LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, June 9, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Oscar
Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Darcy Thomas, Sheldon Smith, Alfred Smith and others requesting the government
show its strong commitment to aboriginal self‑government by considering
reversing its position on the AJI by supporting the recommendations within its jurisdiction
and implementing a separate and parallel justice system.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
I beg to present the petition of Debra Feuer, David Settick, Neil Reimer and
others urging the government to consider establishing an office of Children's
Advocate independent of cabinet and reporting directly to the Assembly.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lyna Skinner, K. Ryan, Rafi Mohammed and others requesting the government
consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm
disease.
Mr.
Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin).
It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies
with the rules (by leave). Is it the
will of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many
others, also recommend both aboriginal self‑government and a separate and
parallel justice system; and
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition
(Mrs. Carstairs). It complies 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 residents of the
WHEREAS
the Province of Manitoba announced that it would establish an Office of the
Children's Advocate in its most recent throne speech and allocated funds for
this Office in its March '92 budget; and
WHEREAS
the Kimelman Report (1983), the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (1991) and the Suche
Report (1992) recommended that the province establish such an office reporting
directly to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, in a manner similar to that
of the Office of the Ombudsman; and
WHEREAS
pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act Standards, the agency worker is
to be the advocate for a child in care; and
WHEREAS
there is a major concern that child welfare workers, due to their vested
interest as employees within the service system, cannot perform an independent
advocacy role; and
WHEREAS
pure advocacy will only be obtained through an independent and external agency;
and
WHEREAS
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has unsatisfactorily dealt
with complaints lodged against child welfare agencies; and now
THEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly
urge the provincial government to consider establishing an Office of the
Children's Advocate which will be independent of cabinet and report directly to
the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS ANDTABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative
Review for 1992‑1993 for Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and
1992‑1993 Community Support Programs.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a ministerial statement.
On
April 23 of this year, I announced that for the fourth straight year Manitobans
would again be given the opportunity to invest in their future by purchasing
Manitoba Hydro savings bonds, Series 4.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to announce that
over 37,000 Manitobans have purchased a total of nearly $460 million of Hydro
savings bonds, Series 4.
Since
their introduction in 1989, nearly 125,000 Manitobans have purchased
HydroBonds, raising more than $1.2 billion for Manitoba Hydro and generating
more than $112 million in interest payments to Manitobans. With Manitoba Hydro savings bonds, the money
stays right here in the province working for all of us.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to, once again, extend my gratitude to the people of
* (1335)
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, with a brief
response to the brief statement from the minister today, we would like to
congratulate those Manitobans who have the confidence in our province‑‑the
37,000‑‑to purchase the savings bonds, and the confidence in public
enterprise in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, one can only compare the success and the confidence in public
enterprise in our province that we see today with the HydroBond purchases and
compare that with some of the more scary stories we see in the Reichmann Bros.,
Bramalea and some of the other companies.
It is consistent with our belief that we need a strong mixed economy of
both public and private enterprise to keep our economy going in this
province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, contrary to my former complete
support for this program, I am waiting for us to get into Finance Estimates,
because I have a series of questions about this series of HydroBonds.
I
am beginning to wonder why, given that the yield curve has changed, we are
paying a rate of interest well above that which one can buy money on the open
market for. I am wondering why we are
spending the amount of money advertising these bonds. I am wondering why we are paying a commission
rate well in excess of the commission rate paid for other similar financial
instruments.
The
only conclusion one can come to, Mr. Speaker, is that is the only way that this
Finance minister can have this kind of success.
I also think, given some information that has been provided to us, that
it is about time we investigated the limits on the amounts purchased, because
there seems to be some laxity on the part of the department in policing that.
But,
we will take those issues into Estimates of the Finance committee. Thank you.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon,
from the Morden Collegiate, forty‑five Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Colleen
Rintoul. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). On behalf of all honourable members, I would
like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Conawapa Dam Project
Impact of Delays
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased
that the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) is safe and sound, and we
wanted to pass on‑‑[applause! I am sure it was a very harrowing
experience and we are pleased it has ended well.
My
question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker,
John McCallum, in a memo that was written to two cabinet ministers of his government,
indicated that there were serious concerns that any delay beyond January 1993
would make it very difficult to achieve an in‑service for Conawapa and
any significant delay would make that impossible. There is a very comprehensive set of environmental
hearings going on, the joint panel, which we think is very, very positive. All public reports indicate now that there
will be a delay past the January 1 date as proposed by Mr. McCallum.
Mr.
Speaker, we would like to know from the Premier what are the impacts of that
delay in terms of the in‑service date, the construction impacts and the
penalty clauses that are contained in the agreement that the government signed
with
* (1340)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that question is highly speculative
and obviously there is a process in place, a process that is intended to give
the public an opportunity for a complete environmental assessment and review,
an opportunity that was never given under any of the hydroelectric projects
developed under New Democratic governments.
This process is intended to provide for the full public review to ensure
that when decisions are made, those decisions are consistent with all of the principles
that we as a government would follow, both economic, environmental and
everything else.
We
have gone through, firstly, the economic review of the Public Utilities
Board. Now we are embarking soon upon
the environmental assessment review process, a joint one with panels from the
federal and provincial governments. That
matter will take some time, but I do not think any of us can say today what time
that purview will take. I think, given
the speculative nature of the question, it really is not one that can be
answered at the present time.
Penalty Clauses ‑ Renegotiation
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to table a
letter sent from the chair of the joint panel, a panel established pursuant to
The Environment Act passed in '87 and proclaimed in 1988 that indicates to the
government minister that in these circumstances, the panel believes with every
reasonable effort it will not be possible to submit a final report on Stage 1
of the review by January 31, 1993, and we should so advise.
So,
Mr. Speaker, this is no longer speculation.
They have received on March 12 formal notification of the fact that that
date, in the opinion of the panel, will not be met.
Mr.
Speaker, the penalty clauses that were negotiated by the government escalate
from $85 million to $100 million. The in‑service
date that was negotiated is 2001 based on
I
would like to know from the Premier, and I have asked him this question
before: Has he or will he negotiate with
the Premier of Ontario some of these penalty clauses that are contained within
the agreement that he signed with Premier Peterson of
Will
he negotiate the agreements pursuant to the comprehensive environmental process
that I think all people in
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, one does not go into negotiations
based on speculation as to how long something may or may not take. The fact of the matter is that we have a
process in place, a process that is intended to give full public scrutiny.
I
do not know what the game of the Leader of the Opposition is in talking about
this. He seems to change his mind day
after day. When he was elected in 1988,
he went out publicly and said that he was going to do everything possible to
ensure that this government went ahead quickly with the Conawapa hydroelectric project,
that as one of the things that he would do in a minority situation would be to
hold this government to its commitment to carry on the work that had been left
in place by the New Democratic administration and carry through with the
Conawapa dam. Then he seems to be
changing his position, saying now: No, let
us hold off; let us look at this; let us spend more time on this; let us delay
this; let us go and renegotiate that. He
is all over the map.
* (1345)
Mr.
Doer: We have asked questions about this Premier
dealing with the domestic demand side for Manitoba, in 1989, when the Premier
signed this agreement, was 2001 in Manitoba.
It has gone from 2001 to 2009; from 2009 to 2011. In the committee last week, it was announced
at 2012, and there are further predictions in Hydro that may even delay it even
further in terms of domestic use.
Surely
these facts that are coming before us and the penalty clauses that were
negotiated by the Premier himself, which will in fact escalate after the
January 1993 date from 85 million to 100 million, Mr. Speaker, those are not
speculative numbers. Those are numbers the Premier signed in the agreement with
Premier Peterson. Surely it makes sense
for the Premier to renegotiate those penalty clauses so that we can have the comprehensive
environmental hearing.
Further,
would the Premier also look at negotiating the fact that
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition
should know, the penalties are there for the possibility that
Again
I say, the Leader of the Opposition is all over the map. Even on Wednesday, May 27, of this year, in a
newscast on CBC, it quoted: The Leader
of the Opposition says Manitoba Hydro should build a dam in the North to
produce hydrogen for
That
is what the CBC report said. Mr.
Speaker, these are the kinds of things that I do not think speak well for the
New Democrats, for their leader or for their party in opposition. They are all
over the map on this thing, and they just come here with a little bit of
political gamesmanship that I do not think is in the best interests of the
people of
Multicultural Legislation
Impact on Affirmative Action
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, it is a disgraceful
irony that at the same time the government is enshrining its political
patronage office, the Multicultural Secretariat, in legislation, we have the
Civil Service Commission confirm that visible minorities are reducing. The number of visible minorities has reduced
by 4 percent in the Civil Service.
People of colour and groups and individuals have been claiming this for
some time, and we now know that it is a fact.
My
question for the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism (Mrs. Mitchelson)
is: What is she doing about this? How is this act that she is bringing in going
to help this situation?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of
The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, the member for Radisson has made
certain statements with respect to targets for target communities in the
affirmative action programs of government.
I know in yesterday's Estimates' debate that in terms of the number of
people of visible minorities in the Civil Service, year over year, there was a
decline from 2.71 percent to 2.7 percent in terms of the numbers.
As
we indicated at that particular time, we were just slightly behind the 20‑year
targets which were established by her party when they were in government in
that area, although we were ahead in other areas such as aboriginal employment,
and what we had learned over the last year, what we were putting in place, we had
found some advisory committees and various work with the aboriginal community
had worked to increase those numbers in the area of aboriginal hiring, and we
were putting in place the same kind of process for those people in the visible
minority communities.
Ms.
Cerilli: For the Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism: Why does this bill not make any statement about affirmative action
and about ensuring that our Civil Service reflects the multicultural nature of
our province?
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I am actually totally amazed
that the question would come from the member for Radisson, because one very
important fact is our collective agreement with the Manitoba Government
Employees' Association, which association her Leader was president of.
I
can tell the member that we are working with the MGEA, but the MGEA, as they
said to me in my office, starts at the position that our hirings should only be
at the entrance level. So one of the
impediments that we are trying to work through is bringing the MGEA
onside. One of the impediments in
bringing in people in target communities in a variety of positions is the
position of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association.
* (1350)
Civil Service Commission
Affirmative Action Co-ordinator
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, they
hire. They are responsible for ensuring
that affirmative action is in place.
My
final question is for the Minister of Labour.
Since the Minister of Labour said, in 1990, recruitment to vacancies is
one part of it but retention of those people is another and the third leg, of
course, is career path and opportunities for promotion, my question is: Will this minister and the government re‑establish
the affirmative action co‑ordinator position in the Civil Service so that
we could see this trend reversed in the Civil Service?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of
The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, if the member for Radisson had
chatted with her colleagues in committee, I believe yesterday we spoke about
the increase in the number of people in the target communities who are waiting internal
competitions, that it increased over the last year.
I
would say to the member for Radisson‑‑[interjection! and to the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), that it requires that although we have
that responsibility we do have a collective agreement, and when the employees‑‑[interjection!
Well, now the members opposite seem to say, well, we should ignore our collective
agreement. They cannot have it both
ways, and we are working with the MGEA, but they have to get over an initial position
which talks only about entry‑level positions for affirmative action.
Health Care System Reform
Continuing Care
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
my question is to the Minister of Health.
Earlier today, a group of health care professionals and consumers held a
press conference outlining their concerns about the lack of community services
for the elderly to offset imminent bed closures at St. Boniface Hospital.
They
were particularly worried about community supports that must be put in place
for a change to be called a genuine reform package. Their questions are reasonable and
demonstrate exactly why we wanted this government to put into place a health
care monitor system which would report directly to the people as to the balance
and the mix in the reform package step by step.
Will
the minister advise the House today what plans have been developed to change
the Continuing Care system to adapt to increased numbers of deinstitutionalized
persons, including changes in assessment, panelling and training of workers,
and will these changes all be in place prior to any bed closures at St.
Boniface Hospital?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, first of all,
my honourable friend might appreciate that the Continuing Care budget that we
in part debated for almost 60 hours has increased this year by some $7 million
from $55 million expenditures last year to a projection of expenditures approaching
$62 million this year. That, Sir, we
expect will provide a fairly significant resource increase to meet the demands
as they emerge with the change of the system from acute hospital‑based
care to community‑based care.
Secondly,
Mr. Speaker, it is not only in terms of finding services in the communities for
those individuals currently within the two teaching hospitals, because my
honourable friend will appreciate that in the proposed bed closures, there are
240 beds to be closed in the two teaching hospitals, but there is a proposal
for 150 additional beds elsewhere in the system in three other locations to be
made available to provide those services. Those will not be in the
community. Those will be in other institutions
at a significantly lower cost to taxpayers, Sir.
Mrs.
Carstairs: But because it will be a reduction in beds overall,
there will need to be some structural changes that will have to be made. Among those structural changes will be the
need for respite care improvements and emergency and backup systems.
Can
the minister tell the House if those new respite services and those new
emergency backup systems will be in place prior to the closure of these
geriatric beds at St. Boniface Hospital?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the Action Plan in
front of me or else I could refer my honourable friend to the area in which it
made that statement that those services would be developed and mature prior to
the decanting of our institutions.
Mr.
Speaker, I have also indicated to my honourable friend in response to other
questions that she posed immediately after tabling of the Action Plan that it
is the intention of government to establish not eight hours per day, five days
per week assessment for placement in the Continuing Care Program, but that in
fact one of the changes for access in the Continuing Care Program will be an
extension of those assessment hours to 16 hours per days, seven days per week.
Mr.
Speaker, that, we anticipate, will curtail the need for emergency admissions of
seniors by providing appropriate supports in the communities for those
individuals, without the need for admission to acute care.
* (1355)
Community-Based Health Care
Tax Relief Program
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): My final
question is to the Minister of Finance.
Another
legitimate concern that was raised by this group was: Would the increased burden of community care
be borne solely by individuals who will be asked to accept even greater responsibility
for the care of their elderly parents and relatives?
In
the recent
Can
the Minister of Finance tell this House if a similar system is being studied in
the
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, specific to
the question, the whole area of tax credit support to the lesser advantaged in
society in
I
am mindful of what has happened in
Health Care System Reform
Home Care Program
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
The
Coalition for Elders, Mr. Speaker, is a concerned group of citizens in the St.
Boniface Hospital community area who believe that the minister's health plan
raises more questions than it answers, and they are concerned about the future
of the health and well‑being of our elderly in the community. They had many questions. I want to ask the minister one of those questions.
Before
closing a single bed and moving a step further on this so‑called health
care reform plan, will the government fix current problems with the Home Care
and Continuing Care Programs like, no emergency back‑up system, lack of
weekend services, inadequate respite care and the need for continuity of care?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I also made
the case, when I introduced the Action Plan for health care, that I will not
any longer, nor will the taxpayers, nor will health care planners, be able to
merely listen to the carping criticisms that we hear from time to time without
some suggestions as to how they might provide a new direction or a better
direction or suggestions on how to make the system work better. I look forward to that kind of debate from
the general public at large.
Mr.
Speaker, I would be particularly pleased if ever I heard a suggestion coming
from the New Democrats that was not spend, spend, spend, Sir.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the May 28 letter
from the president of St. Boniface, Tony Quaglia, to all members of the St.
Boniface Hospital community, where they commit themselves to the 115‑bed
target as long as the minister puts increased resources into Home Care, I want
to ask the Minister of Health if he is meeting his end of the bargain and if he
is transferring dollar for dollar the savings from closing beds directly into
Home Care and alternative community‑care arrangements?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as we have seen in the House, at
least my honourable friend's language today is somewhat an improved version.
Normally,
my honourable friend representing the New Democrats calls a $7‑million
increase to the Home Care program, a cutback. Sir. That is exactly why this government, this
Treasury Board, this governing party approved in the Legislature and approved
in the Estimates process, a $7‑million increase to the Continuing Care
Program, from $55 million this past year to a projection of $62 million in
expenditure this year.
In
addition to that, Sir, it is the intention in the reform process, as I have
stated clearly and unequivocally, that as we wind down the unnecessary care
functions in our acute care hospitals like the teaching hospitals that we will
re‑invest those saved budget dollars in the lesser costly areas of care,
be they institutions at lesser cost per day, community services or new and
improved service access and delivery mechanisms, Sir.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the mere formation of the coalition
for elder health care shows uncertainty and worry in the community.
I,
therefore, want to ask the Minister of Health how he is responding to the
statement in this letter from Tony Quaglia of May 28 which indicates that the
provincial government, in co‑operation with the Health Sciences Centre
and the St. Boniface General Hospital, will be making a public announcement
regarding the restructuring at the two institutions. When can we expect that statement? When will we know‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
* (1400)
Mr.
Orchard: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit my
honourable friend is somewhat impatient, because when we lay out the most progressive
action plan for health care reform in the Dominion of Canada, my honourable
friend is not satisfied. When we make
the comparison, Sir, of the process that we are involved in in Manitoba of $101
million more spending in health care this year than last, $53 million more in
the hospital system, $7 million more in the home care system, my honourable
friend says we should emulate Saskatchewan where they spend $53 million less in
the system. Well, I do not accept NDP
solutions, Sir.
Workers Compensation Board
Public Inquiry
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised questions
relating to the Workers Compensation Board's handling of a case involving a
deceased claimant. The minister has received
a letter from the wife of the deceased claimant requesting a public inquiry
into the Workers Compensation Board's handling of this matter.
Will
the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board now listen to the
widow of the claimant and call a fully independent and impartial public
inquiry?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of
The Workers Compensation Act): Mr. Speaker, in
answering the question from the member, I must say that on a number of
occasions he has brought specific matters to this House regarding Workers
Compensation, where his allegations have not been borne out in particular
fact. I remember a few months ago, a
case on appeal where the appeal commission, all three commissioners had ruled
against the individual.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order. I realize we have divergences
from our rules in Question Period, but there seems to be a pattern developing
here of ministers, not only not answering questions‑‑they do not
have to answer questions‑‑but instead trying to engage in some irrelevant
sort of debate.
If
ministers are not going to answer very direct questions from members of the
opposition, let them say so; otherwise, they should not waste the time of
Question Period with these irrelevant types of comments.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On the same point of
order, Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Labour was trying to indicate to the
House, the member has a record in his history of being in this House of bringing
forward unsubstantiated claims. That has
to be pointed out because indeed the question was becoming argumentative in
itself, and that is against the rules.
Mr.
Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable minister that answers to questions should be as brief as
possible and should deal with the matter raised.
* * *
Mr.
Praznik: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the member brought allegations
about documents being destroyed which I invited him to provide me, which he
still has not done, which turned out simply to be the hand‑written notes
after they were typed and checked with the claimant being discarded.
I
will say this to the member, this is a very important matter and that as minister
I support a full inquest by the Coroner on this particular matter.
Mr.
Reid: Time will tell who is right and who is wrong
in this matter.
Will
the minister listen to the widow and the Workers Compensation Board who said
yesterday that they would welcome a public inquiry and now do the right thing
as both have requested?
For
the minister's assistance, as he had requested yesterday, I would like to table
a copy of the Public Inquiry Structure, Purpose and Mandate, that he so badly
wanted yesterday to provide some assistance for him in putting forward this
matter.
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, here again we have a classic
example of the three written questions and not listening to the answer to the
first one.
I
said to the member for Transcona in the answer to my first question that I
would welcome a full inquest into this particular matter.
Mr.
Reid: The letter is on WCB stationery‑‑an
employee of the Workers Compensation Board who specifically states that minutes
were taken in shorthand and have been destroyed‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, kindly put your
question now, please.
Mr.
Reid: Will this minister, Mr. Speaker, confirm that
the widow had requested a verbatim copy of the minutes of the February 28,
1992, meeting with the Workers Compensation officials because she was concerned
that the Workers Compensation Board was not going to accurately reflect the
information of the meeting, and instead, the Workers Compensation Board sent
this letter‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, here we have a case of a very competent
staff person who takes some written notes at a meeting, has them typed, has
them reviewed with the claimant, as I am advised, and has them on the
file. Now I have said to the member for
Transcona, we welcome fully an inquest.
The Chair of the Workers Compensation Board, Robert Copstein, welcomes
an inquest. We welcome a full inquest
into this matter. I would hope that the
member for Transcona would continue to understand or listen to what I am saying
that we do welcome an inquest. I look
forward to it.
Department of Natural Resources
Waste Disposal ‑
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings) confirmed that the Department of Natural Resources
was responsible for dumping approximately 50 truckloads of waste in the
floodway creating several unlicensed waste disposal sites, rather than trucking
that waste to the city dump as citizens are required to do.
Can
the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House why he sanctioned the creation
of several unlicensed waste disposal sites inside the floodway, instead of
obeying the law and trucking the refuse to a properly licensed disposal site?
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can
inform the honourable member and the House that the department is not dumping
any garbage anywhere. What in effect we
have been doing since the floodway was put into operation, at some expense,
gathered along the 20‑odd‑mile length of the floodway debris that
the waters bring‑‑floating straw, floating bulrushes and trees‑‑into
four selected sites along the 20‑mile width of the floodway. We have been doing this since 1964.
I
am advised that we also separate that which is of pure vegetable matter and
burn it, and the others we take to an appropriate waste disposal site within
the rural municipalities in the area.
I
am aware that my colleague the Minister of Environment is enacting a regulation
that is not in effect today but will be in effect June 15 which requires
prohibiting of any burning of such material.
Of course, my department will carry out the regulations as decreed by
the Department of Environment.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain why his
department was planning on illegally burning the legally disposed of waste
until the Minister of Environment put a stop to this plan yesterday?
* (1410)
Mr.
Enns: Mr. Speaker, I will speak a little more
slowly.
My
understanding‑‑and I wait for the Minister of Environment, my
colleague, to correct me‑‑is that it is legal today. It will not be legal as of June 15. Today, I think, is June 9 or June 10.
