LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
February 24, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House that Mr.
Speaker is unavoidably absent and therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I
would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I beg to present the petition of Rey Manguba,
Ian McDougall, Brent Tierney, and others requesting the government show its
strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the
Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It
is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
I
have reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices
of the House and complies with the rules.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It
is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
I
have reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices
of the House and complies with the rules.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It
is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
* (1335)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I would like to table the 1991 Annual Report
of the North Portage Development Corporation.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would like to table the Quarterly Financial Report, nine months ending July
31, 1991, of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 55‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), that Bill 55, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2); Loi no
2 modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail, be introduced and that the
same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reid: To give a brief insight on the purpose of the
bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is to afford protection for those who are
continually ongoing, day in and day out throughout the year, putting their
lives and the health and the financial security of their families at risk as
they fulfill the requirements of their job in the protection of society so that
we may afford them the same sense of security that the other members of our
society have as a result of their activities.
We bring this bill forward to provide that sense of security for those
who are involved in the firefighting activities and other areas of our
province, who provide that security for members of our communities.
Motion agreed to.
* (1340)
Bill 50‑The
Beverage Container Act
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I move,
seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that Bill 50, The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson, be introduced and that the
same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time for beverage
container legislation in this province to be effective. We have tried a voluntary system in the past,
but even the most optimistic of estimates would indicate that it manages to
recycle less than 50 percent, whereas container legislation similar to what we
are proposing in the
Motion agreed to.
Bill 51‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, Canadian health care is
under attack from all directions. This
bill will safeguard the most essential principle which has made it the envy of
many countries around the world. The
five basic principles of medicare are public administration, comprehensiveness,
universality, affordability and accessibility.
These are found in the Canada Health Act. It is time that we also entrenched them as an
administrative principle in
Motion agreed to.
Bill 48‑The
Personal Property Security Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 48, The Personal
Property Security Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les suretes relatives
aux biens personnels), be introduced and that the same be now received and read
a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 53‑The
Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard),
that Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises
dangereuses, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first
time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this
bill, recommends it to the House. I am
pleased to table his message.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, I would like to draw the
attention of all honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon twenty‑five Grade 9 students from
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Also, we have seated in the public gallery
twenty‑seven Grade 5 students from
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
* (1345)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Economic
Recession
Social Programs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, the recession has been
hard on Manitobans and Canadians. There
are 57,000 people unemployed now in this province, a 51 percent increase in
welfare recipients in the city of
During the Speech from the Throne, the
government stated that they are committed to maintaining and enhancing vital
social programs for Manitobans who are in need or at risk. Again the government's Speech from the Throne
promised that
My
question to the Premier is: Will he give
the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, firstly, I want to say
that we, I think, like all Canadians recognize with great regret the impact of
the international recession under which the entire world is reeling these
days. It is a recession that has gone on
longer than most economic forecasters predicted, and it is a recession that
none of us would choose to have facing our economy.
I
know that if the Leader of the Opposition is doing his reading, he is well
aware of how hard the recession is impacting other areas of the world, even
areas that have heretofore maintained strength over previous decades, places
like
In
our own country, under New Democratic administrations, we have in
They also, of course, limited their transfers
to schools, limited their transfers to education to 1 percent in
We,
Madam Deputy Speaker, have said throughout the past couple of years that we
have to be fair, we have to be reasonable, and we have to be balanced. The fact is that we have undertaken the
review of Estimates this year on that basis of fairness, of balance and of
reason as we look at all the services.
We
will do everything possible to protect services for the vulnerable in our
society.
* (1350)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary
question to the Premier.
Does the decision of his government to close
down the Manitoba Tax Assistance Office for purposes of helping people prepare
their individual tax forms effective May 1, 1992‑‑the 15,000 people
at low incomes in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, in keeping with the answer just provided by the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon), decisions with respect to providing service and the evaluation of
services, from time to time cause great difficulty, and indeed this is one of
the areas of decisions made by this government whereby it was a difficult
choice.
To
maintain the highest priority of this government, to maintain keeping hospital
beds open and maintain our health care commitment, certain decisions have to be
made. I want to indicate to the Leader
of the Opposition that we still prioritize those who have received free tax
preparation services by the government to the extent that those who are shut‑ins
will continue to have that service provided to them by government.
Furthermore, we were ensured by officials and those
people from the community that there is a growing number of firms, indeed,
Revenue
That is what the community tends to do during
difficult times. They tend to reach out
and help those who cannot help themselves.
That is what the community is indicating they are prepared to do for us
and relieve some of the debt burden of government, help us to maintain health
care services, and I would say, that is the better way.
Mr. Doer: Perhaps we could ask another question of the
Minister of Finance.
How
could he morally justify giving a $7‑million tax break to corporations in
his last year's budget and cutting back a very small amount of money that is
necessary in providing services to 15,000 of the lowest‑income
Manitobans? Is this the test of fairness
and equity that we see from Conservatives across the way in tough times, in
vulnerable times? Is this the kind of
standard of fairness we see across the way?
Mr. Manness: In case the Leader of the Opposition does not
recall, the benefactors of that reduction in taxes were those people who were
going to be trained and retrained, because of course there was an offset. The reduction provided was an offset against
the payroll tax instituted by these people across the way who have destroyed
jobs in this province for years.
It
all comes back in a tax way to the members across the way. They are the ones who have caused the wrack
and ruin in some respects, and they have the gall to stand up here and
challenge us for reducing taxes in support of training.
To
the member opposite, I say shame. It
comes back to you every time, does it not?
* (1355)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Since this Tory majority government was
elected 18 months ago, they have cut student social allowances, ACCESS
programs, home care and increased Pharmacare deductibles. Now we find that the Manitoba Tax Assistance
Office will no longer prepare income tax returns for low‑income
Manitobans.
Has
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) determined the impact this
closure of this program will have on Manitobans who live on less than $14,000 a
year, which is the ceiling for preparation from this program? Has he determined what that impact is?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
let me indicate, I am led to believe, and I can stand corrected on this, but I
am led to believe that we are one of the few provinces, if not the only
province, in
Let
not members across the way try and portray the fact that this is a service that
is provided all across
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are knowledgeable of
the fact that many accounting firms in this province are providing their
services through the organization free‑‑I will say free‑‑through
Revenue
That is the community working. That is the community reaching out to the
less advantaged in our society.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, did the Minister of
Family Services consult with the Minister of Finance prior to the axing of this
program, which will save the province less than $50,000 a year while costing
the most vulnerable low‑income Manitobans upwards of a quarter of a
million to half a million to have H&R Block prepare those taxes for them?
Mr. Manness: If the government had sensed that there was
not a fall‑back free system being provided by the community, indeed this
decision may not have been made. If
indeed what the member says, and using her supposition that everybody would
have been forced to pay extremely large fees to an accounting firm, maybe we
would have looked at it differently, but after we were given the comfort that
there were free services being offered by the community, then the decision was
made.
The
member may try to portray it as just another $50,000, but it was that type of
attitude that has the general purpose debt of this province at $6 billion, courtesy
of the members opposite.
* (1400)
Ms. Barrett: Will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
now guarantee those tens of thousands, 15,000 last year, low‑income
Manitobans, many of whom are senior citizens and have no access to those
volunteer groups that perform these functions, that those services which have
been provided by this government for 20 years will do what this government's
own program says and make sure that every Manitoban is entitled to all the
benefits‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Manness: I do not know what the member opposite has
against the community volunteering services to those in need. I do not know what about that model that the
member finds objectionable.
I
can say that Age and
Employment
Retraining Programs
Funding
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): My
question is to the Minister of Finance.
Public faith in the political system is not
enhanced when it appears that figures and dollars are manipulated by
politicians of all political stripes.
On
January 30, the federal government announced that
My
question is the following: Can the
minister explain why he could find $30 million in increased revenues on
February 17, when he could not find those same $30 million February 11, and why
he cannot invest in job retraining in the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Let me correct the
record in one respect, because it was attributed to me that there was a
reduction in equalization. There was a
reduction from the $55 million in transfers that we were expecting, because
there was a revision again within the corporate income tax and within the
personal income tax area. As it was
reported that the so‑called additional good news, the $55 million, was
now going to be reduced by $30 million, that is true in numbers but that is not
true with respect to equalization. We
got it on equalization, but we lost it on income tax and also on corporate
income tax.
The
net result is as a result of numbers coming in in a significant fashion,
varying in large measure over the last month.
Today we have fewer dollars to spend at the end of this fiscal year than
we did exactly one month ago. Indeed,
ministers of this Treasury bench will tell you it has impacted upon them and
the decisions that they are making on a daily basis.
The
reality is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that today we do not have the degree of
windfall that we thought we did a month ago.
Provincial
Revenues
Additional
Revenue Sources
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, that begs the question, the minister said he was using all of
the $55 million, and then when he learns that he in fact is not going to have
all of that money, he made the statement:
Although the reduction in payments is not good news, a better
performance in other areas of provincial revenues will save the province from
increasing its deficit.
Where is he coming up with this additional
revenue?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think it will be clear to the members opposite once I table the
Third Quarterly Report. I will be doing
that in advance of the budget. I expect
to maybe do that even this week, if not, at the beginning of the next, at which
time the forecasts of all the revenues and indeed the latest forecasts of
expenditures will be evident. In that
time, most of the questions that the member puts today will be answered.
Employment
Retraining Programs
Funding
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell this House today why he
cannot find monies for retraining, monies which are so desperately needed in
the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Well, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I had one source of revenue increase.
I had equalization within the three transfer areas of federal transfer
areas. That one area there was an
increase.
I
can say to the member opposite, I have also had reductions, and that will
become evident when I table the Third Report. Sales tax revenues have dropped,
consumption tax revenues have dropped, payroll tax revenues have dropped from
forecasting, so the reality is then, when you look at the government as a
whole, nearly $5 billion of revenue decisions are made, not on one line of
revenue, but the sum of all the lines of revenue.
Right today, the forecast of revenue for this
fiscal year is no higher than it was when I brought the budget down some
several months ago.
Home Care
Program
Nancy
Whiteway Case
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
I
would like to ask the Minister of Health if he has addressed the specific
request from Nancy Whiteway for a regular orderly in the evening to assist with
a bowel procedure and exercise requirements.
Has he moved to consider the general concerns of moving toward an
independent‑living‑based home care model so that people like
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, given that issue was in
today's news, I attempted prior to Question Period, knowing that my honourable
friend's research would be up to date, to try and determine how much we have
been able to accomplish since the writing of that article.
I
want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are providing a service. There was some difficulty in terms of
communication with the individual's physician in allowing us to proceed with a
resolution. We believe we have that
resolved and that we will be able to provide the kind of service that will
allow, as all of us wish to have happen, an independent living style for the
individual in question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer the second
part of my honourable friend's question, we initiated some year and a half ago
plans for a project wherein those requiring home care services might in effect
undertake those with their own provision of service, budget provided by
government. That is the self‑managed
care project which we have underway now.
I
am not certain as I stand today whether the individual in question applied to
access the self‑managed care program that‑‑
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not raise a single
question about the self‑managed home care program. That is a separate issue from the question of
an independent‑living‑based home care model.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, then I guess I will
certainly look forward to my honourable friend's input in debate of the
Estimates, because I believe when she indicated something to the nature of self‑directed
home care, that is really what the self‑managed home care program is all
about, where the individual is empowered to provide and retain their own
service providers with dignity and with respect for their independent living
opportunities.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: If the minister checks Hansard, he will know
I was raising an independent‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a
supplementary question?
* (1410)
Advisory
Committee
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
again my honourable friend seems to not be consistent in her approach when she
one day criticizes government for having too many committees and now today says
we should activate and bring forward meetings with yet another committee.
I
presume my honourable friend is referring to the implementation committee, and
she will clarify this no doubt at her next answer, which was put together to
attempt to bring forward action on recommendations emanating from the Price
Waterhouse investigation of the Home Care Program, which was commissioned by my
honourable friend when she was part of government.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I hope the minister studies his own briefing
book which clearly‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Advocacy
Office
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): My honourable friend
might want to take this opportunity to table the page of my briefing book that
she has. I may be able to update her
with a new one, because I am not always certain that she is up to speed.
Let
me deal with some of the issues that my honourable friend has raised in terms
of the Price Waterhouse recommendation.
We have implemented a substantial number of those recommendations. That
has allowed us to make much better use of the ever growing Home Care budget
which, as I pointed out to my honourable friend the other day, will exceed some
$57 million this year.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
Beauchesne's Citation 417 is very clear.
Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the
matter raised and should not promote debate.
I believe the minister has been out of order all three counts for most
of this Question Period, and I would ask you to call him to order and to answer
the very specific question asked by the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) does not have a point of order, but I would caution all honourable
members to use brevity in phrasing their questions and respondents to also
exercise the same brevity in responding to the questions.
