, out of respect for our engineers and our architects, because it is not a question of taking sides. I know the minister will try to give the impression that we are trying to take sides. That is not the issue. The issue is listening as to what our engineers and our architects are saying. These are professions that have a tremendous amount of respect, and we look forward, ultimately, to the bill actually passing.
But, having said that, Mr. Speaker, we
have challenged the minister to be able to get on the record, be more specific.
I hope in the third reading, when she starts to address the third reading, that
I would still like some of those questions answered. You know, again, are there
other jurisdictions, are there any other jurisdictions in
An Honourable Member: I
answered it in committee,
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, from
her seat she says that she answered it in committee. She said the
So outside of the
Mr. Speaker: Order. The
honourable Member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Having said that, maybe the minister will be able to get her comments that she was trying to get on in third reading. I would welcome those comments. The more specific information she can provide, the better both the engineers and the architects and the interior designers will be. So we look forward to the debate on this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question
before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable Member for
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
The amendment has been defeated.
Mr. Speaker: We will now move on to Bill 18, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Countermeasures Against Impaired Drivers and Other Offenders).
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to do concurrence at this stage now.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, I am sorry.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Allan), that Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts Amended), reported from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Any speakers?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
The reality is that, yes, we have read the
government propaganda on this bill. But we have also looked very carefully at
circumstances in other jurisdictions and we have noted what jurisdictions like
* (16:30)
The reality is that we would like to be a
province which is growing. We would like to be a province where there are lots
of opportunities for young people. We would like to be a province where there
are increasing opportunities for both architects and for engineers. We would
like to be a province which builds on the fact that we have a
We should also be building on what is here, which are very substantial achievements in engineering in this province, the network of centre of excellence, the ISIS network, the innovative sensing and innovative structures, that this is an example which is world-leading and that we should be making sure that we are building on the world-leading expertise in engineering and in architecture in this province, and building a future for young people which is second to none.
The sad fact is, we talked about this earlier on in Question Period today, that all too many doctors, architects and others are talking about leaving, or are leaving, and going to places like Alberta. That is something that we need to change. We need to create a much more dynamic private sector here in Manitoba, a dynamic private sector where there are incredible opportunities for engineers and for architects and for interior designers and for other people who are involved in building buildings and altering buildings, that these things are fundamental, that we should be at the very forefront because of the expertise that is here in architecture and the expertise that is here in engineering.
What is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, is that
there has been a significant dispute which goes back quite a number of years.
It goes back a number of years to when the Conservatives were here, and the
Conservatives decided not to resolve this fully. The NDP sat on this for six
years until there was a court injunction, and, finally, they were forced to
bring forward legislation to provide a settlement, a resolution to the conflict
between architects and engineers in
The fact is that this bill and this resolution were contentious. They were controversial. There were more than 200 oral and written presenters. There were many people who are concerned. There were many people who had looked from one point or another into this legislation, word by word, clause by clause, and the efforts of those people from a variety of perspectives should clearly be respected. The efforts that people put into suggesting options, to suggesting changes to try and improve this should be listened to and considered with respect.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what is important, that we have a level of respect and that we have from this minister a letter, a clear statement of the government's intent with respect to aspects of this bill which repeatedly in committee and outside of committee, subsequent to this bill passing through committee still continue to be raised in terms of areas where there is lack of clarity.
We still do not have a paper copy of what the minister said in Hansard. It has not been put on-line yet. It has not been printed. It has not been provided by the minister, as she said she would when we were debating report stage. Now, we have covered two discussions of two amendments since she said she would provide it. We are now into the debate on third reading, and the minister still has not provided the information she was going to provide, but we are going to go on, and we are going to discuss this bill at third reading. We are going to continue to ask the minister to provide greater clarity on what her government's intent is with respect to buildings in concern of 600-metre-squared building area, greater clarity with respect to arena-type buildings and where she sees the line being drawn, and greater clarity with respect to alterations of buildings. These are three areas which are fundamental which, time and again, in spite of everything that the minister has said, there still continue to be questions raised about how loopholes could be picked in this legislation in the regulations that have been put forward in table form.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to
talk about the
Scope of Practice, Part 1. The act says:
"Exclusive scope of practice and use of name.
"2(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person except an authorized entity shall engage in the practice of architecture.
"(2) No person except a registered architect, visiting project architect, architects corporation or architects and engineers firm shall
"(a) use any one or more of the names architect, registered architect, visiting project architect, architects corporation or architects and engineers firm, or any title, description, abbreviation, letter or symbol representing those names, alone or in combination with any other name, title, description, abbreviation, letter or symbol, that represents expressly or by implication that the person is a registered architect, visiting project architect or it is an architects corporation or architects and engineers firm,"
Now, I will not go on and cover all the sections of the Alberta Architects Act, but I will talk about certain sections. I would say that subsection (1)–we are now talking about clause (5) of this Alberta Architects Act–it says, "Subsection (1)", which I have been reading, "does not apply to a person who engages in
"(a) planning, designing or giving advice on the design of or the erection, construction or alteration of or addition to,
"(b) preparing plans, drawings, detailed drawings, specifications or graphic representations for the design of or for the erection, construction or alteration of or addition to, or
"(c) inspecting work or assessing the performance of work under a contract for the erection, construction or alteration of or addition to
"a building set out in subsection (6)."