So
the practice that the department has carried out‑‑and we do this,
Mr. Speaker, rural members will be interested‑‑the floodway banks
have been, for all these many years, a significant forage agency. Many farmers do our maintenance work and cut
the alfalfa grasses that grow on the banks of the floodway. To assist those farmers when they come out
there with their cutting machines‑‑that they do not run into this
garbage, into these stumps, into the other things‑‑we, at some
expense to the department, gather these.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I think all things being considered, if the rules of the game are
changing, which they are, we will certainly comply with them. I will indicate to you that it will be my intention
to apply for a permit to the department that will enable us to continue burning
the vegetation matter‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, government officials have told us
that these dumps were created because the department did not have enough money
available to pay the city tipping fees.
Does the minister believe it is appropriate for government departments
or private citizens to ignore environmental laws because it is cheaper to do
so, which appears to be the message he is leaving to Manitobans?
Mr.
Enns: I know that my honourable friend the member
for
Mr.
Speaker, we were cleaning up the banks of the floodway as has been the practice
for the last 25 years. So I refute categorically
that the department was engaged in dumping garbage. Regrettably, some private citizens dump some
garbage along those banks as well and we have to clean that up as well.
But,
Mr. Speaker, we will abide by all environmental regulations as issued by the
Department of Environment.
Department of Family Services
Custody Dispute
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): I have debated asking this question of the
Minister of Family Services for some time, but my constituent has endured
horrendous nightmare at the hands of this government department and this
minister, therefore, and I want it stopped now.
It involved the apprehension of a newborn baby by his staff, the
Minister of Family Services in Dauphin in February of '91. Since I raised that question in Estimates as
well for the minister, the mother has been forced to overcome one hurdle after
another in her efforts to gain some custody of her infant son, Gregory. Now 16 months and hundreds of thousands of
dollars in taxpayers' money later in court costs, the minister and his staff
continue to pursue full and permanent custody of this child in a court appeal
that is to be held one week from today.
I
want to ask the Minister of Family Services why his department has not yet
provided a psychological assessment of the mother as directed by the judge in
February and as promised to me in a meeting with his senior staff on May 6.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): We
did arrange a private meeting for the honourable member for Dauphin and a staff
member of his to review the situation with the staff involved in a case dealing
with child welfare. Because of the confidentiality
of child welfare laws and regulations in
Mr.
Plohman: Since the minister cannot advise on that psychological
assessment on my question, and I reminded him of it on May 29, specifically in
a letter, I want to ask the minister if he will now order his staff to abandon
this court action that he is engaged in with this particular case and begin
immediately a humane treatment of this mother and her child, so they can be together
as mother and child as they have a right to be in this province and country.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Certainly all of us in this Legislature, I am
sure, like to see families strengthened and operating in a traditional sense.
Unfortunately,
in society, we do have dysfunctional families that this department does become
involved with from time to time. There
are many, many professionals who bring forward documentation that bear on the
case. This case is currently being
heard, and I am confident that all parties will receive fair treatment and that
the appropriate decisions will be made.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this mother has not had an
opportunity to be a mother. I want to
ask this minister why he will not now abandon this expenditure of hundreds of
thousands of taxpayers' dollars on this court case, and instead, begin a
constructive path with this mother in a supervised custody arrangement with the
mother and child, right now, without‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: I want to assure you and the House that there has
been ongoing support offered and efforts made.
The department has had documentation from a variety of professionals who
have brought to bear their strength and their expertise on this issue.
Our
mandate is to operate in what is in the best interests of the child. There is a process in place that, I am sure,
is going to provide fair treatment to all concerned, and a decision will be
rendered.
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Contaminated Soil
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is for the Minister of Environment.
We
have recently learned that the Department of Environment sanctioned the placing
of 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil at the intersection of the
Mr.
Speaker, when questioned on the wisdom and legality of this use of highway
ditches as a dumping ground for contaminated soil, a senior departmental
official said this is a single‑use site.
If we get into a multiple‑use site, it would be subject to full
environmental licensing.
Can
the minister point to that part of The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Act that would exonerate his department from getting a licence
to handle this contaminated soil in this fashion, given that this act in
Section 2 specifically binds the Crown, as it does every other citizen of this
province?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think there is anything in the act that precludes some common sense either.
It
seems to me that this is a perfect example of why we now have a number of
initiatives going on in order to be able to treat this type of very lightly
contaminated soil. It will be taken and
dealt with appropriately when we have proper facilities with which to deal with
it.
Mr.
Edwards: For the same minister, why did this minister
allow 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil to be dumped in a publicly
accessible intersection without the posting of warning signs, without any
public identification of the substance at the site, without any fence around
the site, without any notification of the R.M. of Rosser‑‑surely
the bare minimum in dealing with contaminated soil at a publicly accessible
site?
Mr.
Cummings: Again, I hope that the member is perhaps
stating extreme concerns.
It
seems to me that given that this is material that was removed after some 20 to
25 years of having been degraded or partially degraded, that in the period of
time until we have a proper facility in which to deal with this equipment, but
it is much better that it be removed to a site of that nature rather than
stored in dumpsters or other such methods which tend to be perhaps more
troublesome if located near a populated area.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, currently this is requiring a
licence by this department. Any other
person in this province would require a licence. This minister sees fit that this government does
not need one.
My
final question for the minister: Where
is the department putting the rest of the contaminated soil generated out of
the city of Winnipeg each year, given that the senior official also indicated
that with respect to the 10,000 cubic feet on the perimeter, multiply that by
100 and you get an idea of what is coming out of Winnipeg in one year? What other highways in this province have
contaminated soil in the ditches?
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that there was some requirement
on the part of each of us, as honourable members of this Legislature, to put
some veracity to statements such as that rather than creating a public furor
over something that he obviously has very little information about. Right now there is a meeting in one of the
R.M.s not very far from‑‑
Point of Order
Mr.
Edwards: I am not certain the minister understood the question. This is a quote from Mr. Ediger of his
department: multiply that by 100 and you get an idea of what is coming out of
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr.
Cummings: For a number of years, a good deal of this material
went to the Brady landfill and was treated in that manner. So that is an example of how this material
has been handled over a period of years.
At
least the process today is that we have a number of applications. We have the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corp.
siting a facility, as we speak. We have
interest expressed by some of the large gasoline vendors, companies, producers
of gasoline and diesel, looking to establish a soil farming operation. Soon as those multi‑use facilities are
in place, we will be looking to move all material there.
Mr.
Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
Speaker's Ruling
Mr.
Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
On
May 6, 1992, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the honourable
House leader of the official opposition, the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), in order to peruse Hansard.
The
point of order was a claim that the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in replying to a
question, had cast aspersions on or attributed unworthy motives to the
honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Hansard shows that the words complained of were " . . . because a
death occurred, he"‑‑meaning the member for Kildonan‑‑"used
that as a preamble to sensationalize his question, and I object to that."
I
am ruling that strictly speaking, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) did not have point of order. I
did note from the review of Hansard that the choice of words by the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) used earlier that day, in an exchange of questions and answers
with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), had been the subject of a point of
order.
I
would ask the Premier to be careful in his choice of words. As First Minister, the tone he sets is an
important factor in shaping the mood of the House.
At
this time, I would also like to remind all honourable members that Question
Period is televised, and we should all be very conscious of the viewing
public's perception of our actions and decorum.
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I rise on a matter of
privilege, Mr. Speaker.
It
arises out of the incident yesterday, and I first of all want to echo the
sentiments of our Leader earlier in terms of noting the presence today of the
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), and given the horrendous situation
yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we are very glad to see him back in this House in one piece.
The
matter I am raising, Mr. Speaker, is in regard to the question of the security
of the Legislature and the legislative grounds.
What happened yesterday, in some ways, can be considered an isolated
event, but we have had other incidents. We have had damage to property. We have had cars stolen. We have many people on the legislative
grounds at this time of year when in this part of the session we are holding
many late‑night committee hearings.
What happened yesterday could well happen again, either to a member of
the Legislature or indeed another member of this House.
One
of the concerns that I know many people have discussed today is to try and not
just deal with this as an isolated incident, but perhaps take from it something
in a positive sense, in the sense of improving the kind of security that we can
provide to, as I said, not just members, but members of the public, because,
indeed, we have sat as late as four in the morning as recently as the past
session. We sat last night until midnight,
and there is concern that this type of incident could happen again.
We
are suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that one concern that we have as members of the
Legislature is indeed the control of the Legislature over its own
precincts. We have raised this before, and
I know that it has been reviewed previously in terms of matters of privilege,
and Beauchesne has a number of citations regarding the whole of the precincts
of the House, but it is more than a question of technicalities in this
particular case. It is more than a
question strictly of raising it as something that has anything to do with
Beauchesne or any rules of this House.
It
is a matter, I think, of common sense, Mr. Speaker, and we are raising this‑‑and
I do have a substantive motion; I will be reading it in a minute, but we are
very concerned with what happened. As we
say, we are very pleased that this particular incident did not have a tragic
end, and we look forward to perhaps being able to sit down, as all members of
the Legislature, in looking at ways of improving the situation here, not just
for ourselves, but for members of the public.
We look forward to perhaps the suggestions from the member, and I know
he has indicated publicly his thanks to the police department, and I think that
is something that needs to be noted, their role in terms of what happened.
Mr.
Speaker, no one is pointing fingers. No
one is blaming anybody on staff. I think
we are looking at procedures here, and I do think in that sense, in a general
sense, and I am not arguing this strictly on the basis of rules, but in terms
of common sense, I think there is a need, and our caucus feels there is a need
to sit down and look at this to make sure that this type of incident can be
avoided in the future.
That
is why, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis), that the question of security at the Legislative
Building be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add to some of the comments that were made from the
member for Thompson, and we too are glad that the member who was involved in
this unfortunate incident is in fact okay, that nothing tragic of any nature
occurred.
It
is always a concern in terms of how late we sit and the question of safety of
our members. I know, in terms of some of
the parking arrangements of the Legislature, one of the ways that we addressed
it for some of the members was to have it at the front where there are lights
and so forth late in the evenings.
I
know that one could call into question in terms of the whole need to have to
sit here late in the evenings if we started earlier in the days and so forth.
There
are a number of things, no doubt, that we can do to address some of the
concerns that not only have been expressed as a direct result of last night's
incident, but of incidents that have occurred in the past and also concerns
that have been brought up, not only inside the Chamber, but also at LAMC and other
more informal discussions amongst the members.
We
concur with the motion and would suggest that there would be some benefit to
having the committee sit to look at this problem and hopefully prevent things
of this nature from occurring in the future.
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services):
Just to put a couple of words on the record in regard to the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), we regret the incident that happened. We have to remember that when it comes close
to home, like it has in this particular building and around the area, I know
myself, in my first year as minister, I have been told from the other side,
from members, and criticized on the recent upgrade of many security matters
when we have demonstrations, et cetera‑‑just to show that it is not
only our members, but it is demonstrations, the accessibility to the building.
We
have increased that security immensely in the last couple of years. We will continue to do so, and I look forward
to supporting the members on this particular motion, especially because it
makes it easier for myself as minister responsible to get across the points
that I tried to get across during the demonstrations, when we were criticized
because we limited access to the building, and we brought in more security to
the building.
I
look forward to maybe bringing that into discussions instead of it being on the
forum of this floor. It is easier to bring
it into discussions of a committee, and I look forward to that and support the
motion of the member.
Mr.
Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their advice on this matter. I will
take this matter under advisement and will report back to the House.
Committee Changes
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
be amended as follows: The member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), for June 9, 1992,
10 a.m. [Agreed!
I
move, seconded by the member for
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I also have a committee change. I move, seconded by the member for
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave
for a nonpolitical statement, please? [Agreed!
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to rise in the House
today. I would like to thank my
colleagues in the Legislature for their support over the past morning. I am still having trouble pulling it
together.
Mr.
Speaker, the press was very good to me this morning, they did not give me a
hard time. They let me gather my
thoughts, and I want to thank them for that.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to rise today in this House and thank somebody who does not
get thanked very often in this city, and that is our finest, the Winnipeg
Police Department and a few of their members who came out to help me last
night. That was Phil Penner, Dan Arnal,
Doreen Ewatski, Dave Barr, Kevin Wiens, Paul Lamotte, David Rees, and the one
who helped me pull it together, Mr. Bill Firman who was on the phone as I was
being taken. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1430)
* * *
Mr.
Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have leave
for a nonpolitical statement. [Agreed!
Mr.
Speaker, it seems in today's world we hear a lot about what is going wrong in
our society and not enough about the good that is happening. I believe it is vital that we take time out and
recognize the acts of bravery by people willing to put their lives on the line
to save others.
Irvin
Braun and Daryl Rempel are members of the Altona Volunteer Fire
Department. Braun is a department
captain and co‑ordinator of its ambulance service, while Rempel, who
works as a reporter at the local newspaper, is a volunteer firefighter as well
as a volunteer ambulance attendant.
Mr.
Speaker, on December 16, 1991, Braun and Rempel were transferring a patient to
the
Mr.
Speaker, the fire would have surely killed both people inside the vehicle. As a result of the courage and caring of these
two men, one person is alive today. For
their efforts, Irvin Braun and Daryl Rempel have been awarded citations from
the provincial Fire Commissioner's Office in recognition of their heroic
efforts.
Since
I personally know both of these men, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to
ask all members of this House to pay tribute to Irvin Braun and Daryl Rempel of
Altona, two
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to announce to the House that the Standing Committee on Industrial
Relations will meet on Tuesday, June 23 at 10 a.m., to consider the 1991 Annual
Report of the Workers Compensation Board and their five‑year plan.
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to change the reference.
The legislation calls that indeed any report of this type be referred to
the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr.
Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
Mr.
Manness: Well, I thank the table officer for that
correction.
Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if there is a disposition to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No.
Denied.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) in the Chair for the Department
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the honourable member for
* (1440)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Jack Reimer): Will the Committee of
Supply please come to order. This
afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will be
considering the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Does
the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have an opening
statement?
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Consumer
and Corporate Affairs has changed somewhat since last year. We have a Consumer Affairs division now which
includes both the Consumers' Bureau and the Residential Tenancies Branch
transferred to us last September from Housing.
Our Consumers' Bureau mandate now includes The Business Practices Act and
this act, which was brought in by our government and proclaimed in January of
last year, I believe, significantly improves the marketplace for consumers and
businesses. We know, of course, and are
grateful for the fact that the vast majority of businesses do not engage in
unfair practices; however, those who do cause losses for both their legitimate
competitors and for consumers as well.
They also give all businesses a bad image.
The
Business Practices Act prohibits deceptive practices in the promotion and sale
of consumer goods and services and provides legal remedies for consumers who
suffer losses and enables the Consumers' Bureau to take action to stop unfair business
practices. The bureau can now conduct
investigations under the act, seek assurances of voluntary compliance, go to court
to stop deceptive practices, and go to court to freeze a company's assets.
We
have had some issues of concern brought to us and lodged under The Business
Practices Act. To this date we have been
able to settle them at the mediation level.
That is a very good thing that speaks well of the mediation ability of
the people and the staff at the Consumers' Bureau. I believe the new act, which applies to most
consumer transactions, will help prevent losses to consumers and legitimate
business competitors. I believe it will
also help consumers recover losses as a result of unfair practices.
The
new Residential Tenancies Act, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we expect to have
proclaimed this summer, and it also brings significant benefits to
tenants. It eliminates much of the
duplication between the courts and the program.
It allows tenants and landlords one‑stop shopping for their
complaints. It allows administrative
orders for possession in a less costly and time‑sensitive manner. There is a wider scope for appeals under the
new Residential Tenancies Act.
I
believe the act spells out in better and greater detail the obligations of
landlords and tenants to each other. The
new act, as well, expands provisions for repairs and improves the settling of
claims for both landlords and tenants.
The
natural gas lock‑off legislation occurred in this last year as well. This change was intended to help keep most customers
of the gas company from paying for those few who refused to pay their
bills. The procedures required of the
gas company by the Public Utilities Board help ensure that those who genuinely
need assistance and cannot pay receive assistance. While about 400 residents,
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, last year were locked off, most customers in
arrears were able to make some arrangement with the company to continue service
and to payback their delinquent accounts.
This
May, Centra Gas anticipated a potential lock‑off situation involving
close to 4,000 residences. The program
has worked so far as planned to protect the vast majority of natural gas
customers who pay their bills on time.
Consumer
education is a very important part of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it is
a very important focus in the department.
We take some 50,000 calls a year, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. Many of those are calls requesting
information. We have done much more than
that in terms of education, in terms of a proactive approach. We introduced an innovative consumer education
program called Project Real World. This
program was developed in co‑operation with five other provinces to use in
high schools across
We
recognize that the Canadian youth, young people between the ages of 13 and 15,
spend in excess of $3.5 billion in
Activities
in the five modules take students out of the classroom and into the local
community while other activities bring business people into the
classrooms. Every high school in
We
recently have embarked upon another initiative, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson,
that of plain language. We understand
very clearly that a large part of consumer protection means communication, and
to communicate effectively we must use language that everyone understands. You see this reflected in the new Business
Practices Act which is worded in such a way that it is clear to the reader and
put into language that makes the meaning plain.
That is the idea behind the plain language movement. The popularity of plain language is
growing. There are now many good
examples of plain language contracts, legislation and how‑to guides. Using clear, simple language is efficient and
effective, and it can improve both customer service and access to government.
My
department supports and promotes the concept of plain language, and we have begun
to use plain language in our department starting with letters, brochures and
presentations. Our Consumer Education section wrote Consumer Education for New Canadians
guide, which uses clear language. The
guide is a teaching tool for English as a Second Language teachers. We are trying to follow plain language
guidelines when drafting legislation. We
tried to simplify language, as I mentioned before, in several complicated
issues in the BPA. We will continue to
use these techniques as much as we possibly can for form letters in the
Residential Tenancies program.
These
are small‑scale initiatives, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but they are
a step in the right direction. We will continue
in this pathway ourselves and we will encourage other departments as well to do
the same.
Consumer
and Corporate Affairs Manitoba recently endorsed a national commitment to plain
language. We are working in partnership
with other provinces on distributing a plain language survey which will help us
identify plain language right across the country.
* (1450)
As
well this year, we embarked upon another exciting initiative. We have established insurance councils to
increase insurance agents' and adjusters' ability to regulate themselves. This
initiative allows life and general insurance agents and adjusters to deal with
licensing issues, set entry level standards and ongoing education requirements,
to adjudicate questions of conduct and disciplinary matters that do not require
prosecution. The program is self‑financing. Similar programs exist in
These
are just some of the things that have been occurring in my department over the
last year that are over and above the regulatory work that we do. As you know, we govern some 29 acts and those
acts are highly regulatory in nature.
Staff in the department are trained to interpret the law so that the regulatory
functions are carried out correctly. In
many instances, staff in the various divisions of my department are trained as
well to mediate on various interpretations of the law to settle disputes. As a matter of interest, some $500,000 a year
is returned to Manitobans annually as a result of successful mediations. The Consumers' Bureau alone mediates some
2,500 cases a year; 80 percent of those are done successfully.
I
wish to indicate as well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that we work fairly
closely with the police or law enforcement officials in investigations and that
liaison with law enforcement officials has been, I believe, to the benefit of
consumers. We have seen some very good
co‑operation done on things like home renovation scams, investigations
into areas that are brought to our attention that we will alert the law
enforcement officials to or things that they will bring to our attention. So we do appreciate that liaison. As you know, we have two small pieces of
legislation before the House right now to improve and enhance that ability to
share information with other jurisdictions.
I
look forward to the remarks that will be offered by the critics and to the
questions that they may place before me during this Estimates procedure.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): We thank the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for those comments.
Does
the critic from the official opposition, the honourable member for Elmwood,
have any opening comments?
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I listened
intently to the comments of the minister, and of course I have a different view
and a different opinion as to what she has or has not been doing over the past
year.
I
recognize that The Business Practices Act was put into place starting this
January 1, but there are a host of other issues that are of concern to myself
and my caucus that I am looking and pressing the minister for action on. I look forward to her comments on each of the
points that I do want to bring up this afternoon, because I think it is
important to hear what the minister is planning or what the minister‑‑the
status of the minister's research on such important consumer items, at this point
in our history, as the sticker‑price issue for new car sales, the
documentation fees on new cars, octane levels in gasoline, negative option
offers, a lemon law for this province which is very much needed, and a whole
host of other areas that I have been concerned about and our caucus has been
concerned about and areas that we have yet to hear from the minister or this, government
on as to what their direction may be.
On
that basis, I would have to say that the government has done nowhere near what
I expect from the government. I think‑‑
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Maloway: That is correct. The member for
But
I have confidence in this minister and this government to show some repentance
here and take the initiative and bring in some of these pieces of legislation
so that I will not have to be around here as the minister to bring them
in. It gives me no satisfaction to see these
initiatives not taken. I have given the
government full credit for bringing in The Business Practices Act. Even though I introduced the act in the
Legislature, I have no qualms whatsoever about the government copying the act
and bringing it in. I wish they had not
watered it down and taken out the unconscionable acts but, regardless of that,
I am very pleased that they took that initiative.
When
and if they do come forward with a proper lemon law in this province or any of
the other issues that we have been talking about, I will be the first to
commend the government for taking those steps.
I
believe that, at this point, we should move into the line by line. The Liberal critic has just arrived, so
perhaps the Liberal critic would like to make a few comments before we go into
a line‑by‑line examination.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I thank the honourable
member. Does the critic from the second
opposition, the honourable member for The Maples, have any opening comments?
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do have a
few comments.
This
is my first time in this Estimates process in this department, so it will be a
partially learning and partially questioning process. I do have a lot of specific concerns, and I think
it will be best for me to address them when I reach those lines.
Certainly,
I want to point out to the minister that certain things, the statement she had
made in her opening remarks, I just heard the initial part. One of the things she has said that she believes
in more communication and consumer education.
At the same time, within her department about $91,000 has been completely
cut from this year's budget in that specific area, and I think that may be
something she should explain when she is making such a statement and not
complying with her own thrust of the department.