Mr. Orchard: I will apologize to all members of the New
Democratic Party if I have provoked debate by providing truth to the inaccurate
accusations of cutbacks.
Point of
Order
Mr. Ashton: We just had reference to Beauchesne's, Madam
Deputy Speaker, and now the minister seems to be not only debating the issue
but debating your ruling.
I
would like to ask you once again to bring the minister to order and have him
answer the questions that were put by our Health critic, the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I had
answered my honourable friend's question.
Board of
Review
Chaulk
Hearing
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My question is for the Minister of Justice
and Attorney General.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General signed the Order‑in‑Council
putting Robert Chaulk in custody. The
minister appointed the review panel that reviewed his case, and the minister
received notice of the Chaulk hearing and is a party to it.
Why
did the minister or his department fail to make representations on behalf of
the public at the Chaulk hearing?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, on January 29, I
wrote to the Board of Review asking for further information with respect to
their recommendation about the release of this individual into the community,
asking that another psychiatric opinion be sought.
On
February 5, the law of the land changed and the government of
Government
Representation
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, my supplementary to the
same minister is: What procedures is his
department putting in place to ensure that when Orders‑in‑Council
are in place when a review committee sits that the minister does make
representation at the review panel hearings that are held so an event of this
kind does not repeat itself?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The problem that we have, Madam Deputy
Speaker, which stems from the Supreme Court of
Pedlar
Commission
Recommendations
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, my final supplementary
to the minister is: Why did the minister
not follow the recommendations of his own Pedlar Commission at page 62 and
notify family members and other interested individuals of the fact of the
impending hearing and the possible release of Robert Chaulk?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable member's question is a
good one. I will make sure that the
Board of Review is made aware of that question, because it is the Board of
Review, Madam Deputy Speaker, who releases these people. I would hope that the Board of Review would
also accept the Pedlar review recommendation, which is indeed a good one.
Clarification
Provincial Revenues
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would like to correct an impression that I left on the record with respect to
an answer provided to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs).
I
would just like to say that I had made reference to the budget as being the
last accurate forecast of revenues for the province. I should have referred to the Second Quarterly
Report, which will be updated in the Third Quarterly Report sometime soon.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable minister for that
point of clarification.
Health
Care System
Licensed
Practical Nurses' Role
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): My question is for the Minister of Health.
I
would like to ask the minister about the effective use of human resources in
our health care system. Madam Deputy
Speaker, there are about 2,400 licensed practical nurses in this province, and
they see the future of their profession in grave danger. While the other
provinces are improving education and expanding the role of the nursing
profession, here in
Can
the minister tell us: What is the future
of many dedicated and experienced LPNs in this province?
* (1420)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
my honourable friend is correct in that there is a moratorium at
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot give my
honourable friend a definitive answer today.
What I can tell my honourable friend is how we are addressing the issue
in terms of process. In January of this
year, given similar rumours that my honourable friend had indicated and rumours
around reorganization of staffing patterns which would see LPNs replaced with
registered nurses, baccalaureate nurses and nurses aides, I had my deputy
minister expedite an employer survey to indicate to the province what their
current staffing structures are as of today and to give us their best
projection on what those staffing patterns and needs should be five years out
so that we can begin almost immediately to tailor educational programs to
ensure the future of various trained disciplines in the nursing profession.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about
2,400 very experienced health care professionals. Their future is in grave danger and we are
simply asking a question.
Will the minister tell this House where the
LPNs who are currently practising or who are about to complete their training
will get a job in
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I cannot, and
that is not unusual, because ministers of health do not hire anybody to work in
the health care field with the exception of staff directly employed by the
ministry of Health. The responsibility
of hiring and staffing patterns in our institutions, which is the question my
honourable friend is no doubt posing, is the responsibility of administrators
within the health care system. They have budgets under which they are required
to deliver care, and within those budgets they determine the staffing patterns
appropriate to assure that kind of patient care delivery.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell my
honourable friend what the institutions will hire in terms of new graduates
from LPN no more than I can from RN or BN programs.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, can the minister at
least guarantee that all LPNs will be provided with the training and education
they need to practise the LPN profession in
It
is a very simple question. The
government set the policy. They are
providing the funding. They should have
the answer.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure which
direction my honourable friend was attempting to point Liberal policy.
Let
me indicate to my honourable friend some of the background that I had shared
with me in attempting to find out whether there was depth to the rumours
surrounding, for instance, St. Boniface
I
asked the very obvious question: What
has been the employment rate of graduates from that course over the last three
graduating classes? I am disappointed to
indicate to you and to my honourable friend that the percentage of employment
has been decreasing to less than something like 19 percent in the last
graduating class, only one of those individuals receiving full‑time
employment.
That is why we initiated a survey of current
staffing patterns and disciplines with a projection into the future, so we can
provide those kinds of answers my honourable friend wants for those entering
the nursing profession.
Consumer
Warning
Odometer
Rollbacks
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
On
Friday, the RCMP seized six cars from a
Since this practice may well be widespread
elsewhere, I want to ask the minister if she has issued a consumer warning to
alert the public.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, this issue has just been
brought to my attention. I will be
discussing it with my staff later this afternoon. Business Practices Act Restitution
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, has the minister used
provisions of The Business Practices Act to see if restitution can be obtained
for anyone who has been a victim of such transactions since January 1, since
this was made public last Friday?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated earlier,
this matter had just been brought to my attention today. We have received no complaints across my
desk, have been informed of this through the media and, as I indicated, we will
be discussing it this afternoon.
Consumer
Protection Amendment Act
Government
Support
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, will this government
support a private members' bill putting forward amendment to The Consumer
Protection Act, since other provinces seem to have such legislation?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated, I received no formal complaints on
this issue. It has been brought to our
attention today, and I will be discussing it with my staff later this
afternoon.
GATT
Supply
Management Proposal
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister of Agriculture a question regarding the issue of supply management
once again.
As
the Deputy Speaker well knows and most of the members know, concern is
deepening on this issue. My Leader has
asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who gave no satisfactory answers on this issue
on Friday. We have asked the Minister of
Agriculture why he has refused to support the supply management system, the
orderly market system in this country.
He has refused to provide the unequivocal support, even though 11
percent of our production in this province is generated from the supply managed
producers in this province.
I
want to ask the minister: Since he
refused to sign a document supporting this, will the minister admit that the
tariffication proposal that is currently before GATT will, in fact, result in
the loss of 80 percent of our production in the supply managed commodities and
as high as 95 percent of our supply managed producers as a result of this being
passed? Will he admit and is he prepared
to sacrifice‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1430)
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, on the question of supply management, I want to again, for about the
fourteenth time, tell the member across the way: We unequivocally support all
our farmers, including our supply management producers, our grains and oilseed
producers, our red‑meat producers.
We are at a very, very critical stage in the history of agriculture in
this province and western
We
continue to support this dual‑track, balanced Canadian position that was
basically formulated by producers and governments right across this country,
with everybody around the table. It was
agreed to some two years ago, and we have continued to support that
position. Without any weakening at all,
we continue to support all our producers in this province and all producers
across this country.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact
that we have an existing situation‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a question?
Mr. Plohman: Yes, I do.
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the honourable member for Dauphin please
put his question now.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, I would, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In
view of the fact that we have some 1,500 producers who are dependent on this
system at the present time, how can this minister say that his is a balanced
position when, in fact, it is jeopardizing those 1,500 producers in this
province? How is there any balance in
the‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy Speaker, all members of supply
management national associations were at the table when the balanced Canadian
position was negotiated, and they agreed to it completely and wholeheartedly. The members of those national associations
and the provincial boards continue to say that they do support the dual‑track,
balanced approach for the Canadian position at the GATT table.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time for Question Period has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Madam Deputy Speaker, could I have leave for a
nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the member for The Maples have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? Leave has
been granted.
Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great
pleasure that I rise in this House to recognize all participants in the Winter
Olympics from
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask all members
in this House to join with me in sending special thanks to the coaches,
organizers, competitors and, above all, the families who have acted as good
will ambassadors for
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I wonder if I might have leave of the House for a nonpolitical statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Health have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? Leave has been granted.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that all members
in this House will want to join with me, firstly, in congratulating the North
foursome who won the mixed curling championship and will represent
I
know, secondly, that all members in the House will want to join in
congratulating the fine community of Manitou in hosting the mixed curling
playdowns in
I think
it is appropriate that we also congratulate Weston's for their foresight in
sponsoring that very important mixed curling championship event in the
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Interlake have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? Leave has been granted.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, we too on this side of
the House, in accordance with my honourable member, congratulate all the
Olympic participants throughout
I
would also like to extend congratulations from our side of the House to the
mixed championship curling team, also the junior ladies curling team who this
past weekend won its championship to represent
We
here on this side of the House wish to offer our congratulations to all, in
curling, and Olympians.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call second
readings of the bills as listed on the Order Paper, to be followed by debate on
second readings in the order as shown on the Order Paper.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Second
SECOND
Bill 6‑The
Denturists Amendment Act
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les denturologistes, be now read a second time
and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to briefly
indicate to all honourable members that this act deserves their support. A bit of background: The current legislation under the Statutes of
That has caused some difficulty internally
with the denturists of
These changes have been discussed with the
Denturist Association and the
I
can assure the House that the public interest will be protected in this change
because government still retains appointments to the disciplinary boards of the
Manitoba Denturist Association so that citizen representation is part and
parcel of the amendments that will allow the denturists to self‑discipline
and license.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Motion agreed to.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister
of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 9, The Economic Innovation
and Technology Council Act; Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation economique et de
la technologie, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
* (1440)
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, since the election of
this government in 1988, we have been working to make
The
national recession, coupled with the legacy of high taxes and huge deficits
left by past NDP governments, has made the task of rebuilding our economy even
more difficult. Every province in this
country has been hit and hit hard by the recession. Comments of Premiers at the
recent First Ministers' Conference on the economy served to confirm that fact. Premiers of every political stripe are now
beginning to deal with the reality of their growing government spending, high
taxes and higher deficits.
Madam Deputy Speaker, today those Premiers of
all political stripes, those governments are talking about solutions that our
government began to put in action back in 1988.
To build a strong
We
have made the difficult decisions necessary to lay a solid foundation for
growth. We are working hard to create
and maintain the positive climate that will attract investment and encourage
We
have also begun to put in place a new structure for economic development in
By
focusing the policy development process in establishing a new organizational
structure, we will be able to continue our emphasis on government's fiscal
responsibilities through public sector reform and develop initiatives crucial
to getting the economy growing. In
November, we announced the creation of a new committee of cabinet responsible
for Economic Development. The Economic
Development Board will serve as a key focal point of our government's efforts
to encourage entrepreneurship, economic growth and job creation.
That board will co‑ordinate economic
initiatives across government departments.
It will create and maintain a positive climate for business and
investment. It will promote economic
linkages between industrial sectors in
The
board will also, of course, ensure that the Crown Corporation Council is
utilized to determine the best use of Crown corporations in stimulating
economic growth. That board will liaise
with the Round Table on Environment and Economy to ensure our commitment to
economic development in harmony with the environment is maintained. That board of course will interface with the
Treasury Board to prioritize government's economic support expenditures,
investments and policies.
The
Economic Development Board will be supported by the second element of our new
structure, the Economic Development Secretariat. The third and final piece of this new structure
is the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. During the 1990 election campaign I said that
innovation would be a cornerstone of the economic framework for
Indeed, most industrialized countries have
come to the conclusion that innovation and investment in technology are key
components for improving their competitive position. Similarly,
The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council will strengthen the working
relationship between government and the private sector by providing a forum for
consultation and dialogue. The council
will have the ability to identify the needs of industry and make
recommendations for a long‑term strategy to help
A
new $10‑million fund and the entrepreneurial spirit of Manitobans will
drive the new council. The fund,
financed by proceeds from the sale of Manitoba Data Services, will be used to
provide loans, grants and other financial incentives for research, economic
restructuring and commercial technology transfer.
The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council has been created through a
restructuring of the Manitoba Research Council.
The technical operation of the Manitoba Research Council will continue
without interruption under a division of the new council. However, to increase effectiveness and
broaden the range of
As
I said earlier, a $10 million fund will support this initiative, but it will be
driven by Manitobans. Only a few weeks
ago, on January 15, I announced the appointment of 29 individuals who will
spearhead the activities of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. They are outstanding examples of our
province's greatest resource, Manitobans themselves. These men and women are
innovators. It is appropriate that they
be on this new council which will highlight new ideas and new directions.
The
29 council members appointed represent the academic, business, labour and
research sectors of our province. Russ
Hood, who is vice‑president of UMA Engineering Ltd., will chair the
Economic Innovation and Technology Council.
Mr. Hood's experience and demonstrated ability as the chair of the
Manitoba Research Council will be a valuable asset in co‑ordinating a
rapid start on the work ahead of these special Manitobans.