Subsection (6) is the
section of the Alberta Architects Act which deals with the matters that we were
describing in the second amendment. I use this as an illustration, dealing with
certain measures or certain aspects of the scope of an architect's practice,
which are clearly present in the Alberta Architects Act. The minister seems to
have taken a very adamant stand that these matters shall not be put in The
Architects Act here in
* (16:40)
Subsection (6) reads, "The buildings referred to in subsection (5) are the following:
"(a) a building, 3 storeys or less in height, for assembly occupancy or institutional occupancy that,
"(i) in the case of a single storey building, has a gross area of 300 square metres or less,
"(ii) in the case of a 2 storey building, has a gross area of 150 square meters or less on each floor, or
"(iii)in the case of a 3 storey building, has a gross area of 100 square metres or less on each floor,
"(b) a building for residential occupancy that
"(i) is a single family dwelling, or
"(ii) is a multiple family dwelling containing 4 dwelling units or less;
"(c) a building, 3 storeys or less in height, for residential occupancy as a hotel, motel or similar use that,
"(i) in the case of a single storey building, has a gross area of 400 square metres or less,
"(ii) in the case of a 2 storey building, has a gross area of 200 square metres or less on each floor, or
"(iii) in the case of a 3 storey building, has a gross area of 130 square metres or less on each floor;
"(d) a building, 3 storeys or less in height, for warehouse, business and personal services occupancy, for mercantile occupancy or for industrial occupancy that
"(i) in the case of a single storey building, has a gross area of 500 square metres or less,
"(ii) in the case of a 2 storey building, has a gross area of 250 square metres or less on each floor, or
"(iii)in the case of a 3 storey building, has a gross area of 165 square metres or less on each floor;
"(e) a building that is a farm building, not for public use;
"(f) a relocatable industrial camp building."
That completes subsection (6), but it illustrates some rather interesting facts. It illustrates (1) that Alberta's economy, which is doing reasonably well, where there are good opportunities for architects and engineers–sadly, the NDP government here seems to want to subsidize people who go to Alberta, but the fact of the matter is that in this legislation, in Alberta, the Alberta Architects Act you have quite a detailed prescription. That prescription uses gross area rather than building area. That is interesting because, of course, the minister here wants to use building area. The use of gross area is, in some ways, clearer, less subject to argument. When you use building area, you can have a building area of 600 square metres, which already is larger than most of the categories here. But a building area of 600 square metres is, in fact, a gross area of a three-storey building, if there are no other specifications of 1800 metres square.
It is interesting that when you compare
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
I have talked about the first area of concern with regard to clarity, which is 600 metres squared and the minister, sadly, has talked more about other people, or how other people speak, or what other people have done in terms of using her briefing notes, but the reality is that we still do not have a clear statement from the minister in terms of her anticipation, her intention with regard to the 600 metres squared building area.
We are still waiting. Let me ask this question simply. What is the largest gross building area that the minister would expect ever to be built under her legislation without having an architect involved?
An Honourable Member: She will not answer that.
Mr. Gerrard: She will not
answer that. The opposition critic, the MLA for
Let me ask the question again. What is the
largest gross area of a building that the minister would ever expect to be
designed without the use of an architect? [interjection]
The MLA for
I am going to discuss, specifically, some of the comments that I have received from David Ennis, and I would like to thank Mr. Ennis for putting on paper, for the time that Mr. David Ennis has put in as the Executive Director and Registrar of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the province of Manitoba, for the time that Mr. Ennis has put into looking at this act and providing comments and helpful comments.
I would like,
specifically, to talk about a letter which Mr. David Ennis was kind enough to
provide. In this letter Mr. Ennis says, as Executive Director and Registrar of
APEGM, "The following is provided for your assistance in considering the
bill as it has been endorsed by your committee for third reading." This is
dated November 28, 2005, and, clearly, is an important perspective on how the
professional engineers and geoscientists of the
The engineers in the letter from David Ennis say, "Architects will be required on more projects than prior to September 16, 2005, not fewer." We hope the minister will actually monitor this. "Engineers and owners will not go to absurd lengths and the greater expense of inserting fire walls in buildings just to avoid the lesser expense of architects' fees." We interpret this as saying that the professional engineers and geoscientists believe that the designation 600 metres squared in building areas, when we are talking a maximum size of three stories, refers to a maximum size building of 1800 metres squared. We will expect that the minister would be looking at this and monitoring this and watching what is happening and whether this expectation is actually being met. This is an expectation of the engineers.