There
are a number of other concerns in terms of the recent issues of furnaces and
protection of consumers and the other issue is her Bill 62 which I think goes
in the opposite direction. Rather than
strengthening the director's role, it is probably going to weaken the
role. I would certainly ask some specific
questions.
The
other issue that I want to address will be in terms of the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) who has brought a private member's bill. I am questioning why the government has not
done it, why the government did not feel comfortable with such a good
initiative, why the private member has to do it. I am not questioning the private member's
intention. They are all good intentions
and certainly we had the similar kind of bill between '88 and '90. So that is not a new idea, but certainly, I would
like to hear from the minister in regard to that bill.
Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, from here we can proceed with the questioning and
see how we will proceed. See I have been
involved in the Consumer and Corporate Affairs now.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I would like to thank the
honourable member.
Under
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased
to introduce Mr. Don Zasada, the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Fred Bryans of the Department of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs. I have other staff back there.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Thank you.
At
this time item 1.(b) Executive Support:
(1) Salaries $264,200‑‑pass.
1.(b)(2)
Other Expenditures $52,300.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister tell us if we can ask a question in terms of the regulation at this stage
or should we wait? If it is going to be
just two hours of Estimates process and if we want to just go all over the
place in terms of questioning, I am just asking if it is possible.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would
recommend that we go item by item because The Landlord and Tenant Act is coming
up to the member for The Maples. He can
see The Landlord and Tenant Act just coming up very soon.
* (1500)
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Item 1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures
$52,300‑‑pass.
1.(c)(1)
Salaries $468,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $311,700‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Legislative
Assembly $191,000‑‑pass.
1.(d)(1)
Salaries $147,500.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have some questions
of the minister at this stage concerning the Research and Planning bureau.
I
believe last year the minister gave me an update of what the department was
working on. One of the issues they were working
on at that time was possible legislation on negative‑option offers. I would like to know where that has gotten to
so far and just what is happening with that initiative.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Staff has been researching that, is looking at
what is going on in other jurisdictions, what types of legislation they have in
place, what is working and what is not working.
Aside from one issue that was raised briefly during the last year, it is
not an issue that has been the subject of complaints on a large scale to the
department. They are continuing their
homework on the issue.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister tell us what conclusions their Research department has come to on this
matter, and be a little more expansive in her answer as to what jurisdictions
they have looked at? Just feel free to
take as much time as you want.
Mrs.
McIntosh: There are three provinces that have
legislated this kind of legislation.
Outside of the cablevision question, those jurisdictions have also not
found that it is a major problem. They
find that in most cases consumers will either refuse to pay or return products,
and in that sense the issue is not growing, as some might have thought it
would, as a problem.
Mr.
Maloway: Could the minister give us an indication of
other areas that the Research department has been working on? For example, the previous minister informed
us last year, the year before, that the Research department was in the process
of monitoring gasoline prices. We got
into a considerable give‑and‑take about how that was being done and
how things were going on. Could you give
us a‑‑I know you claim that your department is somewhat limited in
the number of staff and the number of issues.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wish to
correct, for the record, I have never complained that my department is understaffed. I have indicated that the researchers and
planners and staff in my department are continuing to look into what is happening
in other jurisdictions with this issue, which has not been the cause of major
complaints with the bureau.
You
mentioned‑‑and I think because you mentioned it that it is
appropriate that I respond‑‑about the monitoring the previous minister
did of the gas situation. I find it very
interesting that when I came into office and was looking at the gasoline charts,
I noted the charts that I was given at that time to study started on January 1,
1986, and the last date indicated there was December 30 or 29, towards the end
of December 1985. The gasoline prices at
that time were identical to the gasoline prices in the summer of 1990 and the
summer of 1991.
Fluctuation
in the gas prices as a result of the very careful monitoring done by the
previous minister and the Research and Planning department, who keep in close
touch with what is happening with the price of crude oil, the rack prices in
the States, the taxation and all of the other things that go along with the
gasoline prices, indicate that we have maintained and stay at the third lowest
gasoline prices in Canada. We have the second
or third lowest taxation on gasoline at the pumps in
There
are many, many things that affect the price of gasoline. I am mentioning this because it has been said
repeatedly that the previous minister monitor gasoline prices. I think that the only other thing that the
minister of that era or of this era, or indeed of the era of the NDP between
1981 and 1988, could have done would have been to regulate the price of gasoline. Careful monitoring has revealed what happens
in those provinces which have regulated.
There is only one left in
I
just feel that we do not wish to get into a regulatory system. Indeed, the experts that we have consulted
have advised against it. The other thing
we could do would be to get into the buying and selling of gasoline ourselves
which would mean having to raise taxes to pay for the gas bars. We do have gas bars which are put in place as
co‑operative gas bars which people of
Mr.
Maloway: The issue of the MSRPs, the sticker prices on
cars, has been around with us now for some time. That is another area that Research and
Planning have supposedly been working on now for a long, long time. What is the status of the MSRP issue?
* (1510)
Mrs.
McIntosh: This issue is one that has been around for
some time. It has been around for many
years. In fact, I think maybe since '81,
'82, '83, '84, '85, '86 and so on, this issue has been around. It is quite interesting that no jurisdiction
in
An
interesting thing, as well, is that General Motors has now mandated that these
stickers be placed on their cars. Some
Ford dealers as well are placing this on the cars. Of course, consumers can always ask to see
that price. They can always ask the
manufacturer for that price, and the manufacturer is very pleased to offer it
to them, pleased to oblige in that regard.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, well, the whole
area of the MSRP is an issue that even the car dealers when pushed or when
cornered on radio shows will admit publicly that the province should have, but
privately we know that the car dealers are very adamant in opposition to this
issue with the Liberal and the Conservative caucuses.
Until
this government decides to take some initiative here and support consumers and
require the sticker prices to be left on the cars, consumers will continue to
be taken advantage of when they buy new cars, because what is happening here in
Manitoba is the sticker prices are being removed from the cars as the cars are
brought in from Ontario. The car dealers
have been typing up their own invoices, typically $2,000 higher, and they argue
allows them to give people what they want for their trade‑ins.
The
fact of the matter is that one can go to Kenora, Ontario, and compare the same
car and probably find that in Manitoba where they may have negotiated $1,000
off the price, they will find they are spending another $1,000 more than they
could have got the car for in Ontario, which brings me to a related issue and that
is that in the United States right now, the minister should be aware and recent
articles in The Globe and Mail have pointed this out, that there are certain
car dealers themselves who have gone to a set price. They have found that this is working quite well
in the
Perhaps
the minister, when she is next meeting with her car dealer associates, would
bring this matter to their attention, because I think that while the MSRP issue
is a good one and something that I think the consumers should have, it is
incumbent upon the car dealers, I suppose, to show some responsibility here. I am sure that they themselves may see some
merit in giving consumers set pricing eventually, because I think if the experience
in Montreal and in the States is any indication, the dealers that take the
initiative and do this are going to get a better market share.
So
perhaps the problem ultimately will be solved by the market itself and the
minister will not have to do anything here.
Perhaps, she is waiting for that to happen, but I would like to know
what her comments are in this area. I
would like to know specifically why the manufacturers suggested retail price sticker
requirement would not be brought in by the government when in fact the car
dealers themselves are hard pressed to argue against it when confronted in the
media.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I have a couple of interesting observations
just before I give my answer. I am
somewhat puzzled by the member's statements of things that he alleges are being
said in caucuses other than his own. I
do not know what is being said in the other two caucuses. I am sure it must be very, very interesting. I am kind of puzzled by how he can make
statements about things that he alleges are being said in other people's caucuses.
I
do not have any car dealer associates.
The member said I should talk to my car dealer associates, and I do not
really know who he is talking about, because I do not have any car dealer associates. I have many associates here in the
Legislature which is what I do for my living.
I presume he means that I should be talking to segments of the industry
that would naturally be vitally interested in this‑‑the
manufacturers, the retailers, the consumers.
Indeed, we have talked to those people.
As I indicated before, General Motors itself has now mandated this. Some
Ford dealers are doing it as well. I
reiterate, it is a very simple matter for a consumer to obtain that list, that
price by making a quick phone call to the manufacturer, and many dealers will
provide that phone number if they do not happen to have the information there
themselves.
This
piece of legislation is not a piece of legislation that is being ignored in the
sense that we say it would not be a good thing to legislate it. We have had other pieces of legislation that
have taken a higher priority with us, and we believe for good reason, because
they more immediately affect people when they have no other option. For example, the work that we did on The
Business Practices Act and the work that we are currently doing on The
Residential Tenancies Act, we felt, for this session, should have a higher
priority.
I
know members have expressed that they did not wish to have a legislative
session that would go on for 10, 12 months at a time.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the RCMP sent
the minister a report, back at the end of February now, dealing with the
odometer tampering issue, stating clearly that the problem was widespread, and
contrary to what the minister had previously said that it was not a major
problem. Now the minister has been sitting
on this report since the end of February.
I have asked her in the House to release the report. I would like to know why it is that she is
holding on to this report and will not release it, because one presumes that
there is nothing in here that is overly explosive.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, once again I
think it is very important that the inaccurate statements made by the critic be
corrected for the record. First of all,
indeed, you are correct, and I will acknowledge the correctness of your statement,
that in February or thereabouts‑‑I do not have the exact date‑‑the
RCMP did forward to me, at my request, a summation of their opinions on the
odometer tampering that had occurred and any suggestions or recommendations
they might be able to give us that would assist consumers.
As
the member knows, the RCMP and this minister were in communication during that
particular episode of the odometer tampering.
The member also knows, because it was explained to him at the time‑‑and
he chooses to take a different interpretation to what he heard for reasons that
are unknown to me, but perhaps could be speculated upon by others
observing. He knows that in responding
to the question, have you had any concerns or complaints about this issue, that
I indicated to the press that the Consumers' Bureau, to that point, had not
received any complaints. So the
consumers, in that sense, did not feel the problem was widespread enough to be
contacting us. The police, from their
perspective, indicated from the criminal charges that they were investigating
that their concern expressed to them was indeed widespread. That was not a contradiction. We were each speaking from our own
jurisdictional perspective.
That
is very important that be cleared, because the member has, on several
occasions, stood up and said that the RCMP and I were in direct contradiction
with each other, when in fact we were in communication with each other, moving
on the same wavelength to see if we could take some effective action to solve this
problem.
The
RCMP subsequently forwarded to me, at my request, some suggestions that they
had been working on and looking at. They
were very, very helpful. They came in
the form of a two‑page letter.
That two‑page letter indicated several suggestions that were not
the suggestions the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) indicated in the House
were the things the RCMP had asked him to do in The Consumer Protection Act.
* (1520)
Indeed,
the RCMP did not ask for any changes to The Consumer Protection Act. The RCMP suggested changes that would come
under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger). That being the case, I
forwarded the correspondence to the Minister of Highways and Transportation who
has made it very clear in the House, in plain language that is easily
understood, that his department is looking at those suggestions with a view to
making adjustments or changes, either through regulation or whatever means may
be necessary for a future session, or for a future time period if there are no amendments
to his acts required. It was to The
Highway Traffic Act and the motor vehicle act that the police referred.
As
the member may not have known before, but I am sure knows by now, odometer
tampering comes under the Minister of Highways and Transportation's act, not
The Consumer Protection Act.
Mr.
Maloway: Well, once again, could the minister provide
us with a copy of that report from the RCMP because they have no objection to
us having a copy of it, provided the minister is prepared to comply and give us
a copy?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, perhaps the
member did not hear me. I forwarded that
correspondence to the Minister of Highways and Transportation. Odometer tampering comes under his act, the
issue is under his study right now, and I would suggest that those questions
would be properly put to the minister responsible.
Mr.
Maloway: The RCMP clearly indicate that the report was
sent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it is not good
enough to say that you sent a copy off to the Minister of Highways. I am asking you whether you can retrieve a
copy for me. I guess that is a more
direct and specific question. Would you be
prepared to do that in consideration that they themselves have no objection to
you releasing that report?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think it is
a very simple question for the member to put to the Minister of Highways and
Transportation. I do not know why you
would want a third party‑‑to me it is always easier to go to the
person whom you want to ask the question of than to go to an intermediary and get
them to be the middleman.
Mr.
Maloway: The point is that the RCMP wrote the report
to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, not to the Minister of
Highways. I have asked both ministers
about this report, and I basically get the runaround from them. What I want to know‑‑I am
directing the question to the minister to whom the report was sent in the first
place, and that is the department that we are dealing with right now. I want to know whether the minister will obtain
the report and give us a copy and when she will do that.
Mrs.
McIntosh: The member, I thought, had read the report because
he quoted from it when he opened his statements. He said, the RCMP sent the minister a report‑‑and
he said something to this effect‑‑and in that report it clearly
stated that this was a widespread problem.
I
naturally assumed that he had read it.
At any rate, the member indicates that he has talked to the RCMP and
that the RCMP have told him their concerns.
The RCMP have indicated to him what they would like to see done. He has stated that in the House. He got up and said, I am introducing exactly
what the RCMP want, so I presume then he knows what the RCMP want. The Minister for Highways and Transportation
also said that he was looking hard at this issue.
I
have forwarded the letter from the RCMP which contains their recommendations
and suggestions which the member says he already knows because he has told in
the House what all those recommendations and suggestions were except he got the
act wrong. I suggest that he go the
minister who has the report and get it.
Mr.
Maloway: The minister is trying to hide once again on
this issue. The report was clearly
addressed to her. It was sent to her,
and all I am asking her is, if she is not prepared to release the report, just
simply say so; just say that she is not going to release the report.
The
fact is that I have not seen the report and I do not know what is in it, so for
her to say that somehow I know what is in the report and I have seen the report
and stuff is totally false. I want to
know why it is that she will not release this report. Why can she not just say she will not do it,
and I will accept that as an answer?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have
indicated already that the correspondence on this issue which the member referred
to and indicated that the contents indicated that this was a widespread
problem, I have already indicated that that is with the Minister of Highways
and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and that he should address his question to
the proper minister, the minister responsible for the act that contains the
section on odometer tampering. I have
said it plainly. I have said it plainly
three times. I have just said it again.
Mr.
Maloway: Well, obviously, I will not get any further
with this minister on this subject today.
So I think I will have to take it up with the Minister of Highways and
see if he is any more forthcoming regarding this report, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
Now
I have to ask the minister what her research department has done or is planning
to do in the area of documentation fees in regard to automobile sales
transactions.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are not
doing anything with documentation fees.
Mr.
Maloway: I would like to ask the minister then why that
is the case, because I have had several complaints over the years from people
who have purchased motor vehicles, both new and used, and are quite upset when
they see on the sales transaction a fee, usually these days printed right on
the sales form which can amount to anywhere from $40 to $140, which when the
purchasers ask the auto dealers about the item are told that it is a documentation
fee and it is designed to pay for the typing up of the contract. People get quite irate when they have to pay
these documentation fees. Some of them
successfully get their money back, but most do not.
It
seems to me that the minister should get this research department of hers
working in this area, and I ask her whether she would now take that under
advisement and perhaps endeavour to take a look at this area and come back with
some sort of initiative in this area.
Mrs.
McIntosh: With automobile sales, as the member is
aware, it is one of the products over which a great deal of haggling goes on,
unlike a lot of other products where you go into the store and you pay a dollar
for a chocolate bar. It is not a fixed price
in that sense in that consumers and retailers will negotiate back and forth and
settle on a price in many instances.
Documentation is, therefore, not the same as it might be in terms of
buying a chocolate bar in a corner store.
I thank the member for his comments.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the whole area
of octane levels in gasoline became an issue briefly last year, and in the
* (1530)
As
a matter of fact, last year when it became an issue I checked with three or
four gas stations, and universally there was a total ignorance about the
area. No one pumping the gas knew what
an octane level was. In fact, nobody who
owned the stations knew what an octane level was. As a matter of fact, there was only one
station owner that pretended to know anything about it.
Of
course, the issue centered around one of the major gasoline retailers, one of
the national firms who basically altered their levels. They added another octane level, and they changed
their pricing and so on. So the result
was that people were paying the same price but getting a lower octane. From what I am informed, they have a very
major impact on the performance of your car.
So
some people thought they were driving at a certain octane level and the engine
was operating a certain way. Then they found
the performance was not there a few weeks later. So I think this is an initiative that the
government could take. It would cost
very little money. But I would like to
ask the minister at this point whether or not this research department of hers
has considered this at all.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
Research department of the government of Manitoba for the Department of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs has spent a great deal of time on this issue, has taken a
serious look at it in terms of the ramifications of putting labels on in
certain areas and so on.
The
member made an interesting point, and I just jotted it down here. He said that most people are in total
ignorance of octane levels and what they mean and so on.
Mr.
Maloway: People who work in the gas station, yes.
Mrs.
McIntosh: People who work in the gas stations and a lot
of people who drive cars just do not have a great deal of information about
what the octane level means. It is a
very revealing statement, and it gets to the heart of the issue and the heart
of the problem in that a lot of people assume‑‑I think maybe the
member at one point made a statement that made me think that maybe he even
makes this assumption‑‑that the higher the octane level, the better
the gasoline.
An
Honourable Member: It is the other way around.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Okay.
The lower the octane level the better the gasoline. So that is what you think, but you know that
may not actually be correct. So it
concerns me that if even here in the Legislative Assembly we have people making
erroneous assumptions about what octane levels mean, that the consumers would
not have a higher level of understanding either.
The
lower level is not necessarily the best.
The middle level, 89, is the best level for older cars. The lower the number is not necessarily the
better for a particular make of car.
What the consumer needs to know is, what does my particular car require
for an octane level? There are some cars
that require the middle level more than they would require a lower level, and
that requires a great deal of knowledge and understanding.
Again,
as with the MSRP, consumers are able to obtain the octane level by contacting
the gasoline company. Rather than mislead
people, there are some very legitimate concerns raised about posting an octane
level that would lead some people to think, for example, the example I just used,
that the lower level would be better for their car, when, in fact, the middle
level might be the one that is best for their car.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think that
the minister should recognize that the government should be trying to simplify
things for people, and I do not think people want to be going on a big price
hunt here, hunting down the proper octane levels. I think all we are looking at or what people
require is a sticker on the gas pumps that give the octane levels as they are. When they determine what octane level is best
for the car, then they will know what to buy.
Right
now, if the minister has driven her car around and checked some gas pumps
recently, the minister will find, particularly in the small stations, there is
no choice in the type of gasoline. It is
all the same thing.
In
a two‑pump gas station in Domain, they do not have two different types of
octane; there is only one. If the
minister checks enough gas stations, she will find that nobody, literally nobody,
who works at any of these gas stations knows what the octane level is at
all. So it is not a question of having
people phone the gas companies to find out what their octane level is; you
cannot do it. It is as simple as that.
You
as a consumer‑‑and I invite the minister to try this, to go and
check a couple of gas stations; you are going to find nothing from them. If you phone their head offices and so on, you
are not going to be any further ahead. I
mean, who has time to spend hours and hours, other than her and myself, and the
deputy minister and the Research department?
Who has the time or the inclination to go to all this trouble? Well, the fact of the matter is that people
do not.
All
we are asking is that the government require the gas companies to post the
octane levels. Now what is so
complicated about that? Then, if the
mechanics or the manufacturers of the cars suggest that a person should use a
certain octane level, then they can simply read it off the pumps. But right now let me tell you, there is no
way of telling what the octane levels are because nobody knows.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, the member makes an interesting point in that
the gas stations at one point did post the octane level in certain areas of this
province. They then stopped posting the octane
level because, as the member correctly points out, nobody knew what it meant.
If
the member would like, I would be most willing to have the head of Research and
Planning of my department sit down with him and spend the hours that he would
like to spend, explaining to him the results of his very in‑depth
research on this issue. That might be very interesting for him to hear. I would be most pleased to do that for you,
for my opposition critic, at his convenience.
That offer is a standing offer.
When
you have questions or concerns about complex issues that appear on the surface
to be simple and straightforward, but in reality have hidden complexities and
complicated nuances running underneath, my office is always open to the critics
to come in. Indeed, some members of the opposition have taken the opportunity to
do that. You would always be most
welcome. It might help in the
understanding of some of these issues.
Mr.
Maloway: The whole area of lemon law is a major area
for legislative initiative in the
In
fact, it is not necessarily the case that left‑wing governments have
brought in lemon law versus right‑wing.
In fact, in the
* (1540)
Now
this has proved to be quite a popular concept in the
I
recently attended a lemon law arbitration panel in
Essentially,
the idea would be that the lemon law period would run for roughly 18‑‑there
is a new change to their law just recently enacted whereby the lemon law period
now lasts for 18 months. During the
period of the first 18 months of owning the new car, if the car were to have a
problem that could not be rectified after a series of four attempts over a
period of time, then the manufacturer has the obligation to refund the purchase
price minus a set formula for wear and tear or refund the money. What the
panels have found, the manufacturers in Florida do have the option of setting
up their own system‑‑and their own system is not working all that
well in my opinion‑‑but a person has an appeal to the lemon law
panels themselves.
I
think any system we adopted here should allow the person to go directly into
the provincial panel system as opposed to going into the manufacturer's
system. This allows for the public to have
ready access to restitution without having to deal with the courts incurring large
costs, and in fact it is quite popular.
Now,
another area that I think we should clear up, and it has certainly been clouded
in the past by the Consumers' Association, although I think their thinking on
the matter is somewhat clearer today than it was a couple of years ago, that
this does not negatively affect car dealers.
The car dealers have really nothing to do with lemon law. As a matter of fact, if you were a car dealer
you would probably welcome or should welcome a lemon law program, because
currently if a person is dissatisfied with a car they end up going back to the
car dealer and try to get restitution from the car dealer or the courts. Under a lemon law system, it puts the onus
and the responsibility back where it belongs, right with the car manufacturer
as opposed to the dealer.