The
council will draw upon the experience, ideas and strengths of Manitobans by
promoting dialogue, co‑operation and consultation between the major
stakeholders in our economy: government, business, labour, the research
community and the general public. By
widening our scope and identifying new economic growth opportunities, we will
harness these new ideas and put them to work for Manitobans.
The
council has begun consultation with Manitobans.
It has also initiated the preparation and development of the council's
operation and mandate. The council will
immediately begin to look at all phases of development and commercialization,
including government institutions and the allocation of government
resources. Their findings will form the
basis of long‑term recommendations aimed at taking advantage of
developing technologies.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Economic Innovation
and Technology Council gives Manitobans an important opportunity to play key
roles in building a strong economy. I
have said many times that government alone cannot generate real economic
growth. Our government has worked hard
to create a positive climate for investment and economic development, but it is
I
believe
Manitobans have a tradition of working
together in good times and in bad. Our
undeniable spirit and determination have helped us endure the most difficult
circumstances encountered in our past.
They are the solid foundation on which we have built our lives in our
province, and they are the keystone to a bright and secure future. Manitobans have the will and the desire to
succeed. Our government will stand with
them to build a strong
I
am giving every member of the House the opportunity to do that today. I ask all members of this Legislative
Assembly to join with us, stand alongside your fellow Manitobans, help to build
a strong
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, although it is perhaps a
little unusual, I would like to respond, I guess, to the Premier's (Mr. Filmon)
invitation, first of all, to become a part of this‑‑at least to add
our voice to the purpose of this bill, and I would like to do that.
I
listened with interest to the First Minister's words, and it struck me that I
have heard those words from this minister on many occasions. The unfortunate fact of the matter is,
however, that this government's words seldom, if ever, match its actions.
* (1450)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we just have to think
about the bill introduced in 1989 by the Minister of Environment with respect
to The Waste Reduction and Protection Act.
The government's commitment to that bill has been thoroughly
wanting. We only have to think about the
Chamber of Commerce's recent disclosure and comments with respect to the government's
Sustainable Development Initiative. This
government talks and talks and talks, but when it comes down to actually doing
something, this government seldom gets off the mark.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to be very clear,
just so the First Minister knows that no one is being buffaloed by this latest
initiative. In the 1989 Estimates book,
this government produced a set of Estimates for the Department of Industry,
Trade and Tourism which included $500,000 which it set aside for a
Madam Deputy Speaker, of course we have now
seen the refinement of that concept and the Premier's announcement to creation
of an Economic Innovation and Technology Council. We would assume, if you were listening to the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon), that the establishment of this new council would
have meant a significant increase in budget, a significant increase in mandate
and role, a further commitment to research and development initiative to
technology commercialization in the
The
fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be no new money at all
in this proposal. The First Minister
(Mr. Filmon) wants to say $10 million.
The creation of a $10‑million fund will never, first of all, be
spent in three years. The current
Manitoba Research Council received, prior to cutbacks by this government,
approximately $2.7 million per year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, unless the First
Minister is telling this House that he is going to add $10 million every year
to this new Economic and Innovations Council, then the government is actually
reducing its commitment once again for the opportunities of businesses, the
research community, the university community, to contribute to our economic
development.
Madam Deputy Speaker, before the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon) hobbles off on his crutches, he should also know that not
only did the government introduce a new budget line for the Manitoba
Innovations Council, and the same page in the same department, they reduced at
the same time the Manitoba Research Council's grant by $700,000. The net effect was a reduction in commitment
by this government to innovation and technology commercialization by $200,000
in the first year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, unless the First Minister
is prepared to stand up right now and put on record that the $10 million
commitment he spoke of will be an annual commitment, this is actually a
reduction in commitment to research and development in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, but even of perhaps more
concern‑‑we are not expecting this particular Tory government to be
any different than Tory governments elsewhere in the world‑‑their
commitment on paper to research and development is extremely good. Their commitment in practice is zero. Just like the Prime Minister of this country,
just like Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Filmon's proposal will not enhance research and
development in the
I
ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon):
Where are the programs like the technology commercialization
program? Where are the other initiatives
from this government which would lend some credence to the words that the First
Minister put on record today? They have
done nothing, nothing when it comes to research and development except cut the
resources available to agencies that are actually doing the research, whether
it is our universities or groups like the Manitoba Research Council‑‑
[interjection] Well, the First Minister says, no way. It is in his own Estimates book. It is in his own budget, tabled in this House
back in March of 1981, or April. I
cannot remember which now.
Madam Deputy Speaker, once again, we have to
look at the structure of this council.
We have to look at the structure of this council and determine whether
in fact it will ever be able to meet its mandate. I have no quarrel with the 29 individuals who
are appointed to this council. As
individuals, they represent much of what is good in our province: the innovative, the creative, the successful,
the dynamic. I have looked over the list
of the individuals, and I can find no fault with the names that have been
chosen for this council.
Is
the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) going to tell this House that a council of 29,
that may expand at some future date, is going to be a decision‑making
body, the kind of decision‑making body that is going to select the winner
that is going to participate with the university research institutions,
private, nonprofit groups, labour, others who have innovative ideas to contribute? Madam Deputy Speaker, this was not set up to
succeed. It is window‑dressing of
the worst sort. It is a continuation of
government as PR release, government as public relations effort, just as the
Chamber of Commerce said, just as we have said on many occasions when we talked
about the WRAP proposals, when we talked about the real commitment to The Ozone
Depleting Substance Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bottom line for the
people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, just look at the
principles that the First Minister enunciated as being the rule of this new
council. The Economic Innovation and Technology Council is supposed to do these
five things. First, the First Minister
(Mr. Filmon) says it is going to provide a forum for consultation and
dialogue. We all know that innovation
and change happen in areas sometimes where it is least expected. This forum, the creation of this body, is not
a necessary tool to take advantage of change in our economy, change in
manufacturing technology, changes that are occurring in terms of research and
development that is ongoing at our universities in particular. The
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk to the
First Minister about opportunities that this government has missed, opportunities
that the government has missed that would have provided a much greater impetus,
particularly to the manufacturing sector, had they been willing to take a stand
at the time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us first of all talk
about the National Research Council building on Ellice. When the federal government first planned
that building, it was to support the introduction, the creation of
manufacturing technology for the
The
federal government, in 1984, when the Conservative government was elected, what
did they do to the plans for that building?
Instead of having it directed at developing manufacturing technology,
which is sorely needed in the province, they turned it again into a PR
exercise. They solicited a number of
private sector companies, offered them inexpensive or free rent in the building
if they would at least put up storefront operations and say they were
conducting primary research.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, very little
constructiveness has come about as a result of a spending of some $100 million
of taxpayers' money on a building, the frittering away of an opportunity to
secure an innovative organization, agency to create manufacturing technology,
enhance manufacturing technology in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal government
and perhaps the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and some of his ministers have
realized that that restructuring of the National Research Centre has not
worked. They are now in the process of
evicting the tenants who are already there.
They are talking about now a new format, the new role for that
particular building, which is going to focus a little more on some health‑related
technology. Maybe that will be good, but
the fact of the matter is that the original intent of that building, the
intention to have researchers here to review, consider, expand and create new
opportunities in manufacturing technology, would have fit so well with our own
economy.
Unfortunately, we did not get the centre as it
was originally envisaged. Unfortunately,
since that time and the last three years in particular, we have seen really the
decimation of the manufacturing sector in the province. The Conservative governments, both federally
and provincially, were essentially silent as all of that happened. We find it a little ironic and perhaps a
little sad that today we have the introduction for second reading of The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act perhaps several years, perhaps
three years, four years too late to really salvage
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the
government and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) are going to use every
opportunity to promote the introduction of this act as some monumental
achievement in terms of restructuring
It
is going to be ineffective because this government has already missed the
boat. They have watched the
manufacturing sector be decimated‑‑[interjection] Ten out of 10, as
my colleague from Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) suggests.
This government has stood idly by as our
investment in manufacturing has fallen, as the manufacturing shipments have
sunk to unacceptable levels. As of the
end of November,
We
need some concrete action, and we need some action now. I do not care how quickly this council
formulates itself, how quickly it reviews its mandate internally, how quickly
it decides on a course of action, how quickly it begins to review innovative
proposals that come before it, it is going to be three years too late. Every day, every month, every year that ticks
by,
I
believe that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) believes that this PR exercise is
necessary at this time because the government is unwilling to make any other
kind of major commitment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's
preferred path to supporting the economy appears to be twofold: Keep your hands firmly tied behind your back,
and sell off whatever assets you can and call it progress.
I
just want to talk for a minute about innovation. When Manitoba Date Services was created in
the
First of all, again unless we get some
commitment from the government, we know that a three‑year commitment to
the Manitoba Research Council at a previous funding level would have meant more
than $10 million being spent on technology innovation. We want to see whether in fact the
government's commitment is not another well‑disguised, in this case, cut
in innovations research, which I predict it is going to be; that is the intent.
What is more is that the government, in its
wisdom, sold the Manitoba Data Services, a company which provided approximately
$3 million in profit to the government of
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the government had
intended to create something worthwhile, something that was to have an impact
on our ability to compete, I think they could have done a better job.
I
suppose others will have their time to comment on this bill. Whether in fact this is worthy of support, it
seems to me, is an open question right now.
Whether in fact it will live up to its very limited mandate I think is
an answer that needs still to be debated further. The mandate that it has been given is
extremely weak, extremely wishy‑washy; and, of course, the format, as I
said, the structure of the council itself, I do not think lends itself to
responsible, responsive decision making.
Although, of course, if the government
proceeds with the legislation, we will have to wait the test of time,
obviously, to see whether we can say that this council has been any more
responsive than the Manitoba Research Council, than other programs supported
and directed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, which in my view
has been very effective.
We
see the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and other ministers referring to the Health
Industry Initiative, which again was a program that was created by the previous
government and which has been quite successful in many respects.
I
believe that the government has decided to introduce this at this time to cover
up some other fundamental and I think quite serious errors in judgment, in
logic, in reasoning that have been put forward by ministers of the Crown over
the past several months.
We
heard today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) criticize members on this
side for their role in the province's economy as members of the previous
government. As I noted earlier, this
government has had a chance to illustrate in a very tangible way its commitment
to research and development, and we have seen financial cutbacks.
We
have also seen the government willing to lay the blame of its current economic
crisis and the crisis the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) referenced today,
and that is the continuing decline in revenues to the province from income tax
and corporate income tax‑‑serious problems‑‑and the
government still wants to blame the previous government.
The
Minister of Finance said today that the problem was the payroll tax. The Minister of Finance has tabled four
budgets. This government has not eliminated the payroll tax for the vast
majority of small businesses, medium‑sized businesses who were eligible
to pay a payroll tax. Just so the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) does not continue to put falsehoods
on the record, let us say‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): I have
not put falsehoods on the record. I have
not said anything. He is pointing his
finger at me and falsely accusing me of putting falsehoods on the record. I would ask him for an apology, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr. Downey) does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over facts.
* * *
Mr. Storie: Just so that the Minister of Northern Affairs,
Energy and Mines does not misconstrue what I have said, from his seat the
Minister of Energy and Mines said that they reduced the payroll tax for the
majority of small businesses in the province.
That is clearly wrong.
When the payroll tax was introduced, two‑thirds
of
* (1510)
I
do not even want to debate how many businesses remained on the payroll tax
after this government's four budgets. If
they believed that this was such a detriment, would they not have acted? Are they so stupid, so incompetent that they
cannot decide what is important to do?
Clearly, all of what we have heard from members opposite on payroll
taxes is either inconsistent or irrelevant as far as they are concerned or they
would have done something about it.
I
want also put on the record the findings of an independent group with respect
to business costs in the
Their analysis shows‑‑and I hope
members are listening and jotting this down for future reference because we
would not want to get these facts get lost in some future debate‑‑that
payroll taxes are higher in the
Finally, the provincial sales tax systems are
very similar among these four regions.
Taxes that are within the purview of the provincial government are not
out of line. What does this study
conclude? The study concludes that the
principal guilty party, if there is one, is the municipal level of government,
which has tax levels as much as 50 and 100 percent higher than a similar
jurisdiction of the
I
relate this only because it is important if we are going to really, as the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon) suggested we do, become less partisan and more
constructive. If we are going to deal
with the problems that confront small business and medium‑size business
in this province, or the problems of large business for that matter, we have to
deal from a basis of fact. We cannot continue to say this is the enemy or that
is the enemy when facts clearly refute that position. This government is as guilty of that kind of
behaviour as anyone.
The
press releases from the First Minister and bills like The Economic Innovation
and Technology Council Act, the restructuring of the cabinet committees, the
formation of the Economic Development Board of Cabinet, the Northern Economic
Development Commission by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) go
absolutely nowhere in terms of solving any of the problems that face us. They are PR exercises in the worst sense of
the word. They do nothing to inform.