Mr. Ennis says,
"Young architects will have increased
* (16:50)
David Ennis says, "It will be engineers who lose opportunities, and the area of engineering will be permanently redefined as architecture and, thereafter, be closed to all engineers except those grandfathered. It is young engineers who will be denied the opportunity to follow in their mentors' footsteps." We note that it is important that those who have been practising in this area are, in fact, grandfathered. Clearly, where we have people being grandfathered, things can and will be and must be monitored by engineers and architects and the government in the future just to see what is happening.
But we would hope, I would say to David Ennis and to other engineers, that there will be more opportunities for engineers in Manitoba, not less, because we have a bigger and a better economy and a lot more going on here. That is what we would like to see under a Liberal government. That is what we would give under a Liberal government, instead of what is happening under an NDP government.
David Ennis says, "For both architects and engineers, the scope of practice continues to be in the respective acts. There is an overlap of the two practices. It is only the overlap which is more closely defined in the Manitoba Building Code, a regulation. As overlaps tend to change over time, and regulations are more readily changed, that framework is appropriate."
I would like to say thank you for clarification from David Ennis and putting on the record, which I have included now in Hansard, the perspective of the engineers, the geoscientists. As I said, I would hope that, except for four, where I hope that the opposite will happen because we need more opportunities for engineers as well as for architects, that the other things at least will come to pass.
We have been handed something from the minister to my colleague and it says "Plans from the Internet. Plans for Part 3 must be sealed by a design professional, architect or an engineer. The great majority of Part 3 buildings require an architect to plan the building and review the construction of the building. The only exceptions are industrial buildings and small arenas. For buildings that must be planned by an architect, an architect's seal would be required. An architect must use their professional judgment whether they will seal it or not. Buildings that may be planned by an engineer must be sealed by an engineer. An engineer must use their professional judgment whether they will seal it or not. Downloaded plans from the Internet without further input from an architect or engineer, as the case may be, will not be accepted by the authorities having jurisdiction."
I think it is important
to be clear on these matters. That is part of the reason why I make sure that
this is read into the record. The concern here is that buildings from other
jurisdictions are on the Internet, maybe not adequately adapted to the
The goal of the Liberal Party here is to make sure that we have a strong future for architects and a strong future for engineers and a strong future for interior designers in this province. We are trying to achieve greater clarity. We are trying to achieve a much clearer statement from the government with regard to intentions. I have raised, at the amendment stage, I have raised, at this stage, concerns that were raised during the long and detailed commentary that we received at the committee stage in the discussion of this bill. I think that it is important that these comments which come not from me, but come from me after having listened to many people and talked with many people on this legislation.
I think that we must build a strong future for this province and a strong future for architects and for engineers and for interior designers. That is clearly our goal here. We have listened carefully. We have found, in all the listening we have done and all the investigation that we have done, including what is in bills in other jurisdictions, for example, like the Architects Act of Alberta, that there are areas which are not as clear as they should be, and for that reason we are here to raise these issues.
We are here to bring them forward. We are here to give the minister plenty of additional time to make a comment to clarify. We have received something on plans for the Internet, but we have not received the written statement that the minister apparently has made on 600 metre squared and on arenas and on alterations and on these various other matters which it would have been helpful. We have not yet got a clear statement from the minister of whether she expects that the prediction of the engineers would be followed through or met, that there will be more opportunities for architects and for young architects. We think that these are important aspects.
We hope that the minister, in fact, will not only put her predictions, but put in place ways that she is going to be able to follow along and monitor what is happening and be ready to make changes. Certainly, if the expectations are not being met, if the expectations are not being met as we have been told that they should be, we in the Liberal Party would be the first to bring forward changes to address the problems in this legislation, if some of the dire predictions that have been made or the concerns about loopholes and lack of clarity are made.
So those, Mr. Speaker, are my comments at third reading, and that is what I wanted to have a chance to say. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 7, The Architects and Engineers Scope of Practice Dispute Settlement Act (Various Acts–[interjection]
Well, is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Before you start, I just want to clarify to the House, when we deal with a bill and if I see no speakers, I have no–[interjection]
Order. Just for clarification in the House, so there is a better understanding. If there is no one standing, then I am obligated to call the question. If a member is standing, then that means there are other members that wish to continue the debate, and I recognize those members. That is just for clarification of the House.
The honourable Member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take this opportunity just to
get things started. I do believe that the presenters, in particular, I would
like to spend just the first couple of minutes making reference. You know, we
have a wonderful process in the
Mr. Speaker, in somewhere around 13, 14 years in opposition, it is very few bills that we see as many people coming forward to express thoughts on a piece of legislation. In this particular bill, close to 200 individuals sat through the late evenings, many hours in the mornings and the afternoons in order to express their concerns in regard to the bill. I would like to just extend my compliments to those individuals who took the interest and came down to this Legislature and expressed their concerns and thoughts, in many ways, support for this legislation.
There were some critical names of individuals that came up time and time again, as we recognized, whether it was individuals like David Ennis or Don, who ensured that the stakeholders where aware of what was happening with regard to this legislation. I recognize that it took a great deal of effort. As two professional organizations, I believe, they did a wonderful job.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable
Member for
The time being 5 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).