So,
quite frankly, I have found with the car dealers here in Manitoba a very much
changed attitude on the whole area of lemon law now, now that they have in
their midst a certain individual who had experience with the Florida lemon law
program and, in fact, is now taking a totally different view of it and is
taking a proactive view on the issue and saying, you know, as a car dealer it
may be a good idea to have a lemon law program, because then the responsibility
will be shouldered by the people who are responsible for these things, and that
is the car manufacturers and not the dealers.
So
you see that it is quite conceivable that the minister should be able to get
the support of the car dealers now, where two years ago there was a different
view in the car dealers association, and a wrong view, too‑‑a view
that, for reasons that I cannot explain, the car dealers seemed to take the
view that this was something that was going to be onerous on them. I was very pleased to hear the new view of
the car dealers' association, and actually deal with somebody in the car
dealers' association who had some experience with Florida lemon law, because he
had been in Florida for a couple of years and actually understood what it was
all about and was prepared to take an open view on it and actually say that
this was something good for them to look at.
If
we were to have manufacturing plants in this province, I would expect that the
minister would be somewhat sensitive to the manufacturers and the jobs question
and so on, but there is not a case of any manufacturers manufacturing cars in
this province, so I really do not see any downsides there‑‑[interjection!
The
minister makes a comment about their jobs do not matter. I do not know what she
means by that. No car manufacturer to my
knowledge has laid off one single worker because of lemon law. It is a warranty
program. That is all it is, and what it
is is just allowing the consumer to get restitution without having to go to
court when shoddily‑made cars are sold to the public.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I just wish to clarify
when I said‑‑the member put on the record an ad lib of mine across
the table. I want to make sure the ad
lib of mine goes on the record correctly.
I did not say, "Their jobs do not matter," I said, "Are
you saying their jobs do not matter?" wherever they are. Jobs matter if they are here but they do not matter
if they are some place else is what I thought I heard him imply.
I
wish to indicate before I begin my response, because I do have a response to
the concerns he has mentioned, and I think he has raised some valid concerns
about what people do when they get stuck with a car that is a lemon. We have solutions that we are looking at that
are slightly different than the one he proposes, but I think we have a common
interest in seeing that particular problem addressed.
I
do hope, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that we are not going to have to sit
here in Estimates and listen to the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) drag out
the 15 pieces of legislation that he has introduced in the House that were
never introduced in the House when he was a part of government and were never addressed
by the government he belongs to when they were in control and had the ability
to introduce things like lemon laws and MSRP legislation and all these other
things that he has.
I
feel I am sitting here listening to not my Estimates but his proposed
legislative agenda which his own party chose not to support when they had the
opportunity to do so, but I guess in Estimates we do not have to adhere to what
is on the paper. We can go with
anything, it seems.
I
will address the lemon law issue and indicate that, while the member when he
sat for two years in government chose not to introduce this as any kind of a
bill, or could not persuade his caucus to bring it in, his interest in the last
two years of bringing it up every session in the two years that he is in opposition
is very interesting.
I
do have a response for him. He mentioned
a couple of things that I think expressed concern about courts, about court costs. He talked about consumers purchasing a car
that was deemed to be a lemon and then having to incur expensive court costs
and so on, which, of course, his proposed legislation would do. Looking at what is best for consumers,
knowing that the legislation, the comments the CAC had prior to the comments
that he made today, and knowing that we will be meeting again as soon as the
session is over, I have indicated to the Consumers' Association I would like to
meet with them again when the session is over, and this is one of the things
that I plan to have on the agenda.
* (1550)
Not
lemon law, because I do not particularly think his proposal is the best
answer. Instead we have been doing quite
a bit of research, and again, the member is most welcome‑‑the invitation
is open to come to my office to discuss these things. It does not have to wait
for Estimates. He is free to drop by anytime
during the session and find out what we are doing in this area. I would be most pleased to have my staff sit
down and discuss these issues with him.
Some
time ago, shortly after I became minister, I met with interested parties
including the Consumers' Association and the automobile manufacturers, General
Motors, Ford, Chrysler, to talk about defective new cars. We also explored a program in
The
full arbitration program OMVAP, which is called the BBB, the Better Business
Bureau, here in Manitoba, has already started a modified version of OMVAP, and
they have done some arbitrations regarding vehicles in that regard
already. In this one, the beauty of this
is that the automotive manufacturers pay the cost of arbitration.
Our
researchers are maybe not in line with the MLA from Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) who
says this program is no good and that the
First
of all, there is a faster process. I
believe the court process, in addition to being costly, can also be time
consuming, can be onerous, and the other thing of course is that these arbitration
programs do not have to be established through legislation. They can be established through an agreement between
industry and government, and that, I also believe is an advantage because I do
not like to see a marketplace that is over‑regulated.
I
like to see voluntary agreements that will best serve the needs of consumers
where the interested parties come together, where consumers and industry and government
can sit down, can come to an agreement, can establish rules and guidelines for themselves
without having to resort to enforced legislation, costly, lengthy, cumbersome
court procedures and all of these things that are set up to be sort of adversarial
type things.
I
much prefer the process that is come to by consensus, through co‑operation,
where you can mediate solutions, where the cost is not borne by the taxpayer,
which is what the member is suggesting.
The cost in this instance, following that particular plan, would not be
borne by the taxpayer, but would rather be borne by the manufacturer.
You
know, the member I think would like to see the manufacturers have to pick up
this cost instead of the consumers or the taxpayers. At least I would hope that is what he would like
because certainly I think there is much advantage to this. There are several
jurisdictions indeed that have lemon laws. There are several jurisdictions that
indeed are having many problems with lemon laws.
I
am not going to be so bold as to say that all of those states where they have
lemon law legislation that it is no good, the way the member speaks of an
arbitration plan being no good. I would not go so far as to make that sweeping
a generalization because I think there are merits and pluses in all plans and indeed
in most legislation.
There
are some things that are good and some things that are less good. It is always a case of weighing the pros and
cons and trying to choose the option that has the most benefit to the marketplace.
Mr.
Maloway: The minister should be aware that the
It
is consistent with programs that are run by manufacturers in the
In
fact, that is what happens if you look at manufacturer‑inspired programs
across the
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I would like to remind
members that we are dealing with item 1.(d)(1) Salaries $147,500. Shall the item pass?
Mr.
Maloway: I might point out at this juncture that we are
on (d), which is Research and Planning, and every word and every item that I
have brought up this afternoon is dealing with research and planning. If it is not viewed that way, we can certainly
get into Minister's Salary, where we can discuss all of these things all over
again, if that is your wish to do it.
I
had a number of items that do fit in very well in the Research and Planning
area. The minister may characterize some
of them as my pieces of legislation and so on.
Well, let me tell you that, where else in the Estimates would these
pieces of legislation be dealt with or these initiatives be dealt with?
The
Research and Planning department of this Consumer Affairs department is exactly
where this minister should be studying these areas. If they are not studied in these areas, I
want to know where the tax dollars are going, because that is what they are
paid to do. They are paid to study all
areas of consumer initiatives, consumer legislation, and they are supposed to
be coming forward with legislation. When
I do not see legislation coming forward, year after year after year, I wonder
what they are doing. That is what I am
doing here; I am asking what they are doing.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, indeed, these issues are all issues that
are being done by Research and Planning.
All of the issues which have been mentioned so far, which are reflected
in pieces of legislation brought forward by this member during his time in opposition,
but not during their time in government, are indeed things that are being
researched by our department of Research and Planning. So they are legitimate questions.
I
am shocked, absolutely shocked, at the statement that I just heard, that the
role of our department is that we are supposed to be coming forward with pieces
of legislation. I thought our role was
to take a look at what is needed in the marketplace, to make sure that
information is available for decision making, to make sure that information on
issues is brought forward to those people who have to deal with the segments of
the marketplace, so that decisions can be made about things like disputes over
issues that might be coming up in the Consumers' Bureau. Should we be embarking upon discussions with certain
groups towards forming consensus of opinion on different issues that need to be
dealt with in the marketplace?
I
did not realize that the sole reason for the existence of the division of
Research and Planning was that they were supposed to come forward with endless
pieces of legislation. I thought that
they were there for something more deep and more productive than that. You know, they may, in fact, bring forward
pieces of legislation when it is deemed necessary and when it is felt that the
marketplace, on its own, requires some adjustment. Then Research and Planning may suggest
changes to legislation, but I did not think they existed for that purpose. But then, coming from a member whose basic
philosophy is to overregulate the marketplace, I should not be so surprised
that he would think that we exist solely to set legislation.
* (1600)
I
do not think that is why we are there. I
think we are there to help the various components of the marketplace work well together,
so that we have balance out there for the people on either side of the
marketplace.
Research
and Planning is most happy to delve into any and all issues raised by the
opposition either in Estimates or in the House; or, indeed, as I have mentioned
before, between the House and the Estimates, you are most welcome to come by to
discuss these issues. I wish that some
day you would take us up on that invitation and come to our office where we
would be pleased to sit down with you and spend as much time as you require to
look at the things that we have studied in response to some of the suggestions
you have made in the House.
Mr. Maloway: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have a couple of more areas that I would prefer to
deal with here before we move onto another area of the Estimates.
There
has been interest expressed over the last while in the area of deposit
legislation and particularly trust accounting. It becomes a problem
particularly in a recession. I mean, it
is a problem at any time, but when recessions hit, trust accounting and deposit
legislation become more important.
We
have seen over the years, people make deposits on large items, large purchases
on everything from sunrooms to decks and other items that renovation
contractors sell. But it is not only there: there is trust accounting in the travel
industry in Quebec; there is trust accounting in Ontario‑‑it is not
quite a trust situation, but they do have a travel act there; and in B.C. there
is a travel act, but I do not think it is exactly a trust accounting situation.
The
reason that we have situations like that is that through the years the public has
learned that occasionally consumers are out substantial amounts of money
because firms go out of business. The
monies that they thought should have been held in trust are no longer there.
We
see trust accounting being commonplace now with insurance companies and
agencies across the country. We see it
in the travel industry in several provinces.
We see it with lawyers across the country. I might point out to you that even so, even with
trust accounting, there are still losses.
But the losses, at least, are covered by associations or by insurance
programs and so on, and people are not out this amount of money.
The
big area that is missing in trust accounting would be renovations and other big‑ticket
items. A couple years back I did some work
in this area and did check with furniture store owners and other people who
were quite happy with the suggested limits that I had at that time, which was
that items of $500 and more could be held in trust, because we did not want to
get into a situation of having retailers trust accounting for $100 items.
So
I ask the minister whether this particular Research and Planning department has
done any work in this area recently. If so,
what they have done; and if not, why not?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, as I indicated, the Research and
Planning department has done research on all of the bills that the member from
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has introduced into the House. I have my own thoughts on some of these
pieces of legislation that do fall under Research and Planning and have not
been introduced to the House prior to 1988, although they have been introduced sometimes
more than once since that time.
I
do feel that in researching this area and in looking at that‑‑[interjection!
This particular piece of legislation, pardon me, this topic which has been put
forward for research and planning, does not take into account certain items,
certain things that exist in the marketplace that have been brought to my attention
by the people who work in the marketplace and the people who buy and sell in
the marketplace. For example, I do not
wish to go through the legislation piece by piece, because I realize we are not
really talking about legislation here, we are talking about research and
planning, but using the example of a carpenter who asks for a 30 percent down
payment and with that 30 percent down payment he might be purchasing lumber for
the deck that he is building for the individual, perhaps that should not be
allowed in the marketplace.
Yet
there are many, many arrangements that have been made between the buyer and the
seller where both parties desire that particular arrangement. There may be a reason that a purchaser wants
to give a bigger down payment for a specific reason. The comfort of knowing that the job is half
paid for in advance might be one of those.
Perhaps there are other reasons, of having done business with the
individual before, where the individual was not able to pay on time and decided
on this occasion they would like to pay more up‑front to make up for
that.
There
are all kinds of reasons why people might wish to have the freedom to accept or
agree to a down payment or a deposit of greater than the member for Elmwood
thinks they should be permitted to agree to make. The custom‑built deck, for example, may
require more than $500 worth of lumber.
Why should carpenters be prevented from using the down payment to
purchase? Maybe there is something inherently wrong with that from the member's
point of view, but, again, many buyers and sellers are happy to come to that
kind of agreement with each other.
We
need to have small businesses succeeding.
We need to have issues that deal with the building of decks if this is
your intent to try to capture fraudulent home renovations experts. They should
be dealt with through the building code, maybe not through The Consumer
Protection Act, but there are so many aspects to this. It has been looked at in great detail by the department,
and I have explored it as well. I have
talked to the Consumers' Association, and independent consumers.
I
note that legislation put forward on this talks about two examples, which is a
very restrictive list. Again, that is
the problem with lists in legislation.
People tend to think the list is the full list and maybe not just a
partial list. I believe that saying
"monument or custom clothing or custom shoes" is far too restrictive
a list, because we do have custom‑built furniture, custom‑built
decks, many other goods that cannot be returned, and that is not the sum total
of the items that will not fit.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think it is probably
appropriate for the minister to understand that we are recommending that
businesses should rely on suppliers for credit or financial institutions for
credit and should not have to use a customer's deposit essentially to pay for
the previous customer's work. That is
really what we are suggesting here.
* (1610)
I
know that she bridles at any suggestion of a regulated environment, but let us
look at reality here and look at facts. The fact of the matter is that many
years ago the consumers department decided to bond people to protect the
public. There was a reason for
that. The whole business community is
regulated in many, many ways. As much as
they want to talk about free enterprise and so on, the fact of the matter is
that before a construction company can build a bridge, they have to get a bond to
build a bridge. They cannot get a bond
unless they can show previous experience in that type of work and financial
capacity. The financial capacity that they can show will allow them to move up
the ladder and do bigger and bigger jobs.
Banks
are also very interested in the financial capacity of the businesses that they
deal with, and they recognize that there are certain businesses that can get
over their heads and get into big trouble.
That is why there are restrictions on businesses, in some respects, to
protect people from themselves.
So
when the consumers in my constituency and the member for Burrows' (Mr.
Martindale) constituency, our voters, when they are choosing home renovation
contractors, are not privy to the financial statements of these companies. So it seems to me that if consumers have all
these other rules, that they have a seven‑day opportunity to get out of a
direct‑sales contract and you have your bonding the sellers, and so on;
why is it such a big deal to say that deposits over $500 for major ticket items
be held in trust?
The
deposits will be used by the business and be part of their profit picture when
the job is completed, but how many consumers have to lose bundles of money
before the government and the minister realize that there is a problem here,
something that they should deal with?
Why is it that the travel industry in
She
is basically skating her way into another disaster somewhere along the line,
and in fact I am trying to pre‑empt that by recommending to her that she
consider legislation like this now.
Perhaps the minister would respond to that then and then I could get on
to the next item.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I just wish to caution the member not to make
assumptions or not to draw conclusions in a sweeping generalized way from
comments made. When I said that you
would deny the right of a consumer to put a larger down payment or a larger deposit
in a situation where that consumer might wish to allow a carpenter, for
example, to use 30 percent of the money to purchase the lumber for the deck.
I
did not say that the builders should not have to depend upon better
financing. You know, you came back and
said, well, the minister feels the builder should not have to depend on a better
kind of financing for their business operations and that they should depend
upon customers to provide the cash flow for their debts.
I
did not say that. I said you would deny
consumers and sellers the right, in those situations where they choose to, to enter
into those kinds of voluntary agreements.
We have a situation where there are instances‑‑and they are
not all instances, but they do exist‑‑where a small carpenter of considerable
skill, without a great inventory of cash, will come to an agreement with a
customer who wishes to use his services. The customer will say, I will give you
30 percent down, you can buy the lumber, build the deck, and I will pay you the
rest on balance. Why should they be
denied the right to enter into that kind of opportunity?
That
is what I mean when I say you would over‑regulate. I am not saying that it is wrong to encourage
a carpenter to have a better source of more dependable financing than
that. Also, by the legislation that you
suggest that my researchers and planners should bring forward to the House, you
are also asking the carpenter‑‑let us use the carpenter that we
were just talking about for our example‑‑to not be able to request
a larger down payment in situations where he is entering into a possible contract
with a consumer who is known to not pay his bills.
What
you forced the carpenter in that situation to do is say, Mrs. Brown wants me to
build her deck. I could use the money. It
would be a good deck to build. She
really wants me to do it. But I know from all of these other tradespeople that
she has never come forward to pay her bill at the end of the contract and they
have all been left high and dry. I am
not allowed by the legislation that my honourable colleague proposes should be
in existence to ask her for more than 10 percent down. Therefore, I cannot accept that job with Mrs.
Brown. I cannot take the risk. Mrs.
Brown, who was prepared to pay in this instance because she had her money, does
not get her deck. The carpenter does not
get his work. To me, that does not make
a great deal of sense.
I
do not disagree with the concept that there should be some controls in the
marketplace. If we go back again to the home‑renovation
person‑‑whom the member I know is very concerned about because he
has talked about it a lot, so I know that he will be pleased that I am entering
into this area of discussion. The home‑renovation people, who have
licences and go door to door in the marketplace selling their skills, their
services or their goods, have to be licensed by the Consumers' Bureau. The size of the deposit that they can request
can be limited by their bond. If there is anybody there that the director feels
has any kind of a risk, he can simply increase the size of the bond. He has methods available to him that will put
a cap on the amount of deposit or the down payment deposit, whatever you want
to call it, that he can ask from the consumer.
I
appreciate the member's concern and interest in this topic. I believe that it is one that has been looked
at and discussed, that the Consumers' Bureau is aware of the intricacies of
deposits. In fact, we say to people, if
you do not have to put down a large deposit, do not. It is part of our consumer education program
where we alert the consumers to the wise use of money.
I
leave the comments at that because I know the member is wanting to ask other
things, and I see the other party is interested too.
Mr.
Maloway: I wanted to ask the member whether her
department has done any recent research on the area of franchise legislation. I know that the department has been working
on this for the last few years now, and I am just not clear what their current
thinking is. Nothing seems to be coming
out‑‑I am sure things are going into there, but nothing seems to be
coming out of there. In the area of
franchise legislation, I am curious to know what it is this department,
Research and Planning section, is doing in this area right now.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, the department is currently looking at
the various types of franchise legislation, the securities‑type being one
that they are looking at. I know that
they were also following through and examining what is happening in
* (1620)
An
Honourable Member: You have to go to
Mrs.
McIntosh: We do not travel to
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
ask the minister, she made reference earlier to lock‑off of potentially 4,000
residents this summer‑‑the gas lock‑off. That appears to be‑‑either I
misheard what she said‑‑a thousand more than what she had indicated
accidentally in the House a month or so ago.
Could she please update us as to what is happening with the current gas
lock‑off legislation?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Before I do that, I must again correct what
the member has said, because I will not allow any longer these incorrect
statements, these implications to be placed upon the record. I did not "accidentally" let slip
in the House about 3,000. I stated in
the House, consciously and clearly, for the member's benefit, that we were
expecting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,000 lock‑offs this
summer. So when you use words like
"accidentally" you put a colour on a statement that is not correct
and leaves a false impression, and I know that you would not want to do that.
Mr.
Maloway: No.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I appreciate the fact that you say that you
would not want to do that. So that is
corrected.
The
3,000 figure that was given in the House was the figure presented to me at that
time by those doing the projections on the Centra Gas lock‑offs. They had said at that time, in excess of
3,000. In fact, the figure is closer to
4,000. So in excess of 3,000, which is
what we were projecting at that time leaves the impression with the general
public that it is maybe 3,100. The more accurate statement, now that we have
better figures, is closer to the 4,000, so I will say just under the 4,000
instead of just over the 3,000. Of
course, we will not know the exact number, but it approaches that 4,000 figure.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, could the
minister tell us whether there is any chance that this 4,000 will become 5,000
before the summer is over?
Mrs.
McIntosh: No, I cannot tell you that with any degree of
certainty at this time. That figure of
4,000, I believe, is about as accurate as they are able to predict at this
time. What we began to experience last
year and we hope we will experience this year is that as the notices go out‑‑and
as you know they must go out like the one‑two‑three notices‑‑people
will then come forward and pay their bills.
As they do that and the number of delinquent accounts reduces and the
arrears begin to decrease in number, what we are hoping is that number will
come down. But there is no way of making
a for‑sure statement on that.
Mr.
Maloway: Before we move into the next area, I would
like to ask the minister about the experience over the last five months with the
new Business Practices Act and whether she could tell me how many seizures and
how many actions and so on have been taken.
I got the impression in her initial address that they have been
successful in mediating most situations, in other words, really next to nothing
in terms of actions under the act, but perhaps you could expand a little bit on
that.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have had no
formal legal complaint or action launched at this point. We have had a number of phone calls of
inquiry. We have a number of people
phoning in seeking information as to how the act works, and we have had some
informal inquiries come forward that the department has been able to mediate a
settlement with the parties before the formal complaint stage had to be met.
Mr.
Maloway: So the minister is saying that while there
has been no legal action taken, could she tell me how many cases have been resolved
by other means, other than mediation?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not able
to give you an exact number. I can tell
you that the bureau is responding on a daily, or almost daily, experience to
discussing aspects of The Business Practices Act with people who phone in to make
inquiries, and helping that act be applied in terms of stopping issues before
they develop into full‑blown complaint issues.
Mr.
Maloway: My assumption is that the orders for
restitution and things like that would be something other than court action and
something other than mediation. How many
of those type of actions are we talking about.
Just an approximate‑‑
Mrs.
McIntosh: None.
Mr.
Maloway: None so far.
Mrs.
McIntosh: None so far.
Mr.
Maloway: Okay, so can the minister tell us then whether
the first five months of experience with this act is roughly what was anticipated
or better than anticipated or worse than anticipated?
Mrs.
McIntosh: From my own perspective, it is about what I personally
was anticipating. I cannot speak for
what the staff people may have been anticipating, but I think what has happened
is that with people phoning in and saying, does The Business Practices Act
apply here, here or here, people are becoming educated.