They are not really designed to initiate, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are designed to obfuscate and
procrastinate, and not to resolve the fundamental problems that we face. That is what is wrong with this particular
act, not that it could not serve a purpose under certain circumstances, not
that there is anything wrong with the individuals who have been appointed, but
that it does not solve the fundamental problems, the very real problems that
our small businesses, our businesses face today.
It
is not going to be able, because of the structure of that council, to take
ideas that are out there today and turn them into opportunities in six months
or a year, Madam Deputy Speaker. This
council will not be up and operating, will not be providing support, research
support directly or indirectly for months at least. That is a tragedy because there are 57,000
people unemployed today, the highest level ever in the history of this
province. We have record numbers of
bankruptcies. We have businesses closing
and moving to the
For
the 57,000 people who are unemployed and hoping for opportunity, that is not
good enough. For the small business and
the businesses today who are closing their doors, not because they are bankrupt
but because they are not making any money and they do not foresee the
opportunity to make money, for them, closing their doors, it is a tragedy. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been asking
this government for months, years now, certainly for the last two and a half
years, to come up with an economic strategy that made sense, to do something‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that there are
other members who want to speak on the bill.
I am prepared to conclude my remarks, but I urge all members of this
House, including members opposite, to review what this bill is really intended
to do. If the government really believes
that this council has a role to play, perhaps not in the short term but in the
medium and long term, then I ask them to make the financial commitment to the
fund that will signify that commitment, that a $10‑million fund, which if
the fund is not fully committed in three years, will actually have been a
reduction to the commitment to research and technology commercialization. Then the people of
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with
interest to the remarks of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), which I
believe he opened by stating that he was going to do a nonpartisan discussion
in support of this particular bill. I am
waiting with some interest to hear his partisan speeches.
I
am going to make a few remarks on this.
I am going to be the only speaker for our party, and I am going to ask
the House to pass this bill today.
I
share some of the concerns which have been expressed by the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie), and I want to frame them.
I do not want to spend a whole lot of time talking about what is wrong
with what we are doing right now. I want
to suggest that we get on with doing something right.
There
is a problem with the way this particular bill is structured. I am going to talk about that in some detail
in committee, but I want to step back and just talk a little bit about what we
are trying to accomplish here.
We
have an economy that is very, very fragile and very risky. We know from research, which has been
conducted exhaustively and not in this last year but in this last decade or
two, that if you want to modernize your economy, if you want to be competitive
in the global economy which is upon us now, you have to invest heavily in
research and development, so heavily that they are talking about investments in
the order of 2.5 percent to 3 percent of your gross national product. In this province that would be an investment
in excess of the total budget of the Family Services department. It would be an investment between $650
million and $700 million.
Now
that investment level, it has never been suggested that government do all of
that. In some countries of the world,
the government plays a very small role.
In the
* (1520)
One
of the things that we know in this province is that private‑sector
investment, because of the relatively small base and the relative fragility of
this economy, follows public‑sector investment. We are currently investing in research and
development, if you squeeze the figures as hard as you can, at about one‑third
the level we should be. So an initiative
which comes along which says that we are going to focus our intention on
investing‑‑and I think I liked one of the lines here in this bill,
Section (c) of the Objects. It says,
working to bring about a substantial shift in the
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I believe we have to make that shift. I believe if we are to
survive, if we are not to shrink any further, if we are to grow in this decade
and into the year 2000, that we have to make exactly that shift. I think that what is stated here in the
objectives of this council is precisely right.
I
note with some interest that the same observation was made back in the late
'70s and early '80s. There was an attempt,
through the early '80s, to build exactly that kind of base here in
I
note also with some interest a meeting I had a couple of weeks ago with some
people from the telecommunications research group in
You
know, simply funding a research, or funding somebody to do some pure research
in this area, while it may be interesting, is not going to have the kind of
ability to shift the economic base of this province unless you build a critical
mass in your research community that allows you to truly interact with the
global community and truly gives access to local manufacturers to commercialize
and to bring into production and to bring ultimately to sale the products of
this research.
The
problem that I have‑‑I think there are two or three of them that I
want to point out, and I am going to attempt to discuss these with the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) and hopefully we can see some friendly amendments to this bill to
attempt to step back from one of the problems that I fear.
Let
me just deal with one small item. The
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) talked about it‑‑a $10‑million
commitment versus a $400‑million shortfall is unsubstantial and
insignificant. Any money in this area is
good and you cannot immediately move from zero to say a $200‑million
commitment overnight. You have to build
up to it. I think the government has to
recognize if it is not to be guilty of the charge of window dressing that we
are looking for a very substantial commitment over time, that the government
has to divert more and more of its resources into this area if we are going to
see the kind of economic growth in this province that we wish to receive.
We
have an opportunity; an opportunity is going to be upon us come 1994‑1995. As the very heavy investment in the northern
part of this province begins to bear fruit we will see an opportunity in the
growth in this province. I would hope
that the government would increase its investment so that we can get it up
somewhere approaching what are considered to be acceptable standards, at least
internationally, in this province. I
think in a small province one has to exceed international standards if one is
going to have the kind of impact that the government hopes to have with the
passage of this bill and the institution of this council.
The
problem I have is that I think the government has founded the council on very,
very shaky ground. I think it is simply
going to create the same problem that it is now attempting to undo that was
created earlier. It is critical of what
the former government did, so it is going to undo that and it is going to
rebutton things together in its own form.
All of the appointments to this council are by Order‑in‑Council. All of the major decisions are controlled
through Order‑in‑Council.
There is no ownership of this council by the stakeholders and there is
no depoliticization of this very important activity.
If
I have one recommendation to make to the government, it is that we look for a
mechanism that allows the government to step back from this council, that
allows the government to truly root it in this province in a way that, should
the government change, that the council is able to continue and do its work.
I
would ask the government to seek the advice of the opposition, and I say this
quite seriously, to ensure that the people who are appointed to that council
are the kind of people that this Chamber is going to support. I would go so far as to suggest that we look
for ratification of the leaders of this council so that, should the government
change, the council not change. You
cannot have well‑structured research going on to create the kind of
change you want to change if you are going to change the people who are doing
it every four or eight years. All we are going to have is exactly what the member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) was referencing, which is a bone thrown to those
people in that community, not a sincere and serious attempt to change the
structure of the economy in this province.
We
have an opportunity coming. We have an
opportunity to build a significant and important research base in this
province. We need it desperately. I am going to be asking the government to
consider through two or three mechanisms the ways in which they may involve the
stakeholders in this community a little more heavily in the operation and
ongoing management of this council.
A
small item is the way in which the board is structured. I do wonder about a council of 35
people. I wonder about the effectiveness
in a body of that size in making the kinds of decisions it has to make and
doing the kind of targeting that it has to do.
I have serious concerns about the degree to which the cabinet is
involved in the operation of this council.
I think the fact that all members are appointed for one term and there
is no staggering in the appointments means you are going to see tremendous
instability in the way in which the council is structured.
I
will, as I have said, come forward with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) who is the
sponsor of this bill, with some discussions on how it might be restructured
that would give it the unanimous support of this Chamber, and I think it is too
important for it to have less. With
that, I would ask that this bill get passed so that we can get down to the work
of getting the council going.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 21‑The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): I move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 21, The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les parcs
provinciaux), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: I was testing the mood of the House, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to see whether or not the bill might not be passed. There is no
incumbency on anybody to explain the bill unless somebody asks for an
explanation or waive introduction, but I am pleased to provide a brief
explanation of the bill before us.
Bill
21 is not a complicated or a long piece of legislation. It is a bill that has
to do with fairness, and honourable members will recognize it as such. Having said that, I do not suggest that there
will not be some concerns expressed. It
can, I suppose, be regarded as a taxation bill, if you like, of some kind.
* (1530)
Over
the years, it has been drawn to the attention of the provincial government‑‑not
just this government, but I know to my predecessors of the New Democratic Party
as well‑‑that a situation was developing in our park system that
needed to be addressed, namely this, that a growing number of Manitobans chose
to make their parks their permanent residence.
We have situations that are getting to concern local and municipal
governments, particularly up in the LGD of Consol and The Pas area, where the
We
have a growing number of residents who found it convenient to make the park
their principal residence, but in doing so, avoid paying any and all local and
municipal taxes. It is simply not fair,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
The
school division sends in school buses.
The provincial government, we find ourselves having to maintain and plow
all those roads on a year‑round basis, because the Minister of Education
and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) would not think highly of her colleague the Minister
of parks and Natural Resources if I failed to do that. I think there is even a provision in the
education act that commands me to do so.
All of this is being done, and there is no legislative means available
to collect taxes.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this is a somewhat arbitrary measure. It has been suggested
that‑‑in fact, the cabinet of this government passed this measure I
believe some two years ago, two summers ago, that because we do not have an
assessment process within the park system that an arbitrary figure, and it has
been talked of in the area of $500, be assessed as a fair measure to bring Bill
21, The Park Lands Amendment Act, which makes it possible for the government to
bring in some fairness to the taxation regime for those persons who have chosen
to make the park their permanent residence.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have another group of people who in a similar way have
managed to avoid taxation‑‑well, it is not really fair to say
taxation‑‑fees or charges that we impose under The Park Lands Act,
and that is, we have people, and this may be not known to all, particularly in
one of our major parks, the
These
people who live on private property within the park do not have to pay it. Most of them have paid it in the past, but
growing numbers of them in recent years have found out that if they do not pay
it, there is nothing this Minister of Natural Resources or any other Minister
of Natural Resources or parks commissioner could do about it. We have had a growing number of people simply
taking advantage of it, and our accounts receivable have been growing, or
uncollectible have been growing.
Again,
it is a question of fairness, Madam Deputy Speaker, that just about half of the
people who are in such a situation on private land do not legally have to pay,
do pay their service charges that the department sends them, because they
acknowledge the fact that they are in fact getting services, and nothing is
free in this world.
You
can understand that if their neighbours are not paying, that creates a
situation that is not satisfactory.
While none of us particularly enjoys any new imposition of fees or
taxation, we particularly do not like them if we feel that they are not being
fairly imposed and fairly dealt with.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, these in essence are the two brief amendments that are
contained in Bill 21. I would ask
honourable members to allow the bill to proceed to committee. There will no doubt be representations made
at committee.
I
know for instance particularly that there is an association of private
landowners within the parks. Their
position really has been not so much that they object to the payment of these
fees but they would like a greater voice in the types and kinds of services
required or demanded by the park users.
That is fair ball. We will no
doubt expect to hear from some of these people when this bill is at committee
stage.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, with those few words I commend Bill 21 for the consideration of
members opposite in the hope that it is a fairly straightforward bill and that
it could be dealt with with some expedition.
Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst), that Bill 22, The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les permis relatifs aux exploitants de
camps de chasse et de peche et aux pourvoyeurs et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres dispositions legislatives), be now read a second time
and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) indicates that this initiative sounds like a
very good idea. I want to assure him it
is.
It
is not a complicated bill. What it in
essence does though is, it moves the unit within government that has the
responsibility of supervising, licensing and dealing with lodges and outfitters
in
There
has always been a very close relationship between the two departments. It is essentially the Department of Natural
Resources that is required to do the background work, the investigation. An application comes in for a tourist lodge
or a fly‑in fish camp to be located in the
It
was felt, in the interests of simply making it a little easier to do business
with the government, that it would be a suitable move to move this function of
government, namely, the unit‑‑it is not a large unit‑‑that
looks after the affairs of lodges and outfitters, into the Department of
Natural Resources, in essence, Madam Deputy Speaker, a housekeeping change in
where the shop is going to be housed from the Trade and Technology department
to the Department of Natural Resources.
Again,
I commend the bill to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* (1540)
Bill 34‑The
Surveys Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Government
Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 34, The Surveys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'arpentage), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Let us pass this one just to show how it can
be done. Come on, Clif.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, encouraged as I am by
my colleague the Minister of Health, let us see if we cannot set into motion,
in the spirit of co‑operation, this very substantive bill that is before
us, Bill 34.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, all that this bill does is, in that very interesting part of my
department called Surveys and Mapping, which is the department that produces a
host of maps and other information, that it be allowed, by ministerial
regulations, from time to time, to make changes to the costs of the products
provided. Right now, it has to be done
by costly Order‑in‑Council amendment. Order‑in‑Council is a costly
procedure.
Very
often, simply not getting it on a cabinet agenda can mean that a new product
line that this division reports does not get priced properly and can mean
losses of generation of revenue upwards to a hundred thousand dollars, I am
told, to the province of
I
would ask honourable members to look at this particular bill and see whether or
not we cannot mark progress today by having the bill committed to the
committee. I assure the honourable
members that, if there is any question with respect to technicalities of the
bill, they will have an opportunity to ask them directly of the director, Mr.
Leeman, of the branch, who would make himself available at committee stage to
answer any questions.
With
those few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend Bill 34 to the consideration
by honourable members of this Chamber and hope that it will survive the
rigorous examination by honourable members opposite and be speedily passed into
law. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the debate be
adjourned.
Point of
Order
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, with leave, I would like
to address this bill.
I
have no objection to it remaining standing in the name of my friend. However, I would like to make my comments
today.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. James have
leave to now speak to this bill?
Agreed? Leave has been granted.
* * *
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened
intently to the minister's comments. I
must say I am a long way towards being persuaded that this looks to be in the
public interest. I do not say that
without reservation, because I have learned from experience that is important,
of course, to canvass these matters completely at the committee stage. I acknowledge and appreciate that the
minister will be bringing further officials from his department to explain the
complete ramifications of this bill.
I
recall, I believe, last year or a couple of sessions ago, when we had a similar
such bill in this similar area, we did have some strong debate. There were some representations from the
surveyors' association, I believe, and there was a problem which, frankly, I
would not have caught and I do not think my friends did, in either of the other
two parties, until‑‑ [interjection] We are all friends in this
House, for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)‑‑the association
showed up at the committee stage and pointed something out to us. I recall that there were amendments made, so
I want to remain cautious and open minded with respect to any indications which
would make me think otherwise.
I
generally, of course, as an opposition member, like to see things go through
the Legislature as opposed to going through by executive authority and Orders‑in‑Council,
because it is not a good way to make legislation without going through the
Legislature. However, the regulation‑making
power is an essential part of a modern parliamentary system. There has to be some way to set things
differently in an ongoing fashion, as long as they do not deal with the
principles involved in the bill. If they
are working out the principles in the bill, then that is one thing, and
regulations are appropriate to be made in those circumstances.
By
giving to the minister the ability to establish the tariff of fees that may be
charged for these materials, I do not see a major problem, I must say. I think it is important to give the minister
that ability to charge reasonable fees to Manitobans for the services rendered
by the department.
I
look forward to consideration of this matter at committee stage. I do, of course, appreciate the commitment
that there will be experts available to answer all questions and talk about the
fees as they have been and also give us some indication of where they are going
and what increases are expected.
With
those, our party will close comments on this bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Bill 42‑The
Amusements Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): I would like to move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 42, The
Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements be now
read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Motion presented.
Mr. Praznik: I can see my colleague the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is eager, obviously, to debate this particular piece of
legislation in due course, whether it be today or on another occasion.
This
particular piece of legislation, as members gather, is the repeal of the
licensing provisions under The Amusements Act for projectionists. I must say that it is a piece of legislation
that I inherited, as I think most Ministers of Labour have done over the years,
that represents a licensing scheme for which technology has passed on and made
quite redundant.
It
seems this piece of legislation comes up or has come up on a regular basis for
well over a decade. Mr. Acting Speaker,
I believe that it has been brought forward by numerous Ministers of Labour.
This
same provision was included, I believe, in statute law amendment last
year. The president of the
projectionists' union appeared before that committee and raised some
concerns. We withdrew it. I had the opportunity to speak with that
particular individual and have a discussion about the history of these
provisions and the concern that the projectionists' union had.
* (1550)
Just
by way of history, Mr. Acting Speaker, this particular legislation was
initially introduced several decades ago.
It was designed to provide protection for the filmgoing or the movie‑house‑going
public.
Given
the nature of the flammable film and carbon‑arc lamps that were used in
theatres decades ago throughout most of our province‑‑some are
still in place in terms of carbon‑arc lamps‑‑this legislation
was designed to ensure that projectionists operating in the province were very
familiar with the carbon‑arc lamp technology of the day and the highly
flammable film that was being used and that they would know how to operate what
were essentially very dangerous materials and equipment.
However,
since that time the type of technology used in movie theatres, the type of
projection equipment, the type of film have changed dramatically and the risk
for which this legislation was intended have long since left.
What
I would like to raise for members opposite, just by way of history, is back in
the late '70s and early '80s, theatre owners from across, particularly rural
The
compromise that was worked out interesting enough, that that individual, the
president told me that he had worked out with Mr. MacMaster, was that the
legislation could be repealed for rural theatres but would remain in place for
theatres located, I believe, in
Now,
if one just thinks about this for a moment, what the Legislature of the day
said was that it is okay to be in a so‑called dangerous situation in
rural theatres or in
Well,
you cannot just logically maintain a set of standards that are applicable in
one jurisdiction in your province while not in the other. Quite frankly, it was an arrangement that I
think was worked out to accommodate the projectionists' union. The difficulty,
of course, today as we review our legislation, and other Ministers of Labour,
through the decade that followed that amendment, have obviously looked at this
legislation and have come to the conclusion that there really is no need for
today, given the improvements in technology and film. It has become a redundant piece of
regulation.
I
would just like to refer all honourable members to some of the facts with
relation to this licensing provision.
The last exam written under this legislation was on December 12, 1988.
Prior to that, we averaged some seven exams in '86, '87 and '88, but we have
not had one request for an examination since December of 1988.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would also like to refer other members in my discussions with
the president of the union and recognizing their concern with respect to their
qualifications and their negotiating room, we negotiated with the president and
with the projectionists' union. The
Department of Labour issued to the current members of the projectionists' union
who were licensed under that act, some 44 individuals, we issued a certificate
of proficiency certifying that they had completed the requirements for
registration as a projectionist. I would
like to table a copy of the certificate that the department has issued to the
44 individuals who are currently members of that projectionists' union and have
licences under the act, so I table that for the information of the House.
I
would also, and I am sure the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will take note
of this particular fact‑‑we noted in the collective agreements that
the projectionists' union has signed with various theatre companies. I would like to refer to their most recent
one, the agreement of Local 299 of the International
Also,
Section 2.05, and I quote: the union
agrees to furnish competent and efficient projectionists to perform work as
required by the company under the provisions of the collective agreement.
Furthermore,
there is no reference in this agreement to the licensing provisions or carrying
them out, although they do make reference to ensuring that none of their
activities contravene the provisions of The Employment Standards Act. Also, in this agreement, in Article 9.01, the
projectionists agree to provide training for new projectionists coming into the
field and working with the employer to ensure that new projectionists are
properly trained. Nowhere in these
collective agreements‑‑and I am sure the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) will take note of this particular fact‑‑nowhere in these
collective agreements does the projectionists' union require or indicate that
they will provide licensed projectionists to the employers, only competent
projectionists.
The
same kind of provision, a very similar provision, was in place in their
agreement which they signed‑‑I would have the member for Thompson
take note of this fact‑‑in their collective agreement dated 1st of
May 1987 with Cineplex Odeon Corporation. The same provision is in the
agreement that they would furnish competent projectionists, not licensed
projectionists. So it is clear, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that the projectionists' union has recognized that the
licensing requirements are not really required as they were decades ago when we
had very flammable film and we used carbon arc lamp projectors throughout the
province. They have recognized that in their collective agreement.
We
have worked the union to provide a certificate of proficiency to the current
holders of that licensing agreements. It is the position of the government that
it is time to update our safety legislation to ensure that it is
realistic. As far as the concern that
the union president reflected at the committee about their concern about
providing qualified people for projectionists, they do not even reference the
licensing provisions in their collective agreement. We have provided the certificate of
proficiency, and we think that with this particular piece of legislation that
provides for no safety whatsoever in rural
Thank
you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by
the member for
Motion agreed to.
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Government
Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 45, The City of
Motion presented.
* (1600)
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Acting Speaker, Bill 45, before us today,
contains legislation which will enable Headingley to withdraw from the City of
Unlike
most suburban residential communities in
This
bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, represents the culmination of protracted and
contentious deliberations on the future of Headingley. The government's decision to permit
Headingley to hold a referendum on secession and its decision to bring forward
this bill were not made lightly. In
1986, the Cherniack Commission recognized the problems related to Headingley,
and I would like to comment briefly from the Cherniack Commission on page 73. They are referring to the Headingley area.
It
says in part‑‑
An Honourable Member: Was Cherniack the elder or the younger?
Mr. Ernst: The younger.
The committee is not in a position to provide a specific description of
the western boundary at this time‑‑western boundary, in this
report, refers to the western boundary of the City of
That
was in 1986; today it is six years later.
During this period a busy planning statement or development plan should
be prepared as the study goes on for the area.
One of the main objectives of this plan should be to establish policies
and an official land‑use plan to safeguard Headingley's future as a
predominantly rural environment adjacent to the city. Headingley's residents
must be given the opportunity to participate fully in this process and in the
decisions that may be taken as a result.
That is what the Cherniack Commission said in 1986 with regard to the
Headingley area.
In
1987, Mr. Acting Speaker, a study on the viable options for the future
governance of Headingley was commissioned by the then Minister of Urban
Affairs, now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), the father of the
secession of Headingley. There we have
the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) as the captain who launched the ship of
independence for Headingley‑‑the captain who launched the ship of
independence for the community of Headingley.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, a strategy for community improvements was developed and adopted
by both levels of government, provincial and municipal governments. The city was given the opportunity to prepare
an effective action plan that would articulate the community's future
development objectives within the city of
The
province recommended to the city the use of a lower rate of taxation for
unserviced large lot residential areas such as Headingley. That approach failed. Unfortunately, Mr. Acting Speaker, a workable
solution satisfactory to all parties could not be reached, and the Headingley
community renewed its request that the government permit a referendum on
secession to be held.
Unable
to find a satisfactory resolution to Headingley's concerns, the government
agreed to let the Headingley community vote on whether it wished to withdraw
from
Mr.
Acting Speaker, many have criticized the government's decision to allow
Headingley to secede on the grounds that it signals the beginning of the end of
Unicity. [interjection]
There
is the perception that by permitting Headingley to withdraw from the city of
Let
me assure the House that the government is fully committed to the concept of
Unicity. The government does not
encourage or support the dismantling of Unicity. In our view, this would be
counterproductive. To conclude that
because we agreed to Headingley's secession we would therefore permit any other
community to become an independent municipality is also an incorrect
assumption. In fact, this bill does not
allow for the creation of cities at all.
This bill allows for rural municipalities, towns and villages only.
Headingley
is fundamentally different from most areas in the city of
Equally
important is the fact that under current plans of the City of
The
cost to
There
is not enough unifying Headingley with the remainder of
Another
concern, which has been expressed repeatedly about the prospect of Headingley
seceding, is the notion that the government, in allowing Headingley to
establish its own rural municipality, would be encouraging urban sprawl and
leap‑frog development outside of
The
government is extremely concerned about the management of orderly and timely
development within the
The
provincial government has as much at stake as taxpayers and local governments
when unplanned premature development occurs.
Provincial funding is affected in terms of new schools which may require
building, library grants, ambulance grants, hospital costs, roads, and a
variety of other costs that land on the shoulders of the provincial government.
There
are existing planning controls in place to ensure orderly growth and
development. Under this proposed bill,
Plan
As
well, the government established the Winnipeg Region Committee to bring
together
* (1610)
Let
me turn now to the particulars of the bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, and give you a
general indication of the process which we hope to follow, in the coming weeks,
with respect to creating the Rural
The
provisions in Bill 45 allow for the creation of the Rural
The
regulation establishing Headingley would also specify the date on which the
first council of Headingley shall be elected. In order to give the new council
of Headingley sufficient time to familiarize itself with the operations of
municipal government and the preparation of a 1993 budget, it is necessary to
try and hold a civic election in Headingley as early as possible in 1992. This is important so that any arrangements
for the delivery of municipal services to Headingley residents will be negotiated
and concluded by representatives elected by Headingley residents. The Municipal Board is expected to report its
recommendations on the boundary dividing
With
the co‑operation of all members of the House in passing this bill, the
government intends to pass a regulation to establish Headingley and its
boundaries and to schedule the June 1992 civic election. This would leave the R.M. of Headingley
approximately six months to prepare itself to assume full responsibility for
running its municipality on January 1, 1993. For a host of logistical reasons,
it is imperative that division between
The
government's decision to allow Headingley to withdraw from
In
conclusion, I would recommend Bill 45 to all honourable members of this
Legislature, for their consideration and adoption. Thank you.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 46‑The
Jury Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill
46, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jures), be now read a
second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker, the amendments proposed
to The Jury Act are intended to protect the jobs of employees who are called to
serve on juries. Under the amendments,
an employer would be required to grant an employee summoned as a juror a leave
of absence with or without pay. The
employee would have to be reinstated in his or her position, or the employer
would have to provide alternative work of a comparable nature at not less than
the pay the employee was receiving at the time of the summons for jury duty.
In
addition, the legislation will require that these steps be taken without loss
of seniority or benefits up to the time of the leave of absence. A penalty of up to $5,000, or imprisonment
for three months, or both may be imposed onto an employer for violation of
these provisions.