I
believe businesses are being more careful; I believe consumers are being more
quick to pick up the phone. The department,
in educating the public on this act, and in bringing people together to say,
you know, if you persist in moving this direction you may be offside with the
act; and having the business person say, oh, well, then I better cease and
desist; and the consumer saying, yes, that is what I really hoped you would do
because that is what I thought this act meant.
Those
types of things are beginning to happen.
I think that is very, very positive for both sides of the marketplace,
that if we see changes in behaviour with the business community to try and be
very, very careful that they are in compliance with the act, and we see
consumers willing to raise the issue with the bureau; this, I think, is a very
healthy thing from both aspects, from both sides of the marketplace.
Mr.
Maloway: How many advertising‑related complaints
have you had under this act, because it was anticipated that advertising was a
major area here that was going to be brought under The Business Practices Act? There was some concern that people in the
business community were going to be in for quite a shock. Travel agencies, in
particular, when they advertise $1.99 to
I
am wondering how many advertising complaints you have received under Business
Practices, and what has the general resolution been?
Mrs.
McIntosh: The division is very proactive. The Consumers' Bureau is very proactive in
this particular aspect because, as you point out correctly, it was one of the
aspects of The Business Practices Act that we really felt was important and could
make a difference in the marketplace, and the department, being very proactive,
playing a proactive role, looking at ads every day, and pulling one to two a
day.
Mr.
Maloway: Not to be totally negative for the whole
afternoon, I must say that I was very pleased that you stuck to your guns and
did not allow any exemptions from the act.
Having said that, however, I would like to know what kind of action and
resistance you are getting regarding exemptions from the act? Have you had groups chasing you down for
exemption? If so, who and why and when
and whatever you want to tell me about it?
* (1630)
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just as a follow‑up,
a little addendum to the question that was asked earlier. It is one to three a day. I said one to two a day. They are pulling one
to three ads a day, and the indication is that when the Consumers' Bureau
contacts the company, and of course we are not waiting for people to come to
us, we are doing this in a proactive way, we are finding tremendous co‑operation.
We have had companies co‑operating in a very, very exemplary manner in getting
these ads out of the way once it is pointed out to them that they may be in
violation. So we are very, very pleased
with that, and I commend the Consumers' Bureau for taking that initiative and
doing that amount of work on that very vital part of The Business Practices
Act.
In
answer to your question about what kind of action are we getting, I sometimes
wish these questions would come out more like, are you getting any action?‑‑because
there is always an assumption it seems in the question. An assumption is made and the question is
formed based upon the assumption. I
would prefer the questions that come are straightforward questions, that seek fact
and not seeking response to assumptions that are sometimes erroneous
assumptions. However, you have asked
what kind of action. I will twist that
question to what I think it should be to say, are you receiving any
action? The answer is no.
We
did have, as you are aware, prior to the proclamation of the act some of the
professional groups really feeling that because they had their own societies or
their own regulatory bodies, and in some cases even their own reimbursement
fund, like the Law Society for example, that they felt they should be exempt from
this act. They are in the act. We did refer the whole question to the‑‑there
is a group looking right now at whether or not the self‑regulatory body
should be completely independent in all aspects, not just this. We have asked them to take a look at this as
well, but it has been very quiet. There
may be a follow‑up to that.
Mr.
Maloway: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I see the
member for St. Boniface chomping at the bit here wanting to ask questions, and
my colleague the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) wanting to get into The
Landlord and Tenants Act, so I would like to defer now to the member for St.
Boniface.
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, the government's policy of implementing the tax‑free status
of aboriginal citizens has been confusing, inconsistent and is a lose‑lose
proposition, as aboriginals are restricted from using their tax‑exempt
status off reserve‑‑
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Would the honourable member
bring his microphone in a little closer, please? You can bring it even a little closer than
that.
Mr.
Gaudry: In addition, there is an increasing level of
abuse of the process as nonaboriginals are purchasing gasoline tax‑free on
reserves while this government
What
does the government do to monitor this situation? My question to the minister, through the
Acting Deputy Chairperson, what action is her department taking to ensure that nonaboriginals
are not avoiding paying tax by purchasing gasoline on reserves, because we have
had calls from The Pas and from Fisher Branch where local gasoline people have
had a decrease in their business?
Mrs.
McIntosh: The member raises a concern that is a valid
one. It is a concern that comes under the Department of Finance in terms of
taxation, and I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has had that
concern put to him. I would suggest the member
direct that question to the Minister of Finance and seek his response to it.
Mr.
Gaudry: Has the minister discussed this with the
Minister of Finance, the possibility of implementing a system allowing aboriginal
people to purchase goods off reserve tax‑free, with a monitoring system
to prevent abuse so nonaboriginal small businesses will not be hurt?
Mrs.
McIntosh: May I ask a question for clarification just
to make sure I am understanding the member correctly? Your voice is not picking up in the mike that
clearly to me. Are you referring to
aboriginal people purchasing goods off the reserve without the taxation? Is that what you are‑‑
Mr.
Gaudry: No, the people at the gas stations, for
example, are complaining that nonaboriginals purchasing on the reserve are lending
their cars and things like that to aboriginal people and then getting their gas
tax‑free. Also, if there could be
a card system or something where the aboriginal could purchase also from the
gas stations in town, off the reserve.
If that could be implemented some way, it could be monitored by the
government.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Purchase it tax‑free off the reserve?
Mr.
Gaudry: Yes.
Mrs.
McIntosh: This is an issue that is becoming an issue in
more than just this province. It is
being discussed in other provinces as well, and because the lead minister on
that is in another department I would defer to the minister responsible to respond
to those concerns rather than pre‑empt his own thinking and exploration
on the topic.
I
believe there would be a couple of ministers who would be particularly high
interest‑‑well, there would be three actually: The Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) with the taxation; the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr.
Downey), of course, would also have cause to be interested in the question you
have posed; and the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) as well, I think, would have some
ability to make comment on that issue as well.
The
primary minister that you would need to speak to on that would be the Minister
of Finance. I would certainly be willing
to relay the question you have posed to him so that he would know your concern
in this area.
Mr.
Gaudry: So through you, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, as far as the minister is concerned, at this stage there has been
no discussions with the other ministers to try and come up with a solution for
these people? Like I say, The Pas and
Fisher Branch are the ones that have approached us in regard to these situations.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I am saying this is an issue that is prominent
in many jurisdictions, and that I prefer not to pre‑empt the Minister of
Finance by commenting upon an issue that is really not within my proper
jurisdiction to make comment upon.
Mr.
Gaudry: One final question before we move on to The
Landlord and Tenants Act. In the
decentralization of the program, have there been any jobs that have been
decentralized from your department?
Mrs.
McIntosh: You mean the decentralization initiative
through Rural Development across the province?
Mr.
Gaudry: Yes.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Through Consumer and Corporate Affairs‑‑I
am not sure about Landlord and Tenant Affairs‑‑
I
just wanted to check too, because Landlord and Tenant Affairs is relatively new
to us, to see if anything had happened in that division prior to it coming
under our jurisdiction. The answer to
your question is: No, there has been no decentralization
out of our department.
* (1640)
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 1.(d) Research and
Planning: (1) Salaries $147,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $15,000‑‑pass.
2.
Consumer Affairs (a) Consumers' Bureau:
(1) Salaries.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): I have with me the report of the Administration
of the Rent Regulation Program for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990,
produced by Manitoba Housing. I am wondering
if there has been a March 31, 1991, report.
One may have been sent to me as critic, but‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Would you look at this‑‑
Mr.
Martindale: ‑‑oh, you have the '91.
An
Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr.
Martindale: Okay.
Well, if I could get a '91 copy, if we do not finish by five o'clock, I
will look at it for the next time we come back to these Estimates. I may have received one and not been able to
find it.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I express deep apologies if you have received
last year's report instead of this one.
Mr.
Martindale: No, I just cannot find this year's. I may not have been sent one. I do not know.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Okay.
We did give instructions to have one sent down to you, and my sincere
apologies if it never arrived.
Mr.
Martindale: I thank the minister. This may be a second copy, but I thank her
for providing it to me.
Under
Rent Regulation Bureau: As the minister
knows from my questions in Question Period, I am very disappointed that Mr. Hollis
Singh was transferred to the Public Utilities Board. I believe he was a very competent
individual. A career civil servant, he served
under Conservative governments and NDP governments. He worked for the United Nations. So I have a few questions, the first one
being: Why was he sent to the Public Utilities
Board?
Mrs.
McIntosh: First of all, I wish you would not speak in
the past tense. You say, he
"served" in government. He
still is serving in government, and in an area‑‑
You
heard your colleague here talking about the number of lock‑offs that we
are anticipating this summer. We had
done an internal review to determine what kind of assistance we would need over
at the PUB. The staff over there worked
long, long, hard, hard hours last summer.
They were going round the clock. They did not complain. They were marvelous about it, but you would
have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see the amount of pressure, the extra
workload put upon them to bring in the legislation that would have the
protection aspect to it.
You
may recall the debate in the House on the Centra Gas lock‑off
legislation. There was great concern
expressed at the time that we would be bringing in legislation that would not
have a strong enough protection component, that, yes, the fairness part would
be there in terms of collecting the money from those who were not paying, but
that we were putting poor people at risk of freezing to death in winter.
Indeed,
many of the opponents of the bill went so far as to say that we were
deliberately going to let people freeze to death in the dark. I do not mean your party; I am just saying,
some of those other opponents. So one of
the questions that was repeatedly asked in the House and outside the House
was: What will you be doing to ensure
the safety of these people?
When
we took a look at what was required to assist the PUB in ensuring that we would
have the protection there, one of the things that came through is that we did
need somebody with certain qualifications, certain experience, somebody who
knew how a regulatory piece of legislation would work. The PUB, of course, knows this. They have an increased workload over there, not
just through the PUB, but through other items as well. We have had a tremendous number of extra
hearings this year. Things like the MTS,
the call‑management system, all kinds of things going on. So we then determined that we needed people
over there to assist.
One
of the people we felt we needed was a manager‑type person who would be
one who could understand a regulatory system, who would understand the
relationship between this new legislation and The Residential Tenancies Act,
because the Rentalsman is given authority to go into redirect rents under
certain lock‑off conditions. That,
I think, you are dealing with both acts, so you will know how that interplay
works. So it needed to be someone
familiar with that act as well.
It
needed to be someone who was of the calibre and quality and character that Mr.
Singh is. We could have hired outside. Well,
no, we probably could not have, given our own, strict rules with ourselves that
we, rather than go outside and add to the cost and size of government‑‑which
we may have to do and will probably have to do at any rate as the new
Residential Tenancies Act comes in, and indeed may have to further augment
staff over at the PUB for things like the Centra lock‑off legislation‑‑we
looked from within, and the deputy minister sitting here felt that we had a
person internally who could go over and assist with the workload over at the
PUB, and that person was the individual you have just referred to.
I
concur with that. I think that was an
excellent decision. It makes good sense to me, and that is the way the position
was filled to help us deal with the anticipated 3,000 to 4,000 lock‑offs
that we are expecting and other things as well.
It is not solely that, but that is the prime reason we needed to have more
support and may yet need even more support, again, for the very hard‑working
men and women over at the PUB.
Mr.
Martindale: Could the minister tell us if the salary for this
position in the PUB is the same as the salary this individual is making as
director of Rent Regulation Bureau?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, the salary is the same.
Mr.
Martindale: Was this position advertised?
Mrs.
McIntosh: No, because he is in his position. His position is now over at the PUB. We did not create a new position to do this.
Mr.
Martindale: It seems to me that there was not a vacancy,
but somebody was transferred to another part of the department. Is that correct?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I am not quite sure what you mean. A position was shifted from one division to
another division.
Mr.
Martindale: Will Mr. Singh be replaced? Will there be a new director of the Rent
Regulation Bureau?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have acting
as director right now Mr. Roger Barsy.
Mr.
Martindale: Will the minister be replacing the acting director
with a director, either Mr. Barsy or someone else?
Mrs.
McIntosh: The deputy will be reporting that particular topic
to me in due course. As you know, we are
in the process now of hiring a chief commissioner. The things that the deputy minister is
exploring is, do we need that secondary position that you have referred
to? As we restructure, we put in the
deputy commissioner, we put in commissioner.
So those matters will all be reported back to me in due course.
Mr. Martindale: When the minster hires the director of the Residential
Tenancies Commission or the commissioner, will the minister be looking at staff
in her department and outside her department to be considered for that
position?
* (1650)
Mrs.
McIntosh: The position has already been bulletined and advertised. Interviews will be taking place, I believe,
next week, if I am not mistaken. I am
not sure when the selection committee has set the interviews. You are talking about the position of the
commissioner?
Mr.
Martindale: Yes.
Mrs.
McIntosh: That position, I cannot recall the deadline without
looking it up as to when the applications closed, but applications were sent in
and they are from all faces and faction of wherever people work. They will be interviewed in the forthcoming
week and a final selection made at that point.
Mr.
Martindale: Will the minister only be considering those
who applied, or would you consider appointing somebody from within the
department? I guess the reason for the
question is, would you consider hiring Mr. Singh? I think he would be well qualified for the
position due to his familiarity with not only the previous legislation but the
new Residential Tenancies Act.
Mrs.
McIntosh: If I had a penny for every person who said
that the person they liked was best qualified for the job, I would be a
millionaire. I have had so many people
indicate to me that they know just the person to be chief commissioner, and what
I say to them is, a call for applications went out. People have applied. Those people will be interviewed and a
selection will be made. That is the way
the process works. I do not go to any individual
and say, here is an application form, please fill it out and apply for this
particular job. That application was well‑known
and every person in
Mr.
Martindale: Can the minister tell us when she expects approximately
to be able to announce who the new commissioner is?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I am advised that the interviews will be
taking place within the week, and that, depending upon who the final candidate
or the selection is‑‑maybe the person has to give notice, maybe the
person is within government, does not have to give notice, maybe all kinds of
things‑‑but I expect that probably within the month my deputy will
be able to report to me a name for your consideration, hopefully earlier.
Mr.
Martindale: I guess before I ask more questions about
that, I would like to go on to the bill itself, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act.
On
June 3, 1991, the Minister of Housing said on page 2822 of Hansard: "I had originally, I guess, anticipated
that the implementation would be September.
It looks now like it might be pushed back a couple of months, toward the
end of the year. We are proceeding on it
as quickly as we can."
The
new minister said on February 17 this year:
Our target date has always been late spring, early summer, '92. That remains our target.
I
wonder if the minister could update us on a possible date of proclamation.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are getting very,
very close to that first day of summer, because late spring is soon to run out,
and I understand the member's question and the reason for asking it, and it is
a very legitimate and valid question.
I
am advised it is more likely going to be the summer than the spring. My personal target date I still would like to
see it be late spring, but we are fast running out of time for that to occur. We have run into one or two little time
consumers, one being the amendment that we had to work on, the other being a slight
delay in the selection process, the interview thing with the chief commissioner
that you mentioned, and just a couple of things like that, that we were not
expecting, that suddenly for various reasons took a bit longer. My sincere hope had been, I would love to
have been able to stand up and proclaim this thing before the House
concludes. Well, maybe I still will be
able to, depends on how long the House goes on.
An
Honourable Member: August.
Mrs.
McIntosh: August?
Well, then maybe I will be able to proclaim it before the House finishes
if it is August. I cannot give you a
specific date, I am very sorry, but I can say that we are now getting very
close to the time when I can finally stand up and say, after all the waiting,
it is finally proclaimed.
Mr.
Martindale: My understanding is that one of the problems,
at least in the past and I hope it is not still a problem, is drafting the
regulations. My guess is that there has
been at least 10 drafts of the regulations.
So could the minister tell us if the regulations have been finished and
if they will be published shortly, or will they be published at the time that
the act is proclaimed?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I am advised that they are now in their final
form for review. So draft 10, 11, 12, 13‑‑however
many drafts there were, and there were many, many drafts‑‑they have
now been put into the language that is fitting for review. Then once those come back to me, which I am
advised will be fairly soon, then I would like to talk to some of the members of
the community out there just to get a feel for whether the regulations actually
do what we hope they will do.
Mr.
Martindale: Well, we look forward to the regulations
because we were critical of the government at the time that Bill 13 came in
because there were things that were, in our view, left out of Bill 42. The minister at the time said, well, just be
patient, they will be in the regulations.
So we have been waiting since December 14, 1990, to see the regulations.
In
addition to appointing a commissioner, the minister will be appointing
panelists. The government has been quite
open in offering to accept suggestions as to the names of potential panelists. Could the minister give us a progress report
on naming panelists and maybe even indicating how many there will be? I do not think I have ever asked how many
panelists will be appointed.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I have not yet selected any panelists. I have received names suggested to me from‑‑I
guess, two organizations so far just informally sent me a list of names saying,
if you need people to sit as the tenant rep, here are a bunch of names. If you
need people to sit for a landlord rep, here are some suggested names.
They
look like pretty good names. I have gone
through them. Some of them I know, some of them I do not know, but I have not yet
selected from those lists. I may find
other sources as well of names that I am quite willing to look at and examine.
Mr.
Martindale: How many panelists will there be?
Mrs.
McIntosh: My department has recommended 26, and, of
course, there will be the deputy and the two commissioners. Now, 26 may or may not be the number I
ultimately decide to take, but that is what the department is suggesting would
be enough people to always have somebody available to be on a panel, and yet
small enough that they could develop some expertise because they would be
called on a frequent enough basis that they would begin to develop experience.
I
think those, if I am not mistaken, are the two things that are looked at in
developing numbers, that they be able to be called frequently enough that they
develop experience and expertise and that there be enough on the list so that
there can always be people available to cover the province without having to
always have the same people be on time and time again.
Mr.
Martindale: Well, I am pleased to hear that there will be
26, because I think it is important that panels be put together for hearings as
quickly as possible, because one of the important things about the new act is
that the hearing process is supposed to be faster than under the old
legislation.
Will
the panels be sitting mornings and afternoons as well as evenings, so that
hearings will take place frequently?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, they will be sitting
during the day for the most part, in the evening as required, day and night if
need be.
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of
Supply please come to order. This
section of the Committee of Supply will be dealing with the Estimates for the
Department of Highways and Transportation, page 92 in the Estimates book.
Does
the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation have an opening
statement?
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Yes, Madam Chairperson, I do. I have a few comments that I want to make
regarding the activities within my Department of Highways and Transportation‑‑some
on the positive side and some indicating some of the problem areas that I have
encountered in my department.
The
biggest portion of my department, of course, is involved with the road
construction within the PR and PTH system within the province. I want to indicate on the positive side that
in our capital budget this year, we have $103 million for road construction for
the year 1992‑93, which is an increase of $500,000 over last year. That figure itself is not that dramatic,
Madam Chairperson, but I want to indicate that over the last three years, the
government has budgeted more than $100 million annually for road
construction. When I compare my budget in
Manitoba here to some of the other provinces, I have to indicate that the
priority that our government has set on highway construction and the impact
that it has on the economy of the province certainly, I think, bodes well for
our attitude towards it.
I
have to indicate that, talking to my colleague from the
The
same thing with our neighbours to the extreme west. British Columbia Highways'
capital program has been reduced dramatically from approximately $364 million
down to $181 million. I have some major
concerns of this happening at a time when I think it is crucial for the economy
and for the welfare of the country, not just the provinces, that these kinds of
decreases are taking place knowing full well the impact of the requirements
economically on governments, when you consider that Health, Education, Family
Services and Finance are the big money spenders, I think, in all
provinces. So I am pleased that our capital
program is still there where we can take and hold our own, so to speak. Certainly, I know that the construction industry
is pleased with it.
I
will just touch on some of the major projects that we have and give members an
idea of the amount of money that is being spent. I just have a few that I want to put on the
record. Of course, we indicated that
twinning of Highway 75 was our priority and has been for the last four years,
and we are spending between Letellier and
* (1440)
So
with the capital program that we have, it is a matter of trying to allocate the
project as fairly and as evenly across the province, looking at not just the
paving; we are looking at grading. We
are trying to spread it out so that all contractors have a chance to
participate.
I
want to indicate at this time that
What
happened is that due to the recession there was some interest expressed by the
federal government that ultimately maybe a national highway program would be
beneficial for the economy, for work creation, and also for the general benefit
of the economy across the country.
Transport and Finance ministers have been directed to explore ways and
means of implementing this program as part of a national infrastructure renewal
initiative.
Within
my department, last year was a rather difficult year in terms of the effect
that the budgeting process had on it, the various reductions, we undertook
certain tough decisions. One of those
decisions was the removal of the Rural Bridge Assistance Program. I am very pleased to indicate that we have
reinstated that program again for this year to the tune of $400,000. This is a cost‑share program, 50‑50
between the municipalities and the province, which I think is in keeping with
the program that we have, which is the Grant‑in‑Aid program to
villages, towns and cities.
Certainly,
many of our structures and crossings have reached a certain stage where they
have to be replaced and the cost on individual municipalities is dramatic. So I was very pleased when we initiated the
program, disappointed when we had to drop it, and pleased that we have it back
on stream again.
Also,
I want to indicate that we had certain cuts last year on the winter roads, and
we have restored the funding for those winter roads that where cut back,
namely: Pikwitonei, Thicket Portage,
Pukatawagan, Bloodvein, Ilford, and York Landing. So $451,000 has been added to provide for the
continuance of these winter roads.
The
other area where we had a setback last year was in the Grant‑in‑Aid
to villages, towns and cities, where my budget was cut from $1.5 to $1
million. Coming back again, we have now increased
funding to the tune of $1.3 million for this year. We have approximately 105 cities, towns and
villages that benefit from this program.
I am very pleased that we have also managed to increase some of the
funding to the local government districts and unorganized territories. I think, again, it illustrates the concern
that we have in terms of making sure that our infrastructure, our road system,
gets due consideration.
I
would like to make reference to photo driver licensing. This program is now 18
months since we started it. By December 1992,
all eligible Manitobans will have been issued a photo licence. After the first year, we viewed the camera
location and we added 11 cameras, using the criteria that any agent in the rural
area who had more than a 1,000 transactions should be considered for a photo
camera.