The
Law Reform Commission of Canada has recommended tighter protection for citizens
serving on juries. At present,
I
would like also to thank honourable members for what I think will be their
support for this measure. I think it
only makes sense that people called to do their civic duty not have to worry
about their job security when they perform their duties as citizens.
I
would like to thank the members of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench for
bringing this matter to my attention, and I am pleased today to bring this bill
forward and to commend it to the attention of honourable members and to their
support. I would hope in future that
they would be a little more careful when they are denying members of this side
the opportunity to bring these things forward.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I was not going to participate in debate on
this bill until the last comments made by the minister. This minister ought not to lecture members of
this House in an area, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think the minister should have
learned a lesson from. If there is any
Legislature in this country that has shown a respect for due process in terms
of dealing with bills, it is the Manitoba Legislature.
One
only need look at the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper), who stood in this
House‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member
that we should be staying close to the bill, please.
Mr. Ashton: I am responding directly to comments made by
the minister in moving the second reading‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
This is not a format for debate.
At this time the honourable member is to be speaking to the Bill 46, The
Jury Amendment Act.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Speaker, referring to the comments
of the minister in introducing for second reading this bill, I want to say that
members of this House make no apologies for following the proper procedure in
dealing with bills such as this bill which requires certain notice
procedures. That has been respected in
this House since the time of establishment of
This
minister ought not to lecture that members of the opposition, in following the
due process‑‑in fact, he should show the respect, particularly as
Minister of Justice, in following through the due process in terms of dealing
with bills.
Once
we were aware of the nature of this bill and the specific nature that was not
communicated to members of this House beyond even the most vague generalities,
we indicated we would be debating it on the second reading at the first
opportunity. This indeed is the first
opportunity. In fact, the press release
in regards to this bill went out on February 21. If this government thinks that
it has the right to hijack the Legislative process and act at will, they have
another thing coming.
* (1620)
This
bill, Mr. Acting Speaker, would have been better served by a Justice minister
who understood the rules and, instead of attempting to grandstand in this House
as he did only a few minutes ago, would actually consult with members of the
opposition and obtain the kind of co‑operative spirit that is necessary
for the proper functioning of this House.
In fact, it is because of the substance of this bill and in no way,
shape or form the efforts of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) that our
critic will indeed be speaking on this bill, and we will indeed be passing this
through to committee.
The
bottom line is, we in the opposition will not be intimidated by a government
that seems to feel that it can dictate to members of this Legislature how the
business of the Legislature will be conducted.
We will fight for our rights as an opposition for due process, proper
scrutiny of bills and, indeed, we will debate this bill as we do other bills,
in the proper process established under our rules. We need no lectures from the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae).
The
bottom line is, we will have one more speaker.
We will be passing this through to committee, and we will be happy to
deal with this matter in committee as expeditiously as possible. As opposition
House leader, I have communicated to the minister in charge of House business,
the government House leader (Mr. Manness), our willingness to do that with this
and other bills passed through to committee.
Indeed,
with those few words, I move to our critic and hope that the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) will not waste the time of this Legislature with the type
of irrelevant comments we saw on his introduction in terms of this bill for
second reading.
Point of
Order
Mr. McCrae: I just want to respond to the outburst by‑‑[interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice on a point
of order.
Mr. McCrae: I just wanted to ask, is it something I said?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): As indicated by our House leader, I will be
the final speaker for our side of the House with respect to this, and out of a
spirit of co‑operation and generally trying to do its best to assist the
citizens of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I did have a chance to review the provisions in the amendments
to the bill. We on this side of the
House certainly cannot see any substantive reason why we would hold up passage
of this particular amendment. It seems
to be in line with provision and legislation, that occurs in other provinces in
the country. It certainly is in line
with the spirit and duty that an individual undertakes when they participate in
jury duty. In fact, in all honesty I was
quite surprised that such a provision was not already included in our
legislation which would permit an individual to return to their position
without any penalty and without any damage to their seniority or any other
aspect of their employment purposes.
For
that purpose we, of course, on this side of the House, in the spirit of the
sense of justice that must be injected into the system and which is very
important to the functioning of the system, we on this side of the House agree
with the provisions in this bill and will do our utmost, subject to some
amendments we may want to make in committee or subject to some specific points
which we may wish to make with respect to the bill in committee, we will pass
the bill certainly subject to the third opposition party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Acting Speaker, what a pleasure it was to
listen to my friend's comments and the minister's comments on this piece of
legislation, which is a relatively short piece of legislation, but does have a
very important result.
I
certainly want to indicate that we support the principle of this legislation,
which of course is to grant security to potential jurors that their employment
will not be adversely affected by doing their civic duty by serving on a jury
so that people can be judged by their peers in what is the engine of the
British justice system and that is the jury trials.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I do have some concern with the specifics of this legislation. I want to just highlight for the minister my
concern that the penalty amount, which is a maximum of $5,000, just is not
enough. We are talking about discipline,
potentially discharge, of someone from their employment for serving on a jury
and being absent perhaps days, perhaps weeks in some cases, and the maximum
penalty is $5,000. That is not a very
big penalty when you are talking about ending someone's job. Compare that to the Workplace Health and
Safety Act, which has a penalty for any discipline which is the result of
someone complaining legitimately under that act, the penalty is a maximum of
$15,000. That surely is a minimum for
this act. I simply draw that to the
minister's attention because I do not think that amount‑‑and it is
not a minimum, I stress, it is a maximum‑‑ultimately it is up to
the court to decide what the penalty is, but you hamstring the court at $5,000
and it just does not provide in my view for that contingency that the penalty
should be far greater in some circumstances.
I
will be bringing that up at the committee stage and I want to bring that to the
minister's attention. I do not think it
grants enough leeway to a court and in the worst case scenario which we can all
imagine in which a long‑term employee does have their employment severed
as a result of jury duty, and we would want a penalty far greater than $5,000.
The
only other comment I have is that I wonder if this is not something that should
be put under the auspices of the Labour Board.
We have many pieces of legislation in this province, mostly in the
employment area, and the minister is a former critic for Labour, so I know that
he will be familiar with those pieces of legislation which refer employment
related matters to the Labour Board for adjudication.
The
Labour Board has the advantage that it is a board of expertise in the labour
relations area. Secondly, it offers, we
hope, a more expedited process with a more informal process as well. It does not necessitate all of the trappings
and all of the pretrial things that one has to go through in a criminal
prosecution such as this. Therefore, I
wonder if we would not be better advised to put this under the jurisdiction of
the Labour Board.
With
those two points, Mr. Acting Speaker‑‑and they are important
points, because I think they speak to more effectively achieving what the
minister seeks to achieve in this legislation, which we support. I am pleased to refer this matter on behalf
of our caucus or accede to it going expeditiously to committee stage and look
forward to a further debate on those points that I have raised, as well as
others, with the minister and his officials.
Thank
you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 46. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 47‑The
Petty Trespasses Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that
Bill 47, The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'intrusion), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker, the proposed amendments
to The Petty Trespasses Act are intended to strengthen the provisions of
trespass protection as they apply to certain types of communally owned
property; namely, religious communities such as Hutterite colonies.
The
present act has made it possible for police to assist most owners or occupiers
of land by responding to trespass situations, but because of the unique nature
of some religious communities, they have not been able to use this
statute. In other words, sometimes there
has been a problem in establishing that a trespass has occurred. This is because technically if a disruptive
outsider is on the premises of a religious community with the permission of
even one resident, the outsider would not appear to be trespassing under the
law. Consequently, situations have
arisen where the police have considered themselves unable to use The Petty
Trespasses Act to stop the disruptive activity.
The
amendments correct this defect in the legislation. They will make it possible, although not
mandatory, for a religious community to authorize one or more of its members to
restrict or rescind the invitation under which nonresidents are present on
community property. A nonresident asked
to leave by such an authorized resident would become a trespasser by refusing
to do so.
* (1630)
These
ends are accomplished by adding a special definition of owner, tenant, or occupier
to refer to those members who have been authorized to act on the community's
behalf.
However,
there are two important restrictions:
First, the amendments apply only to religious communities and not to
other forms of communal land holding, such as common areas in a condominium;
second, they apply only to nonresidents so they could not be used as a summary
way of evicting dissident members of a religious community.
There
appears to be no other such legislation in
We
are also proposing an amendment concerning all types of occupants of land to
correct an apparent oversight in the current act. It will allow any lawful occupant of land to
apprehend a trespasser without a warrant.
The present provision refers only to the actual owner of the property.
With
those brief comments, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would commend this bill to the
attention and support of honourable members.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Acting Speaker, with leave, I have no
objection to the bill remaining in the name of my friend. I would seek leave for the House to address
the bill at this time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Leave will be required for the bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Is
there leave for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Leave.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Speaker, I have listened to the
minister's comments, and I must say, after reviewing the bill and listening to
those comments, that I have grave concerns about this bill, in particular the
indications in the bill, Section 1(5) of the bill‑‑[interjection] I
will be interested in time to hear my friends' comments from the New Democratic
Party.
We
all know that various Hutterite colonies have had a lot of difficulty with
people, and similarly certain members have had difficulty with the colony,
where they have disagreed with how things are being run.
Hutterites
pose legally a very difficult problem because:
Is it a communal property owned by the community and therefore decisions
to be made by the appointed heads, or is it property which is shared between
the members such that they can take with them when they leave, or lay claim on
their pro rata share of the assets in the land?
This
legislation, it seems to me, could potentially be extremely dangerous in
deciding that issue if we are saying that the designated head of the colony,
whoever that happens to be, or for that matter any other religious community,
can say to someone who disagrees that they are a trespasser and essentially get
legal authority to evict them. Mr.
Acting Speaker, that, I think‑‑and I will be interested to know the
genesis of this bill, but we all have seen the difficulties that have taken up
time in the courthouse between dissident members of Hutterite colonies and the
leadership in the colonies themselves.
Now
I know that the minister would not want to take sides in a partisan battle, and
that battle, by the way, continues in the Court of Queen's Bench, to my
knowledge, in at least one case. I do
not think that we would want, by The Petty Trespasses Act, to be saying that
the individual who happens to be designated‑‑and I am reading from
the section itself: the official of the
organization who has been designated by the by‑laws or articles‑‑that
that person and that person alone, speaks for the community, in terms of
trespass, because the ramification of that is that person, that official, could
essentially say to the dissident that they must leave the land, that they would
be trespassing, because that‑‑[interjection]
The
minister says that cannot happen. I
wonder what the genesis for this bill is, and I look forward to hearing it in
greater detail because, of course, that is the nature of the applications which
have come to court. The Hutterite
communities have come to court looking to evict, essentially, kick off the
land, the communal property, those individuals who have disagreed. [interjection]
The
minister says this is not for eviction.
However, if you look at The Trespasses Act, in particular Section 2, let
us look at the remedy that is available to the person who alleges trespass
legitimately, and that would be the official in this case. The remedy is that he may, without a warrant‑‑not
just by a peace officer‑‑but the owner himself, the official
himself or herself, without a warrant, may apprehend the trespasser and take
him or her to the nearest justice as soon as reasonably practical. This is a private arrest essentially which is
justified by this act, and to take a person to a justice and to force them off
the land and to say that the official who is designated, the official, has the
sole right to determine who stays and who is a trespasser.
That
is going to be an extremely controversial issue and I put the minister on
notice now that I want that issue addressed at the committee stage, because I
want no part of pre‑empting what I know are litigious issues today in the
Court of Queen's Bench in which the communities involved have sought to have
certain individuals evicted, who have become dissidents, or so‑called
dissidents, on the Hutterite colonies.
So
we are prepared to have this go to committee, but with that caveat that we want
to have a full explanation of the genesis and the impact of this bill, because
this is an extremely difficult area, one fraught with pitfalls both for this
government and for the individuals involved.
Of course, the major group really is the Hutterites, although there are
other, I am sure, communally‑owned properties which would qualify under
this bill. We must be careful because
the division between what is individual rights and how far individual rights go
as opposed to communal rights is not easily defined. Really, in every case the facts are going to
be different, and I would hate for this Legislature to have any part in those
difficulties which, as I have said, in recent years have been the subject
matter of various court actions.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, with those comments I look forward to a fuller discussion at
committee stage. In particular, if the
minister would take under advisement my comments, I would look forward to a
response in that respect.
Thank
you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
* (1640)
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion agreed to.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, Bills 5,
10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20 and 38.
Bill 5‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), (Bill 5, The
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Madam
Deputy Speaker, it is only because of some incidences that occurred the
following day that we had somewhat decided it was probably in our best interest
as a caucus just to review some of the comments that were put on the record
that one could really question in terms of the validity and the truthfulness of
those comments. So I want to take this
opportunity to try to correct or to rectify a few of those concerns that, in
particular, the member for
I
should start right off, Madam Deputy Speaker, by commending the member for
Having
said that, I wanted to move right into some of the concerns that the member for
I
am going to go over, in terms of what actually took place at that committee
meeting where we had the minister‑‑[interjection] The member says,
my interpretation. I encourage the
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) to in fact read through what the minister‑‑and
I am going to quote a letter that we had based primarily the concern as to why
it is the amendment was being proposed.