Madam
Chairperson, I have to indicate that the general public seems to have accepted
very well the photo licensing. It serves
as an ID. It is also very handy, I
think, for cases that we used when we brought it forward, that people cannot
exchange their driver's licence, especially when it comes to young people, who by
and large, where they have exchanged drivers' licences, to be able to get into
pubs and buy liquor, et cetera. This is,
I think, a very positive thing.
I
also want to indicate that I have the authorization from my government to do a
major rewrite of The Highway Traffic Act, and this is a major undertaking that
will take approximately over two years to complete. The act is a very complex one at this stage of
the game, and those people who use it extensively have long requested that it
be rewritten, and we are in the process of doing that. The rewrite itself was one thing. What we have to do and have been given an
undertaking to do is to have a consultation with all the groups involved, and
that is quite an undertaking. It affects
many aspects of society.
So
I want to indicate that we are well on the way with that. We have already done
a fair amount of consultation, and it will be a major bill when it comes
forward, and hopefully it will address many of the problems that we have in
that area.
I
want to indicate that we passed the parking permit program, the bill, last
year. It has been in place now and have
had nothing but positive response to that as well. I think certainly the disabled community
feels comfortable with that. In fact, we
have these new cards that hang on the windshield or on the mirror, and I notice
this with a certain amount of pride when I drive into areas and they have them
hanging nicely and parking in the area that is designated for these
people. So that program has done well.
I
just want to touch on the National Safety Code which has been a number of years
in the implementation stages. We have fully
implemented 15 of the 17 components. The
two components that have not yet fully been implemented are carrier profiles
and facility audits. It is anticipated
these components will be implemented by the fall of this year.
Under
the trucking aspect of it, trucking deregulation will officially be completed
by December 31, 1992, after a five‑year transition period. We have actually supported the industry's efforts
to have the federal government level the playing field in order that
What
we have done as a province, we have extended the RTAC routes
substantially. We have more than tripled
it since the time that I came into office, and we continually keep on reviewing
and seeing whether we can revise it further.
We have, in fact, just very recently again approved a further extension
of the RTAC routes based on the requests of the trucking industry.
At
the present time, among the many areas in the area of transportation that are
creating some concerns for us, the method of payment to the grain industry is a
thing that we are concerned about. The
rail line abandonment is another concern that we have. At the present time, the federal government
has undertaken a national review to identify a national mainframe rail network and
our efforts will be directed to preventing the extensive down‑sizing
removal of rail service. We will
continue to press with the introduction of responsible rail rationalization
process and for compensation to defray the negative impacts of abandonment.
That
position is a position that has been developed by the four western provinces
quite a few years ago, and we still stick to that, that as abandonment takes
place, there should be compensation because of the saving that will accrue
supposedly to the railways for doing it; that there should be a compensation package
for the communities, for the municipalities and for the provincial government,
because as you abandon lines, the impact transfers over onto their
responsibilities in terms of the road.
We
also are looking at the local operation of short‑line railways. I know that
Then,
of course, one of the Achilles' heels is within my department‑‑and
not just my department but other departments of government as well‑‑is
Churchill. We will work long and hard to
try and get a long‑term commitment from the federal government. If you
look at the scale of what has happened, there has been a gradual decrease going
on in terms of the amount of grain that has been moving through the port. I feel very, very frustrated with what is
happening there.
We
continue to press the federal government and its agencies, namely the Wheat
Board, to try and have anywhere from 750,000 tonnes to a million tonnes of
grain routed through Churchill annually.
To date, we do not have any commitment.
Again, we are getting on closer to the season, and there has to be
mobilization taking place. If we do not
get a commitment pretty soon, we are going to be in dire straits again.
* (1450)
I
had the privilege of having Shirley Martin, the junior Minister of State for
Transport, out to Churchill last year and had the undertaking from her that
they would take and review the figures that have been bandied about, because
every component in the Churchill aspect of it uses their own figures. CN has their own figures in terms of what it
would cost to rehabilitate the line. We
have the Wheat Board indicating what the cost is to ship through there. We have many enemies of Churchill. The private grain companies do not care. We have CN that, I think, feels that they
would just as soon get rid of the line.
We
have the difficulty of the liaison between the Wheat Board, who are the sellers
of the grain for the farmers, and the export club who are the recipients from
So
in conclusion, Madam Chairperson, I just want to indicate that the one thing
that I feel very strongly about, I think that Manitoba and Winnipeg have great
potential and have had in the past as well the aspect of being a major hub for
transportation, whether it is rail, whether it is truck, and even the airline industry.
Madam
Chairperson, I think I maybe missed one point here that I wanted to just touch
on, and that was open skies. I will just
jump back to that a little bit and indicate that we played an instrumental role
in having the federal government agree to expand the consultation process
involving all provinces and territories in terms of the air bilateral
agreements that are taking place. We
anticipate that an agreement will be finalized late in 1992. I want to indicate that cabotage, which was a
matter of major concern, has been eliminated and safety guards have been
introduced to protect the integrity of the Canadian air industry.
Madam
Chairperson, I want to indicate to you that we have difficulties with our air
industry. Our two major carriers have suffered
major financial losses. In talking with
Air
I
want to raise one reservation and concern about the fact that Canadian is in
the process of trying to affiliate themselves with a major American
carrier. The concern I have is that by doing
that, even though they are allowed to buy only a certain percentage into the
company‑‑and this all needs approval and we will be making
presentation to that‑‑ultimately, big brother is gradually going to
take and transfer jobs and benefits to the States over a period of time.
I
think we have to try and avoid that at all costs at this stage in the game
knowing the importance of the air industry.
We have key people from my department that have good knowledge of this,
are involved and are being briefed before each of the meetings that take place
and get debriefed right after it, so we are up to date as to where the process
is at. I am looking forward to meeting
with‑‑as I have already met with Air Canada representatives‑‑representatives
from Canadian to see whether we can have some input into the matter in terms of
what would be best for Canadians and certainly for the airlines.
I
mean, I do not fault the airlines for looking to rationalize to some
degree. When you experience a $164‑million
loss in the first quarter of this year, you know that ultimately jobs are at
stake. It is a matter of whether they
will do some of these things. There
could be a short‑term loss of jobs and maybe then benefits would accrue
again, or whether we just allow the amalgamation with major carriers from the
South, which ultimately would mean a transference of jobs and economic benefits
to there.
Once
again, in conclusion, I just want to say that I think we have great potential
here in this province. Our location is ideal. We have, I think, the potential for the parcel
industry to develop here through to the air industry. Our rail industry, certainly we are still a
major player in it; certainly in the trucking industry we are when we have
seven of the 13 national carriers headquartered in
So
certainly from my department's point of view, and I think from government's
point of view, I think from all Manitobans, we have to strive and work toward
seeing whether we can not only retain, but enhance the benefits that come from
our location here and the kind of advantages that we can offer in terms of transportation.
I
am not attributing this to free trade or anything, but our figures show that in
the last few years, the escalation of truck traffic north and south through the
So
in keeping with the twinnings that were taking place‑‑I have had
the criticism put to me saying, well, we are twinning it to allow our people to
go and shop in the States‑‑I have to tell you that is not the
case. There is a tremendous amount of
truck traffic that is moving both north and south to
Anyway,
Madam Chairperson, I have just touched and highlighted some of the concerns and
some of the things that are going on and will try, as we get into the line by
line, to answer the questions of the critics as best I can.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition have
an opening statement?
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Yes, I do, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for the opportunity. I will be very brief in my comments because I
would like to concentrate the majority of our time dealing with the very
specific issues in the different sections of the minister's department.
The
minister has raised many different areas and touched briefly on many of the
subjects that I would like to have the opportunity of asking questions on
during this portion of the Estimates process.
The
minister had made mention of the photo licensing program that had been
undertaken and is in its last year in its implementation phase. I think that, as I had indicated in the last
Estimates, was a good program, and it is worthwhile undertaking that. I think it was a step in the right direction.
Also,
the minister talked about the disabled parking program and the bill that went
before the Legislature last year and was passed and has subsequently been put
into action. Everywhere I go, I make
note of how it is working, and I look at the people who are parking in those
spots and make sure that they are displaying the proper tags.
I
look at how the different businesses throughout the parts of the province that
I have visited have identified particular spots, usually, in most cases, very
close to the business establishment itself, which is a credit to the different businesses
in the community and their recognition of the needs of people with disabilities
in our province.
The
minister talked about many different areas, including short‑line railways
and trucking and the airlines, all of which I have questions on and will be
getting further into that and will be asking detailed questions on, a lot to do
with the volumes of traffic in each direction and the employment levels, and
any of the safety concerns that go along with each of these different components
of transportation in our province.
Transportation
has historically been a major employer in the
We
will also be asking questions on the effects of deregulation. I know we have had questions in this House,
and fingers have been pointed back and forth many times, about who is responsible
for deregulation, but we will get further into that discussion because we can
see that it is having some serious impacts upon us in the
We
have had ongoing and continuing dialogue with all sectors of transportation,
but those two in particular stand out as having been seriously impacted by the
effects of deregulation and, of course, free trade.
* (1500)
With
that I will conclude my introductory remarks and prepare for questions.
Mr. Paul
Edwards (St. James): Madam Chairperson, I want to make very brief
comments at the outset. We are limited
for time, generally, in the Estimates process.
This is quite a substantial department, and we want to afford as much
time as possible for technical questioning on the line‑by‑line
appropriations.
However,
I do indicate at the outset two things:
Firstly, and I will repeat this at the end of the day, that we have no problem
with this minister and to that extent recognize the fact that he is generally
open with his critics, conscientious and easy to approach. I appreciate that, and I want to put that on the
record that while, of course, there are policy disputes, there are‑‑[interjection!
I am asked if he bought me lunch today.
No, but I am hoping he will.
Actually,
the minister has been very good, and we have appreciated joining him. I have been fortunate to join him on a trip
to
Secondly,
I want to say that there are some technical issues which we will be
raising. There are also ones of
leadership that we look to this minister for.
Notably, of course, the Churchill dilemma which we, as a province,
continue to face in convincing our counterparts across the country‑‑I
might add, our counterparts in this province on some occasions‑‑of
the importance and the benefits of a Port of Churchill.
We
continue to be frustrated in our efforts by federal authorities and those who
detract from the very significant potential which exists in Churchill. I tend to agree with the minister that a
large part of that is simply willful blindness on the part of those around the
country who have not taken the time to understand what can and ought to be
achieved at Churchill on behalf of all Canadians.
It
is not just an issue for northern Manitobans, I think it is a Canadian
issue. We should preserve and enhance
that port, and we have many detractors who are doing anything but that.
Madam
Chairperson, the policy directions which the federal government is taking are,
of course, not under this minister's jurisdiction, but we look for him to make
positive representation on behalf of the province at the federal level. Of course, in particular, with respect to
rail transport policy, generally, air transport policy is going through
significant changes in the country.
There
is a flux across the world with respect to the air transportation
industry. We in Canada, of course, may
be called upon to rationalize with the rest of the world, but I think first and
foremost we need to stand strong for a national air transportation network
based on the principles which we have built this country, which is that we
recognize remote communities as requiring and deserving adequate air
transportation to and from them. We need
to protect that. I know that the
minister has made those points known, but we will be asking questions on the
current status, to his knowledge, of where we are at.
With
respect to the competitiveness and our support of two large pedestrian
carriers, Air
I
do not intend to go into the details of areas that we will be pursuing. We have many questions, and we look forward
to getting to them. Thank you, Madam
Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: I would remind all honourable members that item
1.(a) the Minister's Salary, on page 92, will be deferred until all other items
have been passed. At this time, I would request
the minister's staff to please enter the Chamber.
Mr.
Driedger: I would like to introduce my two staff people here. On my left is Doug Struthers, who is my ADM
for Construction, and on my right is Len Bodner, who is filling in for Bill
Dyck. I do not have my deputy here at
this time.
We
have, in fact, an interesting scenario, where we have had a bit of the flu
within our offices there, and we are getting thin on staff at the present
time. So I just want to indicate to members
that, in the event that we have questions that are so technical that we have
not got the immediate information, in order to save time, I will undertake, as
in the past, to provide that information at the earliest opportunity after
that. Thank you.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance, (b) Executive
Support: (1) Salaries $412,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $67,900‑‑pass.
(c)
Administrative Services: (1) Salaries.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Chairperson, just one or two brief
questions here. There has been no
indication here that there have been any changes in staffing levels, in staff
years indication, in the Supplementary Estimates, yet it shows an
increase. Can the minister indicate if
this is the merit increases for the individuals in that department or cost of
living increases, as would be considered normal?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, I want to indicate to
the member there have been no increases in staff for years. It is the normal increments that accrue to
the people who are within the department.
Mr.
Reid: I guess I worded that wrongly. What I meant to say was, I recognize that
there was no increase in staff years, but I wanted to get an idea if these
increases in the budgeted funds were as a result of merit increases or COLA increases
that were going to be awarded or given to the employees of that portion of the
department. That was my question.
Can
the minister give me an indication of these nine staff people who are in this
department, if that is nine full‑time staff jobs, and as well, can you
give me a breakdown on the men and women of these nine, please?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, basically this includes my
deputy, who has three secretaries. It
includes my office. I have three
secretaries, and I have an executive assistant and a special assistant.
Mr.
Reid: I recognize that from the previous Estimates
process. What I am trying to get an understanding for here is the breakdown of
the number of men and women in those jobs.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we have three ladies in my
office, and we have three ladies in the deputy's office. My special assistant and executive assistant
are both men, and the deputy is a male and so is the minister.
Mr.
Reid: I do not believe I have any more questions on
that section for now.
* (1510)
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(c) Administrative Services: (1) Salaries $621,500‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $74,000‑‑pass.
1.(d)
Financial Services: (1) Salaries $694,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $73,900‑‑pass.
1.(e)
Personnel Services: (1) Salaries.
Mr.
Reid: I had some questions under the Financial
Services, and we skipped over the section on administration. I did not catch it on time there. They were the same questions basically that the
previous section had, and I am trying to get an understanding here. Under the Administrative Services, it is
showing a $2,000 Allowance for Staff Turnover.
Can the minister give me an explanation for that, please?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, if I understood the
question correctly, the $2,000 reduction there, is that what the member was
alluding to? Then I want to indicate, as
we have vacancies, until we fill them, what has happened is, sometimes there is
a lag until we have a position advertised and stuff like that, so there is
nobody getting paid. So that is what it
is about.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister also give me an indication of
your 15.13 staff years involved?
Obviously there are some part‑time staff in that department. Can you give me an indication of the number
in full time, number in part time, as well as the breakdown on the number of
men and women?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to the member
that the breakdown between male and female workers, if this is a matter of
concern, I will undertake through the whole department to give you how many we
have from the various breakdown on that aspect of it, but I do not have that immediately
here.
At
the same time, I would be prepared to give an undertaking that we have a breakdown
in terms of affirmative action, and I will give him a sheet where all this is
on then.
Mr.
Reid: Under this Administrative Services section,
it also talks about freedom of information requests that come into the department. Can the minister give me some indication‑‑and
if he does not have the information available here today, he can provide it at
a later of date‑‑of the number of requests that may have come
through his office in the last year, how many of them he was able to respond to
and what context the type of questions came in, questions to what different
areas of his department?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I would like to indicate
that during 1991‑92, we received 14 applications for information, which
were handled as follows: seven applications
were granted access; three applications were denied; three applications were partly
denied; and one application was withdrawn.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister give me an indication of the areas‑‑or
is it just widespread over his whole department‑‑that these
requests come to for information? Can he
give me an understanding? Are they
related strictly to Highways matters, or do they come in requests for
information on Transportation matters?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is the wide‑ranging
aspect of it. It has to do, in some
cases, with contracts, because we tender everything that we are doing and, in
some cases, you have information that individuals want. It also has to do with jobs.
We
have 2.5 thousand people employed within my department, so from time to time,
somebody is requesting information based on where we have posted positions and
gone through the process, and then somebody wants to have information. It is a variety of things basically; it is
not that they are zeroing in on one specific area in terms of the requests.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(e) Personnel Services: (1) Salaries $894,500.
Mr.
Reid: The minister has indicated that he is going to
undertake to provide a breakdown of the Affirmative Action program and the
number of men and women who fill the different jobs, so we will expect
that. Under the Managerial and Salaries,
it is showing a 3 percent increase for that particular position, and I have
noted in going through other sections of the document that the percentage
increases for some of these managerial positions seems to vary. It does not seem to be fixed on a 3 percent
level. Can the minister give me some
kind of an understanding of the variance that takes place and why there is such
a variance?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to the member
that the salaries of the people in the various positions varies because some of
them have been there 15, 20, 25 years, whereas others might be junior people,
so as the increments come, it would not be consistently always the same
figure. It changes.
Mr.
Reid: Okay, I can understand that. Can the minister give me an indication, has
his department absorbed staff from other departments that may be downsizing or
"rightsizing," as some of the industry like to talk about? Has his department had any absorption of
staff from other departments over the course of the last budget year?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me indicate to the
members here that in the budgetary process over the last few years, we have had
a fair amount of pressure on my department as well as some other departments in
terms of seeing whether we could be more efficient and have cut back on
employment from time to time. You have
to understand that with 2.5 thousand employees, you have an ongoing vacancy
rate, changes taking place. Especially when decentralization took place, there
was a redeployment list, and our department has been conscientious in terms of
trying to accommodate anybody off the redeployment list as much as possible in
terms of getting them positions within my department.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister then give me a breakdown of
the staff vacancies that may be existing?
I understand that he may not have that information here today. If he does, we would appreciate to see it,
but if he has the information that he could bring back giving an indication of
the number of jobs that are filled, full and part time, and the number of
vacancies that are existing in his department.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I have some difficulty
doing that. I am not trying to be
evasive with this, but it changes on an almost day‑to‑day basis
because of the type of department that I have.
During the summer now, when the construction season is going heavy, we
bring in term positions. Then as we have
people retiring, some of these people move up, and ultimately there is such an
ongoing change that if I took a snapshot right now and gave him the
information, it would not be really meaningful for him by the end of the week because
of the changes that take place. So I am
not trying to be evasive; I am just saying, my department is such, aside from
the managerial and top level‑‑there are even changes there‑‑in
the other aspect of it, there is constant movement in there, so it is very hard
for me to be specific and tell them exactly.
My vacancy rate, I have to indicate to the member, has run anywhere from
5 to 6 percent in that range, is almost a constant figure. Even when we think that we are full
employment, we still have that because of the other people retiring or we have
vacancies. Until we have them filled through
the process, we always have a vacancy area there.
We
would almost have to over employ what we are allowed to in order to have no
vacancies, so we are operating continually over the years that I have been
there at between 5 and 6 percent.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Chairperson, for information, are we on
1.(f), is that the current section that we are on now?
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(e).
We have not yet passed 1.(e) Personnel Services.
Mr.
Reid: All right.
No further questions.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(e)(1) Salaries $894,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $138,600‑‑pass.
1.(f)
Computer Services.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Chairperson, there has been a decrease
of staff years; one position has been eliminated. Can the minister give me an indication of why
that position was eliminated and what happened to the individual? Did they retire or were they laid off or were
they absorbed by another department?
* (1520)
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, first of all, as we develop
our computer system and get it more efficient there is need for less staff
involvement. The member is concentrating
on the staff aspect of it, and I do not blame him for that. I just have to indicate that here again,
within the whole department, the numbers are such that if he has specific sound
things, I can try and get that as to the male and female component and the affirmative
action, these things. I will have a
sheet for him on that.
I
am trying to figure out why we have one less here specifically. It says here, elimination of a position established
for the design and development of a major system which is now substantially
implemented, so we do not need as many people.
Mr.
Reid: Yes, I am aware of the indication in the
Supplementary Estimates of why the position was eliminated. My concern is for the person, and have they
been absorbed by another department? Have they been laid off? Have they been fired? What program or major design and development
of a major system, which system is that, that is now substantially completed?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that position was a
vacant position, so that is why it was eliminated. As we go through the budgetary process, I
repeat, that as we work on next year's Estimates, when we have positions where
we have a vacancy for a period of time, very often we are asked to delete that
position. That is what happened in this case.
Mr.
Reid: Under this section, Computer Services, would
this be the department that would deal with any of the land‑based information
systems and how it impacts upon the minister's department?‑‑because
the minister's department under Highways, of course, deals with a great volume
of land mass through our province. Is
this the department that keeps track of that particular information?
Mr.
Driedger: I wonder if the member could clarify his
question a little better. We are not quite
sure exactly what the information is that he is looking for. I want to indicate that we have various areas
of computer information that is gathered. For example, if we acquire right‑of‑way
for expansion of a road, we do a design.
Once we have the design, then we decide how much right‑of‑way
we need, and then we turn it over to Government Services for Land Acquisition
to acquire that land on our behalf.
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
We
have a houseful of titles and properties that we own. A lot of this is in the computer system.
Mr.
Reid: I guess for further clarification, I did not
explain myself quite clearly there. I am
looking to find out, because I know in some of the other departments, they have
phased out different portions of their function or are in the process of doing
that, particularly the mappings and surveys section of another department here.
I
want to have an idea of what is taking place, because the minister's department
has so much land that is owned by the province for different functions whether
they be highways or airports or whatever that comes into play in the
process. I would like to know, because
it is our understanding that there may be an exchange of information that will
be taken over by the private sector versus information that is currently within
the public realm, and it is controlled by his department and other departments.
I
would like to have an understanding if some of this information is going to be
turned over to one of the private companies, I think the name was LINNET. Because there is land‑based systems
that are involved there, how would that impact upon his department?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I think staff had a
faraway look at this, but at the present time we have no involvement with LINNET
or any of the private sector in terms of what is happening with my department,
in terms of the properties, et cetera.
Mr.
Reid: Are there any plans in the works?
Mr.
Driedger: Not at the present time.
Mr.
Reid: I take it by that answer then that there will
be some consideration given to that transfer of information to private sources
from the minister's department or other departments then.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I would have to indicate
that at best, I think, staff has had a distant look at it, and we are certainly
not anywhere in that stage where I could make statement to the House to say
that we are getting actively involved in that.
It certainly has not come to my attention, and I do not expect that we
will be pursuing that aspect of it for a fair amount of time‑‑if
ever at all.
Mr.
Reid: I have one further question here. Under the Administrative Support section, it
shows four staff years, but there is a substantial increase of $71,500 under
that section. If you divide that by four staff years that works out to a $17,875
increase per person. It seems to be
somewhat out of line to a 3 or 4 percent increase.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to assure the
member that cannot be increases in wages.
That is something else, but I do not know what it is at this stage of
the game, because that is a substantial increase in there.
I
have an answer, Madam Chairperson. One
of our key people was away on a year's sabbatical and did not get wages for
that period of time, and now he is back and it is back in there.
The
position stayed, but the individual was not there. So he did not get paid for that sabbatical
year, we did not pay him the wages for that time. Now that he is back, it is reflected again in
the wages there.
Mr.
Reid: Then the minister, if I understand him
correctly, is saying that one individual has come back from a sabbatical to fill
that position that was vacant, and that person gets paid $71,500 a year?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, there would also be the
normal increments that are accrued to the other people involved. So it is not just the one individual.
Mr.
Reid: Just one last question here because this is
the first I had heard of that, even in discussion with my colleagues at different
times. Are sabbaticals within the
departments a normal practice where we give leave for extended periods of
time? What is the policy of the
minister's department on that?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I was not even aware of
this till now, but I know of other cases, where we had a Mr. Ford who went
across to‑‑was it right after
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(f).
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, is the Department of
Highways self‑contained in respect of the Computer Services or is there a
linkage of any substantial amount with the provincial computer system? I guess my follow‑up question is: With respect to the new transition of the
Computer Services and the contracting with the new company, the development of
the new buildings here, is the department going to be affected in that
respect? Is there a crossover or is the
Highway's Computer Services essentially self‑contained?
* (1530)
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, it is my understanding
that we are linked into a central system.
Mr.
Edwards: That is that you are, for all intents and
purposes, a self‑contained computer entity or do you buy into and use the
provincial capacity?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, it is my understanding that
we are basically a self‑sustaining system.
Mr.
Edwards: Has it ever been explored whether or not it
would be cost‑effective for the department, given the large amount of computer
time and services that you require, to buy into the larger pie of provincially
contracted computer services?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we are in the throes of
sort of reviewing our whole process in terms of computers as to which is the
most efficient way for us to go, but it is still in the very early stages. We are just starting to review some of these things
to look at what options there are which will be more economical, so I cannot
give precise information as to where we are going with this.
Mr.
Edwards: I appreciate that response from the
minister. It would seem that it would be
wise to do that, not that the present system might not be the best, but my
understanding of how these things work‑‑and I do not pretend to be
an expert‑‑is that the larger the volume, the larger the need, the
more efficiently it can be provided, and the provincial system is of course an extensive
one. We have contracted privately with a
company to construct large buildings in
The
Department of Highways, I am sure, uses a larger amount of computer services
than probably any other department, barring perhaps Health and Education. This would appear to be a large user of those
services for obvious reasons, and we would be interested in getting an update
from the minister as to what the results of the study are, because it may well
be that the provincial bank can be accessed more efficiently, and of course the
department is spending what amounts to a sizable amount of money. In any event, those are my comments on this
section, Madam Chairperson.
Madam
Chairperson: l.(f) Computer Services.
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Chairperson, with your indulgence‑‑
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please. May I ask the honourable member to take his
seat. It is my understanding and the
Clerk's understanding that it is the official critic who may move to the front
benches. I thank the honourable member.
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister
could answer a couple of short questions dealing with the Motor Vehicle Branch. I know that he is not going to be dealing
with this for some time, and the staff who deals with that are not here at this
time, but I do not think it is too complex and really involves the minister in
any event. I will not be able to be
present on Thursday when the issue is more appropriately raised with regard to
the photo‑licence policy. I would
ask the minister, if he could, if he has received the May 27 petition from the
Rural Municipality of Lawrence asking for a photo‑licence machine to be located
in Rorketon, and whether he has any information that he could shed on that
request?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I had addressed it briefly
in my opening remarks, but I want to indicate to the member that after the
first year when we had established our system that I have no difficulty
answering the question now, because even though we are not in that section
right now, basically we reviewed it after the first year and set up a criteria
that a community would have to have 1,000 driver's licence transactions in a
year before they would qualify for a camera.
Using
that criteria we added 11 cameras. We
are pretty well at the maximum of the cameras that we can issue at this stage
of the game. However, if there are
communities that will hit that 1,000 mark, then we are prepared to give that
consideration. We have to draw the line
somewhere along the line.
We
had great difficulty in establishing the criteria as to where the cameras
should be. Initially we had to issue
cameras only to those communities where we do driver testing, but then all the
agents in that community got‑‑because it got to be a real race as
to who would qualify, whether we just took one and discriminated against the
rest.
In
some cases, we feel that possibly in three year's time we will review, because
in some communities where you have two agents, they both have cameras, one does
2,000 transactions, the other one does 300.
We still have two cameras there, so this is an area that we have to look
at for the future somewhere down the line in terms of whether we should revisit
that aspect of it.
Other
than that, the new criteria that we set up was 1,000 transactions. Even if there is no driver testing taking
place, then we would allow cameras to go in.
This basically affected communities, for example, Oakbank, which did
well over 3,000 transactions and did not have a camera. I use that for an example. But we had some communities where there is no
driver testing and still did a lot of transactions, and they could not have a
camera. So we tried to make it as fair
as possible.
Mr.
Plohman: The issue here is one of having to travel
some 40 kilometres, that is right from Rorketon to Ste. Rose or further to get
services, as well, other communities that have to travel much further
distances, from Waterhen,
The
other thing is, when this criteria would apply?
Would it be the transactions prior to photo licensing coming in an area,
or what is happening now? Clearly it
would have gone down a lot now because people have to go elsewhere to get their
photo licence so it would not be representative of the total number of transactions
that take place.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that we
have a long record of the transactions that have taken place in these communities,
so it is not that the circumstances of the last year that we used those
criteria. We look at what has happened
over the many years, and they are relatively consistent. In fact, most of them are down even before we
started photo licensing because to some degree in some communities the depopulation
that is taking place.
So
the distance factor is something that we are concerned about. We make provision for isolated communities
for the North that do not have the kind of access that one would maybe prefer, to
make provision for them that they can get interim licences until they have an
opportunity to get down to a community where they can take their photo
licensing. So we have tried to address that
to some degree, but the only problem that we have is the cost of cameras are
substantial, and there is no way that we can provide them for all the rural
areas.
When
you consider that, I think, we have 16 cameras that provide service for 600,000
people in
* (1540)
Mr.
Plohman: Just to conclude this matter, Madam
Chairperson, I would just like to ask the minister to review the petition that was
signed. This is a very important matter
for the people of Rorketon and north of there.
In and of itself, it is a self‑contained area that is not serviced
at the present time. It could be likened
very much to an isolated area in the North.
I
do not know how close this criteria is.
I would like to have that information from the minister as to whether
there are 995 or 800 or where they landed on that criteria, but I do not think,
in and of itself, that it is fair for this situation. So I would like the minister to take that
upon himself to review it, and I will be asking for him to perhaps get back to
me with any response he has on this.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am prepared to review
that and bring the information forward to the member. I will give him all the detailed information
as to what the status is out there and the distances and then review it.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(f) Computer Services: (1) Salaries $1,182,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $509,200‑‑pass.
1.(g)
Occupational Health and Safety.
Mr.
Reid: I have some questions here under Occupational
Health and Safety. I am looking at the
Supplementary Estimates page 30. Under Activity
Identification, it talks about conducting work site inspections and
environmental monitoring.
Can
the minister give me an indication of the type of work sites he is talking
about it? Is he talking about highway construction
programs or the actual maintenance of site locations within his
department? Can he give me an indication
of the number of inspections, if that is possible, that may have been undertaken
by this portion of his department and any discrepancies that may have been
found and what was done to resolve them?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me just indicate, with
the type of work that is being done in my department, especially in the
construction aspect of it, that this is a very sensitive area to us and that we
are very conscientious of the safety aspect of it because of the type of work
that takes place. We have work site
inspections on the job. Let me just see
here exactly what we have.
Well,
we have equipment safe operating check list; audiometric testing of approximately
600 employees; first‑aid training of approximately 400 employees;
implementation of a new safety committee training guide; full implementation of
computerized occupational injury‑illness reporting; development and
implementation of direct on‑line Workers' Compensation Board reporting
pilot project.
In
planned accomplishments, we have job instruction, motivating and increasing
safe behaviour, communicating effectively.
You know, all these kind of things are going on on an ongoing
basis. So it is not just one component
where we are doing this; this is over the whole department, basically.
Mr.
Reid: Then I take it from that that it is an
ongoing safety‑training program for the groups of employees in the different
regions of the province to ensure their safety on job sites. It is not just strictly audit inspections, or
is audit inspections a component of that, and if there is, what have the audit
inspections shown?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, it is broader than
that. We have 26 operational safety‑related
start‑up meetings with construction and maintenance personnel. It is the total package. I do not know whether I am answering the
question or have the information, what the member wants, but it is not just one
aspect of my department; it is not just the construction end of it. It is, for example, all the garages I have
across the province, you know, where we do our maintenance‑‑safety
programs are involved there‑‑on the construction sites, where we
have my maintenance crews. There are so
many aspects of it that are involved in the safety aspect of it.
It
is my understanding from staff that we have a very good record in terms of how
we deal with safety and that we have‑‑how should I say? I do not have the details exactly how good a record
it is, but I understand that we are doing a good job on it.
Mr.
Reid: If he has the information, he can provide it
later, on that aspect of any difficulties they may be encountering, but I will
switch to the rehabilitation of the injured workers, because with a work force
the size that this department has, where there are over 2,000 people employed,
there is obviously going to be, unfortunately, workplace injuries taking
place. Can you give me an indication on
what type of a rehabilitation policy, a program that you have there, for the
injured workers? Do you reabsorb them
back into the same departments upon recovery?
Do you make allowances for them to ensure that they can retain some
active form in the work environment?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, on a more general scale, we
are very conscientious about trying to work with the rehabilitation of injured
workers, because if they are not working, they are costing us money. In terms of details, I will try and maybe get
the details in terms of how many people we are working with to rehabilitate,
but I do not know how fast they can get that information. I will try and get a breakdown of exactly
that aspect if the member is interested in that. Okay?
Madam
Chairperson: Item 1.(g) Occupational Health and Safety: (1)
Salaries $193,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $50,000‑‑pass.
Item
2. Operations and Maintenance (a) Maintenance Program $53,734,100.
Mr.
Reid: Under this section in the Activity
Identification, it talks about brush spraying and salting of the roadways
throughout the provinces, during the winter months, obviously. Can the minister give me an indication,
because in the last Estimates, last year, he talked about a reduction of
roadside maintenance programs during the summer months, the grass cutting and
the tree trimming that takes place. Are
we still following through with that reduced program, or have we reinstated the
existing program that had been in place before?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, it is the intention of my department
to move more into the privatization of roadside mowing. We had targeted it actually to try to get up
to 75 percent, but we were way short of that last year, basically because
operators were not equipped and were not comfortable, I guess, in terms of
making investment in equipment, to buy in at this stage of the game. We are moving on a slower basis to get into
the roadside mowing.
I
want to indicate that actually we have a reduction in maintenance, but that is
not reflected because of something like that.
That is reflecting‑‑bite my tongue‑‑the
transference of 2,000 kilometres, by and large, back to the municipalities.
Mr.
Reid: I did not quite catch what the minister said
about the move towards privatization of roadside mowing. Is it the intent of his department to move
totally in that so that 100 percent is performed by private contract, or is
there going to be a portion that is going to be retained by his department?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, no, we would never be able
to move to 100 percent roadside mowing with the private sector, because there
are many areas where it would not be feasible to do that economically, when we
talk of our overpasses, many areas where we feel that we can do it, maybe not
cheaper, but we cannot get people interested in doing it. The contractors who are looking at getting
involved like to basically take our major stretches of highway where they can
do an efficient job there, but there are always these pockets where we would
never be able to look at going totally to the private sector to do that.
Mr.
Reid: If that is the case then, are these sections
along the main highways the most economical portions to do? Are we, by moving in the direction of
privatizing that part of the maintenance program, skimming off the most
economical parts of it and leaving the least cost‑effective areas for the
province to continue maintenance?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, not necessarily. I used the example of, let us say, our major
trunk highways, but we have many of our PR systems as well, where we feel that
for economical reasons as well as where we feel comfortable that the private sector
can handle it, I do not have a hangup that we have to do it all through the
department, but I want to also be cautious that we do not say that we are going
to privatize everything. I think there
is a happy blend in there, and that is what we are trying to achieve.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister give me an indication on the
number of employees in his department that might be impacted by a move in this
direction toward privatization of some of the maintenance programs?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate to the member that in the variances in staff over the last number of years
where we have had to take in, address and cut back in some cases, as I
indicated before that some departments have, that in very few cases have we
ever had live bodies that we have had to take out of a position. By and large, we have operated on the basis
of vacancies, and that is where this has taken place to some degree.
* (1550)
I
cannot be specific in terms of saying how many people have‑‑we have
not laid anybody off because of going to the privatization of roadside mowing,
because we always operate on that vacancy rate, again, on the global scale
within the department. Nobody has really
lost a job directly. We maybe lost a
position but not a job.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister give me an indication then on
how many positions will be lost?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, no, I cannot tell him that
because as we move into this thing, it depends‑‑we started last year,
we had a higher target, we did not reach it‑‑depending at what
stage we get at in terms of doing it this year.
I cannot give him that information.
Mr.
Reid: The department obviously, during the course of
its maintenance programs‑‑and thanks to the minister's staff in various
departments, I am becoming more aware‑‑after having become the
critic of this department, you have a tendency to pay more attention to what is
taking place around the province as you travel and you see the different
functions, and you talk to the different people in different communities, and
you have a better understanding for the jobs that they do‑‑but they
also use products in different parts of the province for brush spraying, bush
control, weed control, highway salting.
Can
the minister give me an indication on the brush spraying? I understand from this that we employ
chemicals to do brush control or weed control along our highways, and can the minister
give me an indication on where we purchase those products from? Do we use the tendering process, and if we
use the tendering process, do we accept the lowest bid in all cases?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, when you consider the total
budget that my department has, we are talking multimillions of dollars,
whatever we do basically in terms of purchasing‑‑and we purchase a
lot of materials, whether it has to do with my maintenance program or whatever
we do, it is all done on a tender basis, and we go with the lowest tender
unless there is some specific reason, and I would not know what that would be,
unless we feel that some individual is not qualified from past experience to
deliver that kind of goods. Other than
that, we go strictly with the lowest tender.
Mr.
Reid: One of the reasons why I raised that point is
it came to light here in Question Period a few weeks ago, where it came to our
attention that the province was doing some cross‑border shopping, and we
were buying our paint that we use on our highways from an American firm.
Of
course, it creates some environmental concerns for us in this province because
we cannot recycle some of our by‑products here, and at the same time, it
takes away job opportunities for us in this province.
That
is why I am asking that question because I want to have an understanding. I think it is important that we have to look at
the cost benefit, not just the lowest price that goes into some of this tendering
of the contracts that go out, because there are other considerations that have
to be taken into consideration for this.
That
is why I asked the minister. I know his
department is quite extensive and covers the whole province. But it is important for us to know where we
are buying this product from, because there is more than just one consideration‑‑price. There are jobs and there are environmental
concerns involved as well.
That
is why I am asking the question: Do we
purchase these products‑‑brush spraying, weed abatement program chemicals‑‑in‑province,
or do we go outside the province for those products, and are some of them
available through manufacturers in this province?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me, first of all, indicate
that even when I had Government Services, which was the basic buying component
for government, that agreement was struck before the four western provinces
where there would be no barriers in terms of purchasing. I think that at the present time in that department‑‑and
this might be something that could be directed at Government Services‑‑but
there are still some where we use a tax consideration when buying from out of
the East, because they have not signed an agreement with us yet.
But
referring specifically to the glass beads, not the paint‑‑you know,
we use the glass beads to mix them with the paint to be reflectorized. I have to indicate that was a tough call, but
we adamantly maintained the lowest tender.
Under
the circumstances, I have had further discussion with the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings) because of the environmental impact of glass
accumulations, et cetera. We are trying
to develop a pilot project where we can maybe store some of the crushed glass,
and that ultimately, we are looking‑‑just looking‑‑at
the potential of maybe using it in part of our asphalt system somewhere along
the line. So we are very conscientious
about the environmental aspect of it.
Again,
like I say, unfortunately, a judgment call of that nature, by and large,
affected the job of an individual, or two jobs within the province. But it is one of the things that happened, I
guess. I am very selfish when it comes
to Manitobans and jobs in
Mr.
Reid: It is obvious, we must consume a large volume
of salt product that we would spread on our highways throughout the winter
months. Can the minister give me an
indication on the volumes that we would purchase for his department? Can he give me an idea of where that
purchasing takes place? Was it the lowest
tendered price on that contract, or was it a tendered contract?
Mr.
Driedger: Oh, Madam Chairperson, the member is getting
into very technical questions here. I
want to assure him that the calcium that we purchase is done by tender
basis. I am trying to find out exactly
how much we purchased.
I
just want to further indicate to the member that I am trying to find out
exactly how much we buy, because we buy it in various stages and actually store
it all over the province. This takes
place early winter once the tender is let.
In some cases, it is tendered to be delivered to certain sites, et
cetera. I am scrambling to try and get
the exact amount. I have not got that. I will have to take that as notice and
provide that information as to how much we buy.
Mr.
Reid: There has been a decrease in the staff years,
a seven staff‑year decrease. The
explanation for it is it is due to regionalization and transfer of low‑volume
provincial roads to the municipalities.
I take it that is the offloading of the 2,000 kilometres onto the
municipalities, something which they were quite concerned about, but the
minister's department went ahead with it nevertheless.
Can
the minister give me an explanation of the regionalization that is taking place
within his department? I believe you
have 13 regions currently, and if that is not accurate, I am sure the minister
will correct me. Can you give me an
indication of his department's plans for regionalization?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate to the member that there is a difference between the transference of 2,000
kilometres back to the municipalities which affected the amount of equipment
that we need. It was a reduction in
that, and there were also, I think, 45 positions across the province that were
deleted as a result of the transference and a saving of $4 million to the
province in terms of doing that.
That
is one component. The regionalization is
something that is a concept we are looking at, developing at the present time, and
has had no impact in terms of any of the staffing here at this stage of the
game, because we are just in the initial stages of developing that.
* (1600)
Part
of the concept that we are looking at‑‑and it is not implemented at
this stage of the game‑‑is implementation of maybe over a period of
two or three years will be some staffing involvements. By and large, we are looking at where we have
13 districts now, we are looking at eventually setting up in five regions. The intention would be, out of those regions,
to be able to deliver a more complete program instead of having 13 districts
channel everything through headquarters.
The
decision‑making process is something that the contractors have been
concerned about. We feel that we could
take and deliver this kind of a program out of a region probably more efficiently
and faster than we do it at the present time, but we are just in the process of
developing this. I think it would be irresponsible
if I started speculating on all the aspects of it.
Ultimately,
if things worked as we envisioned them somewhere along the line, there would be
movement of some people from
Mr.
Reid: Then I understand, if I understand correctly,
our move away from the 13 districts to the five regions. Who will be responsible for prioritizing the
projects in these different regions if and when we move to that program? What will happen to the administration
portion of the department now that is in place?
I find it hard to comprehend that all of them will be decentralized out
into the areas, into the different regions.
Is there a likelihood that some of these people who are currently employed
and may be living within the confines of the city of
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, without trying to be
facetious, I am treading on unknown waters here at this stage of the game. We
are developing a concept, but I want to assure the member that no people are
going to be fired or laid off or stuff like that. It is interdepartmental
adjustments that we are trying to do to be able to deliver the program better.
Like
I say, we do not have the things pinned down.
It has been sort of speculative in terms of the impact it will
have. I have not reached an agreement or
come to a conclusion as to the finalization of this, how we do this. Once we have the regionalization concept
developed, I still have to go through a process in terms of even my colleagues
who have some concerns from time to time.
Until
we have developed that totally, I would be speculative, and I would not be
responsible by being speculative at this stage of the game. I am prepared to indicate to the member, once
we have a plan in place, I have always been free with information, and I will
bring that information forward to my critics.
Mr.
Reid: I appreciate what the minister is saying. He has, from our experience, been quite
reasonable in providing information when requested, and we appreciate that
because it allows us to be informed of different issues, as well.
But
my concern with this regionalization is that it is showing, in this
Supplementary Estimates booklet, that we have already seen an impact by the
regionalization process where we have a seven staff year reduction, and it
quite clearly spells out that the seven staff year reduction decrease is due to
regionalization, which is the first item, and then transfers of low volume
provincial roads to municipalities.
So
I suggest to the minister that we are already seeing an impact from the
regionalization concept coming into play here. It already spells it out in the
Estimates document.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in terms of developing the
regionalization aspect of it, as we went through the budgetary process, we had
to reach certain targets. That is when
this concept was starting to develop.
We
anticipate that if we finalize the regionalization concept, there would be an
advantage of seven positions that we could gain, but that has not taken place
at this stage of the game. In fact, I
still do not have a comfort level in terms of what we are doing with this. I am being very honest and frank with the
members in saying that until I feel a comfort level in terms of exactly where
we are going with it, nothing has happened to date.
So
this is what is projected would be happening if we pursue that regionalization
to the culmination of the concept, and we have not arrived at that yet.