In fact, the minister has told me that this is the reason why it was
brought forward.
I
wanted to quote a specific letter that came from the advisory group
itself. I quote, that the‑‑and
this was a letter that was sent to the minister: The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women has since its inception had ongoing difficulties with the confusion
between ourselves and the
Madam
Deputy Speaker, this was a letter that came from the organization and we have
to take the minister at her word when she was sitting at the table assuring
both opposition parties that, in fact, this is something that the women
themselves were wanting to change, but the New Democratic critic took exception
to the fact that this is something that just came before her, that she did not
have any opportunity to discuss the matter within caucus, that she did not have
the opportunity to consult with women.
Well,
in fairness, and I do not necessarily like defending the government, but I do
believe that it is important that I defend the Leader. This is all in part of defending some of the
remarks that the Conservatives‑‑because the New Democrats put on
the record, not only did they say it was the Conservatives, but they also had
the tenacity to say that it was the Liberals and Conservatives. Having said that, this is why I think it is
important that the New Democrats do not think that I am defending the
Conservatives. Having said that, the NDP
had ample opportunity to advise to caucus, because this particular bill was
before the NDP caucus for weeks. Why did
they not check or consult with the women's groups during that time period,
before it even went to the committee stage, but instead, they pleaded‑‑[interjection]
The
member for
They
opposed something, at least on the surface, and we have to appreciate that the
minister is not misleading the Chamber on purpose, in the sense saying that
there are women's groups that have been consulted, that this is a letter. I hope to goodness that in fact the letter
that I just read actually exists. If it
does not exist, I would retract everything that I have said and apologize to
the New Democratic Party. If the NDP can
prove that point, then I would be more than happy to do just that. This is one of the roles that the official
opposition is supposed to be taking seriously, but they really and truly have
not been.
* (1650)
In
the introduction of the bill, there was reference made and I take personal
exception to the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker, then we go down to what other organizations in fact supported
it. Again, I have to rely on the
Conservative minister's word that these groups were in fact consulted, because
I am in a situation where I am with the multicultural act in which I somewhat
call into question in terms of if the minister is in fact consulting with some
organizations.
Here
she has gone the extra mile by saying these are the organizations that the
government says that they have discussed the issue with‑‑the
Manitoba Women's Institute, the Provincial Council of Women, North End Women's
Centre, Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre, the Original Women's Network, the
Aboriginal Women's Unity Coalition and the Canadian Congress of Learning
Opportunities for the Women.
The
only one that I‑‑I should not say the only one, unfortunately, the
minister did not consult with the two opposition parties‑‑but
especially the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Madam Deputy
Speaker, because ultimately, as far as they are concerned, if they do not
support it, it does not matter what the women of the province have to say, they
are the ones who are going to decide.
I
wanted to go into in terms of what it is.
I asked the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the New Democratic Party, whether the women want it or not,
have already made up their minds. It is
garbage as far as they are concerned. It
does not matter what the women of the province really and truly want, but
rather‑‑and when it comes to the official opposition of this
Chamber, it is a question of, we have to oppose in the name of opposing. It does not matter if it is good for the
province or, in this case, if it is good for the women. Once again we see a party that has absolutely
no principles when it comes to dealing with the real issues.
I
wanted to make another quote from the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker, what is most important here is that the Liberal Party believes
in choice. Who are the New Democrats to
say that women do not have the choice?
Should not women have the choice if they want to be addressed by M‑R‑S
or M‑I‑S‑S or M‑S? Why not allow them to have the
choice?
The
Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) does not oppose anyone who might
want to address the Leader of the Liberal Party as M‑S. She is not going to oppose it if her personal
preference is to be addressed as M‑R‑S. Albeit, who are they to say that any woman in
this province who says they have to be addressed by M‑S are less than
what the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) or the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) or the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) are? Shame on them. Have they no integrity? Do they not believe that the women of this
province know? Do they not believe that
the women of this province have a choice?
It is unbelievable that the New Democratic Party would be so antiwomen.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, actions speak louder than words. What is the record of the New Democratic
Party? I wanted to touch on just a few
of those. First, I understand they
resolved the strike that is ongoing.
Today it was resolved. The New
Democratic Party, the workers, for those who do not know‑‑I am sure
everyone in the Chamber knows‑‑went on strike. Why did they go on strike? Would you believe in part because they were
unable to negotiate maternity benefits?
The party that says maternity benefits is something that benefits every
worker and then they refuse to negotiate maternity benefits with their own
staff‑‑what a bunch of hypocrites.
Once again, they have absolutely no principles.
Then
we have the whole question of pay equity.
This is a government, when in government, they come up and they
introduce legislation that ensures that there will never be pay equity,
never. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would
hazard a guess that this is the only political party in
Then
we hear from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who has said that it is
imperative that we get more women inside this Chamber. In fact, the NDP are so committed to it that
they will have 50 percent of their candidates being female candidates in the
election. I commend‑‑[interjection]
Well, if it is not true then I would encourage the Leader of the New Democratic
Party to stand up and tell me where I am wrong.
The commitment was there that 50 percent‑‑[interjection]
Again, we gave him the opportunity and the bottom line‑‑if the
Leader of the New Democratic Party wants to stand up to answer the question‑‑Madam
Deputy Speaker, would it be appropriate, and I ask for your advice, to allow
the Leader to stand up on a point of order. Just stand up on a point of order.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): It is not a point of order. I was asked the question‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. If the honourable member for Concordia does
not have a point of order, the honourable member for
Mr. Doer: On a point of order, I believe the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Concordia did not
have a point of order. The honourable
member for
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I can appreciate that
the Leader of the New Democratic Party is very edgy when it comes to dealing
with the issues of women, because every time they try to do something they do
it in such a backward motion. I made
reference to the pay equity and the mess that the Leader of the New Democratic
Party led the whole issue on pay equity.
We made reference to the strike that was ongoing and how he himself
denied opportunities or denied the workers or the staff people to maternity
benefits. It is amazing and there is
really and truly absolutely no excuse.
Let
me make it very clear what the Liberal Party's position is on this bill. I am going to make it very, very clear for
the edification of the New Democratic Party, that the Liberal Party will
support what the women of the
Madam
Deputy Speaker, is it not the same thing that the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, when this matter is again before the House, the honourable
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) will have 21 minutes remaining.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
House
Business
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I may have
leave to make some changes to the sponsorship of private members' resolutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Gimli have
leave to make changes related to the proposed resolutions for private members'
business, change in name? Leave? Leave has been granted.
Mr. Helwer: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), that sponsorship of Resolution 34,
First Year Distance Education Program, currently standing in the name of Mrs.
Vodrey be transferred to Mrs. Render.
I
move, seconded by the member‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We have to go through them one at a time,
please.
It
has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the
honourable member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson), that sponsorship of
Resolution 34, First Year Distance Education Program, currently standing in the
name of the honourable member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), be transferred to
the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render). Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Bob Rose (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to have Resolution 28, Postal
Rate Increases for Rural Newspapers, proposed by the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Point of
Order
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, I declare a conflict on
this issue due to my employment and will be leaving the Chamber accordingly during
the course of this debate on this resolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. James does not
have a point of order, but the record will show indeed that the honourable
member for St. James has a potential conflict and will be leaving the Chamber
for the discussion on this matter.
Res. 28‑Postal
Rate Increases for Rural Newspapers
Mr. Bob Rose (
WHEREAS
rural community newspapers in Manitoba have a profound centralizing influence
in rural centres, speaking for these communities, reflecting their views and
solidifying their sense of purpose; and
WHEREAS
if such newspapers were allowed to flounder, there would be no locally
published source of rural views and information, leaving this service in the
hands of urban‑based dailies, thus removing from communities a direct
voice of their own and a direct means of promoting the development and welfare
of such communities; and
WHEREAS
the federal Department of Communications is phasing out its Publication
Distribution Assistance Program in a way that is extremely hurtful to
WHEREAS
Canada Post has interpreted the decision in such a way that, as of March 1,
1992, postal rates for weekly newspapers will rise from between 300 and 1,000
percent, the average increase being 420 percent, while leaving paid periodicals
free from major increases; and
WHEREAS
as of March 1, 1992, the mailing rate for Macleans from Toronto to a rural area
will be 6.7 cents, while the rate charged a rural newspaper to mail an edition
to Toronto will be 33 cents, over six times the present rate of 5.2 cents; and
WHEREAS
the possibility exists that effective March 1, 1994, community newspapers will
lose their "free zones" under which a certain number of papers are
mailed free within the weekly newspaper's 65‑kilometer marketing area,
and should this occur, community newspaper rates will rise even more
dramatically; and
WHEREAS
for example, an eastern Manitoba paper, the Springfield Leader of Lac du Bonnet
with a circulation of nearly 1,800, will have its present annual postage costs
of $370 rise on March 1, 1992, to between $1,700 and $2,300 depending on the
number of papers mailed to no‑direct‑delivery homes and to letter‑delivery
homes; and rising on March 1, 1994, to between $10,600 and $11,250 if the
postage‑free zone were eliminated, representing a total percentage
increase of between 2,865 percent and 3,040 percent; and
WHEREAS
for example, a southwestern Manitoba paper, the Boissevain Recorder with a
circulation of 2,100, will have its present annual postage cost of $2,400 rise
on March 1, 1992, to between $10,200 and $15,300, depending on the number of
papers mailed to no‑direct‑delivery homes and to letter‑delivery
homes; and rising on March 1, 1994, to between $16,700 and $21,800 if the
postage‑free zone were eliminated, representing a total percentage
increase of between 696 and 908 percent; and
WHEREAS,
for example, a northwestern Manitoba paper, the Swan River Star and Times, with
a circulation of 4,600, will have its present annual postage costs of $5,700
rise on March 1, 1992, to between $18,600 and $22,200, depending on the number
of papers mailed to no‑direct‑delivery homes and to letter‑delivery
homes and rising on March 1, 1994, to between $31,600 and $35,900, if the
postage‑free zone were eliminated, representing a total percentage
increase of between 554 percent and 630 percent; and
WHEREAS
all these rates do not take into account any rise in actual postage rates that
may apply after March 1, 1992, nor do they take into account the GST which
would adversely affect subscribers; and
WHEREAS
these combined burdens will have an absolutely disastrous effect on weekly
newspapers and on their paid subscription lists, which even now are being
reduced as readers cancel subscriptions in anticipation of rising postal costs;
and
WHEREAS
the community newspapers accept the fact that postal rates should rise, it is
apparent that the community newspapers are being unfairly hurt by the changes
and potential changes compared with rates applied to paid periodicals and to
advertising flyers, which Canada Post handles for under three cents each; and
WHEREAS
the new rate system may cause the closure of a number of community newspapers
that are so important to the stability and growth of rural
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba direct the Clerk of
the House to forward a copy of this resolution to the federal Minister of
Communications, the federal Minister responsible for Canada Post, and the Prime
Minister of Canada to seek a more equitable and just system of postal rates for
Canada's community newspapers, the bedrock of journalism in this nation.
Motion presented.
* (1710)
Mr. Rose: About 14 months ago, I made my very first
presentation to this House. At the time,
I think I made the point that I thought the citizens of Manitoba felt that it
was time that their politicians worked together on as many issues as they
possibly could, recognizing, of course, that there are philosophical
differences between parties.
It
is particularly gratifying for me today to bring the very first piece of, not
legislation, but at least a resolution to this floor, that I hope or am very
confident will be accepted by all honourable members and to have the support to
the extent of being seconded by the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans), a member of the NDP, as we all know.
I
also want to recognize the co‑operation and the support of the Liberal
Party and, in fact, all honourable members of the House for allowing this
debate to take place this afternoon as it is indeed very timely.
I
am going to be very brief, because I know there are many other members who wish
to put some comments on the record. We
did cover a few points in the preamble as you perhaps noticed, so I will just,
very briefly, say that I think we need to remember that community newspapers,
the weeklies that we are familiar with, are newspapers that are put out by
ordinary Canadians for ordinary Canadians.
In
the ongoing debate on national unity the point is often made, and rightly so,
that the more often we talk to one another or gain some understanding with what
is going on in other parts of Canada, the better understanding we have of each
other. I would suggest to the honourable
members that for community newspapers that have a total circulation in
So
we are not just talking about a little business and a little community in small‑town
We
might suggest‑‑and we certainly need a national magazine like
Macleans and perhaps it contributes to national unity, but I think the
community newspapers do. In fact, I
think in the fabric of
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to
rise today and speak on this resolution that we had, of course, brought forth
some time ago. I do want to extend my
appreciation to the member for
An Honourable Member: Who brought it in?
Mr. Clif Evans: The honourable member for the Interlake. It was my hope then that we could have gotten
together, as I had asked the Assembly and had spoken on the fact, the costs and
the great weight that the postal rate increases would be to the
newspapers. I recall that the member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureaux) had fully supported the resolution at that time, and I
hope that the third opposition does, at this time again, support this
resolution that we are putting through today as a combined unit.
I
believe, that when I brought Resolution 9 in last year, that we were hoping to
send a message, an unequivocal message, to the federal government that we here
in
Just
last week I spoke to the publisher of the Interlake Spectator at an event, and
he informed me that even since the initial discussion about increasing the
rates, some of the rates, as my honourable colleague from Turtle Mountain (Mr.
Rose) has stated, would go up over 1,000 percent, some almost 2,000
percent. His statement was to me that
perhaps some of the larger, more secure rural newspapers that we do have in
rural Manitoba would survive to a point perhaps through cutbacks or through
other situations. The smaller newspapers
with the smaller distribution would be the ones who would be most greatly
affected.
We,
on this side, put the resolution through again to be brought before the House,
and as luck would have it of course, the draw put my honourable colleague's
resolution before ours, but I do not think, Madam Deputy Speaker, which resolution
gets debated and passed, since essentially we all here are for the same
resolution and for the same idea.
The
critical thing today, again, is that the federal government receives the
message, and to this, I am pleased on behalf of my caucus to have been able to
second the resolution, as I have noted repeatedly that these costs would be
ruinous to many of the smaller newspapers in
It
is shameful that the federal government is proceeding with these
increases. We here on this side are
disappointed that none of the federal rural members of Parliament have taken on
an initiative and a stand to support the fact that the increases should be done
away with. Many of them are representing
rural communities where perhaps they may have three, four or five newspapers
within their constituencies, and we do not hear anything from the federal
government. I guess it is up to us from
here, from the Assembly, to say our piece and force the federal M.P.s to take a
stand and to force the federal ministers responsible for these increases to
look at it and to keep them at a rate where the rural newspapers in the
communities can survive.
On
March 1, unless we are successful, another part of rural
I
feel though that, as the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) has
indicated, this is a resolution that we all should stand by together in support
of and again to let the federal ministers know that we are all, here from the
Manitoba Assembly, in favour of keeping these increases down, if not put
through at all.
So
on behalf of myself I wish to say that we here will support the resolution and
hopefully that our message will get across to the federal people that it is
very important to listen to the rural newspapers and to the communities of
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
* (1720)
The
backbone of rural
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I just want to say a few words about the
resolution placed before us. For the
reasons outlined by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) we too had a
resolution on this issue last May in the Chamber of this House, because we felt
it was very important that last year when the government was formulating their
decisions that we should have an early all‑party consensus to speak out
against the proposal by the federal Conservative government to radically raise
postal rates and totally undermine the community newspapers of this country.
The
postal rate issue for community newspapers goes right to one of the fundamental
principles of our being in a democracy, and that is freedom of the press. An unfettered press has to have access to all
citizens, and it must be affordable in all communities. It must have a variety of forums so that we
are not just dominated by big media and big media voices, particularly out of
central
That
is why we brought a resolution in last year.
We support the freedom of the press.
We try not to, on our individual comments, attack the media. We try not, on our individual comments, to
attack individual members of the media, and we try too, Madam Deputy Speaker,
to keep our comments to the media‑‑we want to put our emphasis on
the issues‑‑but we try, I think, all in this Chamber to keep our
comments germane to the issues at hand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I want to say a few things about this resolution also in terms
of the process of this resolution, because the government House leader is
here. He is a person I respect, and I
think it is very important I say a few things about how this resolution was
produced in this House. We have obviously
never been opposed to moving resolutions forward in an all‑party way in
this Chamber. We have always had a
process where a House leader takes under advisement any resolution from the
government House leader and brings it back to our caucus and we come to an
agreement about when these resolutions should come forward. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that in
this resolution, given the fact that we were the ones who brought it in to
begin with last year, there would have been no difficulty in following that
pattern.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the member for
We
are here to work together. I pledge to
the government House leader, we will work with them always. Sometimes it might take a day or two while we
get things through our caucus, as it will take a day or two for the government
to get things through their caucus, as it will with the Liberals. If we agree to disagree and the government
wants to put out a press release saying we are for or against something, so be
it. When we are only trying to deal with
in our own caucus something we already had proposed ourselves in this Chamber,
I would ask for the sake of another principle in this Chamber, that is, the
principle of the rights of members in a democracy, that we try to balance off
those two principles as best we can.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, we support the resolution of the member for
We
think this proposal, this hike from the federal government, works against our
community newspapers and whether we have an agreement or not on a lot of issues
in this Chamber, I think the resolution from the member for Turtle Mountain
(Mr. Rose) is worthy of support. We will
support the government resolution, and we will support any measure the
government House leader and the sponsor of this resolution wants to have with
the clerk to get that message through loud and clear to
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just wanted to make those few points about the process,
because we are going to have a lot of other private members' resolutions in
this House. Let us try to work together
as the member for
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I will confine my remarks, because I know there are several members who want to
be associated with this resolution.
I
think, obviously, the concerns that rural Manitobans are expressing about the
ramifications of these postal changes are serious. When we look at the role that the rural
newspapers play, you see some of the most salient, pungent and, frankly,
pertinent information brought out to the people in the community regarding
issues that are not only important locally but important across the province.
I
do not think there is anyone here or anyone in Canada Post that would, in
reality, believe that they should be moving to restrict the opportunity for
local newspapers to have access to the system for the delivery of their message
within rural
Madam
Deputy Speaker, you do not put a kid on a bike and tell him to deliver
newspapers in rural
I
would insist, and I would support this House insisting, that Canada Post take a
look at this issue as a priority compared to some of the other costs that are
associated with handling mail and the type of mail that is delivered in this
country. Certainly, this is an unfair attack on an opportunity for rural
Manitobans particularly to obtain the information that they need, and they have
come to expect over the last number of decades.
We see a shrinking number of rural
Let
me simply say to Canada Post, look at this in relationship to the costs of
other materials that are being delivered.
I am sure they will find that this is an increase they will not need to
pass through, that there are other sources of revenue, that they can meet the
obligations they have as a transporter of mail and information in this country
without destroying what I believe, and what I think every member of this House
believes, is a valued service in rural Manitoba.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just have a few brief
comments.
First
of all, in terms of the background of the resolution, it certainly has been
covered by our members. It should be
noted that similar resolutions have been introduced in the past. I think we should reflect on what has happened
in private members' hour in the context of this resolution. Unfortunately, all too often, resolutions are
introduced that either never reach the Order Paper because of the volume of
resolutions or else, if they do reach the Order Paper, are simply spoken out.
I
think we should perhaps recognize, in the context of our rules, the fact that
to give the kind of weight to private members' hour and resolutions such as
this we need to see more of what is going to take place today. Certainly, if our side has anything to do
with it, and that is this will go to a vote, this will not be simply talked off
the Order Paper as have previous resolutions.
* (1730)
I
think, unfortunately, our rules lend themselves to the opposite sort of spirit
from what the member opposite referred to in introducing the resolution, in
that, instead of coming together on matters where there is general agreement,
we end up with political gamesmanship and one‑upmanship in this House at
private members' hour. Indeed, Madam Deputy
Speaker, this is private members' hour, this is private members' business, and
I think we all should reflect on that fact as we do see how a resolution can be
passed by all members of this Chamber.
I
want to reflect just very briefly on the importance of community
newspapers. I happen to believe
personally it is one of the things that defines
If
one is to compare, for example, the access to media that one finds in most
other countries, you will find that there are literally thousands of more
newspapers in a country the size say of Canada in terms of population than one
would find in most European countries with two, three or four times the
population.
Community
newspapers are more than just a chronicle of events in communities. They announce our weddings, our baptisms and,
of course, deaths, community events, sporting achievements, personal
achievements. That is what community
newspapers are all about, and anything that would move in this direction as the
post office is doing would kill those community newspapers, a viable thread
that keeps our country, as isolated as it is geographically, together. The very word community newspaper reflects
the key element, the community aspect.
I
just want to indicate for the record as well that in Thompson we have an
excellent newspaper, actually the Thompson Citizen and the Nickel Belt
News. I want to reflect too just very
briefly how important I think it is to recognize their contribution, because
one thing about small communities is that everybody knows everybody else. Thompson is perhaps larger than most small
communities, but it is still a small community, and I reflected upon this
recently.
If
there is anyone that gets criticized more than politicians in small
communities, although certainly we do, it is the community newspapers, because,
of course, everybody knows our bias but everybody also knows the political
thoughts and the biases of newspaper owners and editors as they are printed in
editorials or expressed during elections.
There
is always a fear, I know, of potential bias in terms of newspapers. When I recently reflected on the tenth
election of myself to the Legislature, one thing that I had wanted to do at the
time was to indicate to the owners and editors of the local newspaper in
Thompson how I thought, despite our disagreements in many different ways, I
thought they had been absolutely uncompromisingly fair in their coverage. I wanted to write a note, and I just did not
ever get around to it. It was one of
those things, you wondered if it was appropriate or not.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I may have used the Legislature to do that, and when I say
that, I am talking about the rights‑‑and I do not mean this in any
way, shape or form to try and stop them from criticizing the NDP in future
editorials, I know they will not‑‑but it is to show that many
people can be individuals, they can have their personal views and that does not
affect the journalistic integrity of the newspapers. That is particularly the case in community
newspapers, because when we have the Free Press we do not know who always is
writing the editorials although we do know now one we can get a hint of, the
former member for Crescentwood. In a
small community we all know who writes the headlines, who writes the editorials
no matter who it is attributed to. I
would say that what is the case in Thompson is probably the case in virtually
every other rural and northern community in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this very important resolution. I am glad it is being debated here
today. I thank all members of the House,
as my colleague has, for allowing it to come forward in this fashion.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, it would be tragic if we did not have our rural
newspapers. When one today looks at the
structural change that our rural areas have undergone over the past 20 years,
by the forecasts of some, will continue to undergo over the next decade, into
the next century, I can assure you, as most speakers have, that rural
newspapers take on a special significance.
They always have; they have for generations.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in the society in which we now live, where of course there is
great attention paid to events in a smaller global village, particularly with
the turn of a knob on our TV set or flick of a switch, I think all of us have
an opportunity to listen to what is happening in the bigger world. As is
becoming the case, too often we are not always familiar with what activity is
happening within our rural environs.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the rural newspaper always has had a significant role, of
course, in providing information, providing the latest understanding of
situations, and indeed the latest intrigue around what extended family members
were doing, indeed the expanded members of the community and friends as to the
celebration of events, as to the loss of property, and I could go on and on‑‑situations
which are not reported in the larger media.
It would be tragic if through a corporate change of Canada Post,
whatever the driving forces are, that there should be, because of a significant
increase in postage rates, a cause that would‑‑well, let us say,
something that caused the demise of our rural newspapers.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, that is why I am so glad that all members of this House have
seen fit, and without much pleading‑‑I acknowledge that the
process, we went through some little difficulty in process. I will assume my responsibility for that, as
I think others may want to. I am the
government House leader, but I still think there is good will around this and
other issues, and we should not let that deflect from other good areas where
indeed we agree in principle and in concept so that other items should come forward.
Nevertheless,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to lend my support to the resolution. I hope that this House passes it in an
expeditious manner. I hope also that it
is forwarded very promptly by the Clerk of our Assembly to those powers that be
in
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I rise to give my support to this resolution and compliment all
members and recommend it to all members and I am sure the support will be there
for it.
Most
has been said as to the importance of the rural newspapers. There is one other element that should be
added, and I say it as the former Minister of Rural Development, that there is another
component within our rural newspapers that add a service to rural Manitoba, and
that of course is the commerce and the trading of items and advertising of
activities that take place throughout our small communities. A lot of people look to rural newspapers to
convey the news as to what is happening, whether it is in the area of
machinery, equipment, produce. Generally‑‑[interjection]
* (1740)
Yes,
that is right‑‑thank you. I
thank the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for jogging my memory‑‑for
auction sales, which are of course‑‑I declare that I could have a
conflict in saying this but I will gamble on it anyway. [interjection] It is an
important vehicle or tool for the advertising of many events and the community
auctions are one which are extremely important as well.
So
I say that is a service, an important service, and it would be extremely
unfortunate if we were to see the loss of any of our rural newspapers through
irresponsible charges that cannot be handled through the charges that are to be
imposed on them. So I am pleased to support my colleague for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the proposed
resolution of the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. The motion has been passed.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, if
you canvass the House, I would believe there might be an inclination to rise
and call it six o'clock.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair
with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 8 p.m.