Mr.
Reid: I can appreciate the minister saying that he
has not fully developed the program of regionalization, but looking throughout
this particular document, it mentions many times the regionalization
aspect. So I take it from that there
have been some serious plans and serious work undertaken to determine a direction
that the department is going to move in and that there are some, at least,
preliminary plans at this time.
Can
the minister give me an indication of what type of regions we are looking at
and where the administrative offices or the headquarters for those different
regions would be located? Have we selected communities throughout the different
parts of the province to play that role?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, first of all, I want to
repeat again that the regionalization aspect of it is in the very early implementation
stages, as we are developing a concept.
The seven positions that we are looking at there are basically vacancies
that we can take either way, I suppose.
In terms of the regionalization, when we talk of the concept of five
regions, we are looking at places like Steinbach,
Again,
we are talking sort of in a vacuum at this stage of the game, and I think I
might not be doing the members justice by doing the speculative thing, but that
is sort of the concept that has developed.
We also look at the present areas that we have. There will be no
deletion in terms of suboffices, et cetera. They will be maintaining those.
We
are in such an early stage of this thing that I would feel much more
comfortable if we had agreed to exactly what we are going to do and then come
forward and say this is what we are going to do. I do not have that comfort level myself at
this stage of the game. So we can
speculate what we want, but I do not think it would be fair.
* (1610)
Mr.
Reid: I would be willing to take the minister at
his word then that when some further plans are firmed up for this, he would
undertake to provide some consultation on this at the earliest opportunity and
keep us aware of what is taking place. It is obvious that there are different
communities throughout the province that may be impacted by decisions that this
minister's department is making. I am
sure that if we are changing to the five regions and there are going to be some
more administration roles, functions or jobs, these communities would like to
have those jobs come to their portion of the province. So I hope the minister will keep us apprised
of that.
I
have another question, and this goes back to the information that the minister
said he was going to supply relating to the salting. He may not have this information available
here, and it would be all right if he could provide it at a later date, some
time this year; in the volumes of dust‑control product and brush‑spraying
chemicals, if he has that information, just give us an indication of the
volumes, the cost involved and where we purchased the product and whether or
not it is on tender. He can provide that
at a later point.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, we learned today, and I
asked the question in Question Period, that the Department of Environment
sanctioned the placing of 10,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil is being
aerated.
Mr.
Driedger: I am prepared to give the undertaking that is
as close as possible, based on the information that is available. I will give that information as to how often
it happens.
I
would expect though that it would depend on the type of contamination. Certain things I do not think would probably
be proper to have in the public's interest and safety, to have them beside the
highway or on a right‑of‑way.
I will try to get a better understanding as to how often this happens,
as best I can.
Mr.
Edwards: I appreciate that. Just to be clear, the question of the level
of contamination and the effect of that on the public health, or if there is a
risk, that is an issue that I will take up with the Department of Environment.
What
I am looking for from the Department of Highways is an indication as to
currently what sites have soil being aerated on lands controlled by the
Department of Highways at or near highways; that is, specifically, are there
more than the one I know about at the intersection of the Perimeter Highway and
Inkster Boulevard, and if there are other sites, I would be interested to know
what the contaminating substance is and the quantity of the soil that is being
aerated. If that can be determined, that
would be appreciated.
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will try to get as precise
information as I can in terms of sites where we have this and the type of
contaminated soil that we have there.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have correspondence
from the minister to a Ms. Cindy Mitchell which goes back some time. The
minister's correspondence goes back to October of 1991.
It
has to do with a consultant being engaged to develop plans for future four‑laning
between the
Can
the minister give us an update on that particular planned stretch of road from
the Perimeter Highway to Dugald and whether or not that is a priority, and has
in fact the study been completed?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would want to
indicate to the member that dualing of Highway 15 to Dugald is not necessarily
one of our top priorities right now. I
think we do some of these studies well in advance.
I
have to indicate that we are looking at the potential of completing the
northeast Perimeter as a first priority which would take a lot of pressure off
of Highway 15, and we are in the various stages of moving forward with the
consultant studies in terms of the structures that are involved. We have two main rail lines that are going
that way. In one case, we are going with
an overpass, and in one case we are going with an underpass, and the structure
at 15, plus the structure at 59, Lagimodiere, actually where the Perimeter now
ends.
We
are looking at developing that whole aspect of it prior to doing the dualing of
15. It is unfortunate that it was never done. Right now, we have a real traffic problem
developing on Lagimodiere with heavy trucking and vehicles, et cetera. We are studying the northeast Perimeter as a
priority in terms of getting it moved forward.
I
have to indicate to the member that the cost is going to be between $60 million
and $70 million, and if we ever get a national highway program which we are
promoting very strongly, we would like to tie that into the national highway
system for the completion of the northeast Perimeter. We are looking at between $60 million and $70
million.
So
we would probably be proceeding on the basis of‑‑hopefully within
the next year or so, we will start letting contracts go on the first structures
which we will have to do before we do the grading. So we will do that on a stage basis, because
you cannot pour almost half my budget into one project.
It
is in the mix, and we will be moving forward with the northeast Perimeter.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, just to clarify then,
the study which was mentioned in the minister's letter has in fact been
completed and approved with respect to PTH 15 between the Perimeter and
Dugald. I take it the minister's
indication is, however, in terms of it being a priority, it is not imminently going
to be moved ahead. It is, at this point,
in abeyance. Is that the response?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that would be a
correct assessment. However, I want to
indicate, lest the member feels that we do these things without rhyme or
reason, that we have many aspects of it where we undertake certain studies, and
we need that for future requirements, road requirements.
For
example, we have the Selkirk corridor designated where we now have a plan
approved, and that way, if there is any development taking place, we can
indicate to the planning authorities that we do not want, let us say, a
business or a house built there, et cetera.
There is a reason why we do a lot of this planning well in advance, so
that we can take and save ourselves big costs later on, that we can take and
have control over these areas.
Some
of these studies, we have a fair number of them within the department, but it
gives us an idea if there is development taking place, that we have control
over that aspect of it.
So
the plan that we have on Highway 15 is not a lost plan. It is ultimately going
to come forward. It is a matter of the timing
and the money available.
* (1620)
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the road between
In
particular, I am advised that the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) was given a
petition of some 500 names which he has indicated to the signatories that he
delivered to the minister. He told local community residents that it would
probably be built in 1993 for sure, if not in 1992.
I
wonder if the minister can indicate when this road might be built.
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, let me first indicate
to the member that I represented that area for 13 years. I know the community well, know the road
really well, because that is one of my recreation roads out there.
I
have to indicate that we have moved forward on prioritizing it. I want to indicate that the community of
Woodridge‑‑when I first got elected in '77, we were driving on a
sand road where it was better to drive in the ditch than on the roads. Anyway, from Marchand to
In
terms of the commitment that the road was going to be built in '89, '90 or '91,
I would beg to differ, because having been the representative there till the
year 1990, I know the commitments that I made.
I, at that time‑‑I have been the minister now for four years‑‑indicated
we would start prioritizing and bringing it forward.
One
thing that people very often do not realize is that the process is, first of
all, you bring forward a road based on criteria that we use, which is the quality
of the road that we have, the traffic on there.
You know, there are many components in terms of prioritizing a road, but
once we have a road prioritized, the need is there for rebuilding it or
repaving it. Then the next step is the survey design aspect of it, which is usually
one year.
The
second stage is the acquisition of right‑of‑way. Invariably we have
to widen the road and have to have the right‑of‑way.
Then
we have to have the environmental licence, environmental considerations, which
are now very time consuming in my department as well.
The
fourth and final stage is the actual letting of a contract to reconstruct the
road, and if it is a road that we have designed for pavement, then the fifth
year is when we pave it. So there is a
process once a road is into the system.
I have to indicate to the member that the
Mr.
Edwards: Moving to Highway 75 out of St. Norbert, I
wonder if the minister can give us an update on twinning the portion coming out
of St. Norbert?
I
know the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) was quoted as saying that
there was an $11‑million commitment to the city, providing that the city
and the province could agree to begin funding this year, but that the city
countered by saying apparently that it would contribute to the project but not
until 1994. That is the information I
have. That is just going from the quotes
of the member for St. Norbert. I wonder
if the minister can give us an update.
Mr.
Driedger: Let me update the members, first of all, on Highway
75, which I indicated in my opening remarks has been a priority for us, and I
tried to give the rationale as to why.
It would be our hope, funding being there, all things being equal, that
by the fall of 1994, we will have twinned the Highway 75, that portion which
belongs to the province, all the way from St. Norbert up to the I‑29.
Various
contracts are in place right now. In
fact, after this year, we will have one more contract left in terms of grading,
which will be from St. Jean to Morris, so ultimately, as I say, if the money is
there‑‑it is a very expensive project‑‑that we will
have that portion of it done.
I
have always felt very strongly that as we spend major dollars in terms of
twinning roads outside, which are the provincial responsibility, and you come
to the city portion of it, you end up with, what I call, a cow path
sometimes. We have spent megabucks
having an overpass on Highway 7. Then we
come to the two miles which is the city responsibility, and we are down to two
lanes. I think, for safety reasons, it
is poor, poor judgment and poor business.
On
Highway 75, I felt very strongly about it from Day One that by our twinning it,
people coming in for tourism, for example, they come down a twinned highway,
they come down to St. Norbert and they are down to a beat‑up piece of old
concrete. It is actually an
embarrassment. So we entered into
negotiations with the city in terms of cost sharing on it, and offered them what
I thought was a very, very good deal. It
involved, out of a projected project of approximately $17 million, that we
would pick up approximately $11 million, but they also had to take back some of
the PR roads, and some of them are in what is now the Headingley area. With the secession of Headingley, that sort
of put things in an undecided position because some of the roads that they were
supposed to take back are in the Headingley area.
So
we have been in constant negotiations, and ultimately, I was very disappointed
because we thought we had a deal and then we did not have a deal, that we had a
deal, we did not have a deal, and ultimately, we now do have a deal. We have an understanding with the City of
The
project itself is in the area of approximately $17 million, and the province
will be participating, through the Department of Urban Affairs and my
department, to the tune of approximately $11 million.
Mr.
Edwards: I am sorry, I may have just missed the last
part of the minister's comments. Is
there in fact an arrangement specific to Highway 75 coming out of St. Norbert,
or is that going to come to pass because of this new protocol?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, as recently as two
weeks ago, we had an agreement with the City of
We
have a deal and it is a matter of now moving it forward in the various stages
which involves planning, design, box culverts at the
Mr.
Edwards: We have already discussed this in some
respect. The minister talked about the
I
note that the member for
His
quote was: We are wanting to finish the paving
of
I
wonder if the minister can give us a time frame for the works that he speaks
of; that is, the four‑laning of Highway 15, the northeast Perimeter
itself and the paving of
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would anticipate that the completion of the
northeast Perimeter would be approximately five years, but I would not be
prepared to give an undertaking at this time at what stage of the game or time
the twinning of Highway 15 would come into play.
Of
course, it depends a lot on whether you have a good government that is prepared
to prioritize highways, or you have a government which does not put a high
priority on highways and knocks the budget down, as has happened in some of our
neighbouring provinces. So, as long as
the money is there, these things can be planned and moved forward. But I would say five years on the northeast
Perimeter and Highway 15 probably would be very close on its heels.
Mr.
Edwards: Is the finishing of the paving of
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, regarding
Mr.
Reid: I just want to give an indication to the
minister, to go back to my earlier comments a few moments ago, talking about the
contracting out, where we purchase product from outside the province and
outside the country. I just received
this yesterday from a constituent who is a small business person in my community. The letter is addressed to the Minister of
Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger).
* (1630)
It
indicates that, along with Gary Bazinet and others, I would like you to know
that I question the decision to purchase glass paint beads from the
Thank
you in advance, signed Richard Cailley,
So
here are small business people indicating their support for a buy‑Canada
position. As the minister has already indicated,
that he received some flak on this decision already, I want him to know that we
received this correspondence to our office, plus phone calls on this matter as
well. That is why I think it is
important that we have to give serious consideration to the other merits of
this purchasing policy besides just the price consideration.
Mr.
Driedger: Yes, I want to indicate to the member that I received
that letter yesterday, or the day before‑‑I am not sure‑‑and
I will be developing a response to them.
I appreciate the criticisms that are coming forward. There is a certain justification there.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Item 2. Operations and Maintenance, (a)
Maintenance Program $53,734,100‑‑pass.
2.(b)
Winter Roads: (1) 100 percent Provincial
$245,000.
Mr.
Reid: Mr. Acting Chairperson, we are on the Winter
Roads section. I have some questions
here concerning winter roads, but before I get into those questions, because
this has an impact upon the community of Thicket Portage, and I know the
minister was asked questions of this yesterday, I would like to ask the minister
if there is any update on the situation with the train derailment that is
currently isolating the community of Thicket Portage.
Does
he have any information that indicates that the line will soon be open? If not, what type of alternate service arrangements
have been made by the province, by CN or by VIA to provide the necessary
services for these communities?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not have a final report
because I think that might take a little while until we get an official report
because everybody wants to make sure they have all the details correct. It is my understanding that the lines should
be open and in operation very shortly, and that CN is doing everything possible
to accommodate the inconvenience for the people who are affected.
But
I do not have a detailed update on that.
As soon as I have a report in, I am prepared to take and share that with
the member. I just know that all efforts
are being made by everybody concerned, Northern Affairs, my departmental
people, CN in terms of trying to accommodate the people who have been
inconvenienced and to make sure that the track is back in operation again so that
communications can continue.
Mr.
Reid: In discussions that I have had with personnel
at CN Rail here in Winnipeg, they have indicated that if any of the residents
in Thicket Portage or the other communities have any concerns, they are to
contact, depending upon which portion affects them, whether it be the freight
traffic or the passenger, there does not seem to be one area or one department
that these individual people can go to.
If
they want to ship out their fish product that they are catching, and some of
them are quite concerned about that, that they can not go out and continue
their livelihood, which is going to have long‑term ramifications for
them, because then at the far end of the scale they will not be able to be
eligible for unemployment insurance during the winter months when they can no longer
do this type of work. So they are quite
concerned that they can not ship their product.
I
hope that the minister's department is looking at the possibility of alternate
shipping arrangements because I know these people have been told, and I have
been told to pass on this message to the people that they are to contact
Gardewine and maybe some arrangements can be made to assist them, but there was
no definite answer on that.
So
it is critical to them because they are right in the middle of their shipping
season, in their work season here, and they need to have that income to
continue their livelihood. Also, for those people who are stranded in Thompson,
who have no means of getting back because the winter road system is now finished
and the rail line is closed, can some form of air transport arrangements be
made to have these people move for various reasons, medical and otherwise,
between Thompson and Thicket Portage?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it is my understanding
that all efforts are being made to try and accommodate the affected
people. I want to indicate the
understanding was that the line should be in operation very shortly, but
because of the concern expressed by the member, I will take and have staff just
review it further again just to make very sure that all efforts are being made
to accommodate the people affected by that.
I will report back to the member tomorrow.
Mr.
Reid: I thank the minister for that. Further to the statements I have just made,
we have heard today that that particular portion of the rail line will be
closed for up to a week. So it does
create some hardships for the community itself.
To
move on to the section on Winter Roads, I have had the opportunity on several
occasions with my colleagues the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) and the member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) to travel to different northern parts of the
province and I have had the opportunity to go into many of the communities, Garden
Hill, Shamattawa and many others. Many
of these communities, of course, are linked by the winter roads system, and at
recent meetings that we had at Garden Hill the concern was raised that the
people there had to be responsible for a portion of the winter road costs.
Can
the minister give me an indication on the responsibility for the winter roads
systems, and whether or not the federal or the provincial portion covers all of
the winter roads systems or is there some other criteria that are involved here
or are the decisions made beyond the provincial control that I am unaware of?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate that I have had the privilege of travelling on the winter roads myself
just to see what it is like. You know,
it is not like driving on a highway‑‑that is a fact. As I indicated in my opening remarks, we had
withdrawn funding last year from certain of these roads and we have reinstated
that funding, and a portion of that is basically provincial
responsibility. We have the other
portion that is by and large cost‑shared with the federal
government. They pay so much and we pay
so much. It is 50‑50 that we
basically cost‑share on the winter roads.
We
meet every year with the people, like Norman Construction, who basically
undertake a good portion of our winter roads, and what we did last year based on
their request, they wanted to have some of the money up front, start‑up
costs, and we accommodated them by, you know, allowing so much money up front
for start‑up costs. Because what
happened prior to that is that we would set up the budget for them, how much we
would be paying, let us say the construction company, but what happened is that
the feds would not pay us till the end of the construction year or when the
winter roads got shut down, so we were always behind the eight ball and so were
they. So we made provision for them to get
money up front, which helped alleviate some of their concerns. So we work with them on an ongoing basis in
terms of trying to improve things as best we can with the limitations that we
have.
We
have under Winter Roads, there is that portion that we extended again, the
assistance to the communities of Pikwitonei and Thicket Portage and communities
of Ilford, Pukatawagan and Bloodvein, and our portion that is provincial is
$245,000 and Winter Roads: Shareable
with Canada is $3,330,000 for a total of monies expended on the winter road
system to the tune of over $3.5 million for the coming year.
* (1640)
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Reid: Those figures are available in the
Supplementary Estimates. Can the minister
give me an indication on the number of kilometres that the province is
responsible for of winter roads and the number of kilometres that the
Government of Canada is responsible for on a shareable basis.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the total length is 1,502 kilometres
which is shared with the federal government.
The portion that is strictly provincial is 46 kilometres in one portion
of it and 76 kilometres in another portion.
That is the provincial, total responsibility.
Mr.
Reid: Is the minister aware of the concerns of the
band councils, have they brought it to the minister's attention, their concerns
over the funding arrangements that have been made, and their concerns about
having to pick up the extra cost portions that are involved which puts a strain
on the budgets that they have?
It
is my understanding they view that as either a Government of Canada or
provincial government responsibility, and they do not think that they should be
responsible for any costs incurred on the winter road systems.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to the member,
I am well aware of what the communities are basically suggesting at this stage
of the game. What has happened is that at
one time it was the Department of Indian Affairs that basically paid half and
we paid half.
Because
of the funding arrangements that they have with the communities, they allocate
them so‑and‑so‑much money which is supposed to cover the
winter roads. Now they say that money should
be theirs, and that it should not necessarily be attributed to the winter
roads. I mean, it is a matter that the funding
formula, not the amounts necessarily, but the system has changed. Now they say, well, because it comes out of
their allocation.
Basically
there is nothing changed. Before it used
to be Department of Indian Affairs that paid the province; now, under the
system that they have, partially of self‑government, they get that
portion allocated, each community. That
is the portion that is the 50 percent federal government and we put in our 50 percent. They are turning around now and they are
saying, well, you know, it is a provincial responsibility, as we look after PRs
we should look after the total winter roads.
I
beg to differ on that. I cannot find
that acceptable at this stage of the game, and I hope the member is not
suggesting it either.
Mr.
Reid: Well, I will profess that I did not have a
full and complete understanding of the process and who was responsible for what
portion of the winter roads, and that is why I asked the question.
If
I understand what you said correctly then, that they were, originally as part
of the Indian Affairs, budgeting that was provided to the band councils, that
there was a portion of those monies that were supposed to be allocated for
winter roads then. Those monies still remain part of that, that budgeting for
them?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I was trying to explain
that previously what happened under the winter roads was we cut a deal with the
federal government in terms of the system that was in place which we cost‑shared
50‑50 to provide access to these communities in the wintertime, so they
could haul in their fuels and whatever supplies they could. It is a lot cheaper to do it by way of winter
roads.
So
that system was established and the Department of Indian Affairs paid for 50
percent.
Now,
what has happened, because of the communities coming forward and saying, well,
you know, self‑government to some degree, they want to adjudicate their
own money. That portion, the federal
portion was $1.5, $1.6 million, and that went for all the communities,
basically administrated out of Indian Affairs before, now is allocated to each
community on a percentage basis, part of their allocation out of their global
allocation that they have, but it is still supposed to be covering that portion
of it, you see. They now say, well, no,
they do not want to have that attributed to this. It is a matter of, you know, negotiating and trying
to get a better deal, I suppose.
Mr.
Reid: I take it, by what the minister is saying
then, that the monies were part of the global budget figure that is given to them
on a yearly basis, and that they see that as not being attributable directly to
the winter road system, or at least they do not want it to be attributable to
the winter road system. So the argument
is between the federal government and the band councils, not the band councils
and the provincial government.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I hope it is that way,
because we maintain that the federal government has a 50 percent responsibility
on that. I do not care which pocket or
who does what there, but we will pay half as we have until now. In some portions we pay 100 percent,
unlimited ones, but I do not intend to change that formula.
Mr.
Reid: Okay, I think I have a better understanding of
that now. They had raised the issue with
us when we were there consulting with them.
I seem to recall the figure of a cost of $38,000 that they had to incur
on a yearly basis to support what they call the extra‑portion costs above
and beyond what was given by the Government of Canada and the
Would
that be an accurate reflection of the extra costs that the band council would
incur at the Garden Hill location?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not quite sure
whether that is the accurate figure or not, but I can assure the member that,
as we do every year at about the middle of summer or during the course of the
summer, we get together with them and we renegotiate to some degree, as best
both sides can, to try to come to an understanding. I anticipate, based on some of the correspondence
that I have had, we will be looking at some new discussions again to look at
various aspects of the funding. Once I have an idea of what they really want,
then I am prepared to take and disclose that.
Mr.
Reid: I thank the minister for that. I also had the opportunity, and I was
somewhat shocked by what I saw on my first trip to the community of
Shamattawa. I think that every person living
in the southern portion of the province should have the opportunity to see the
living conditions for the people in that area.
I found it quite disgusting that any human being would have to live
under those conditions, but I will not dwell on that aspect of it. That is a matter for another department.
The
road systems that we saw in Shamattawa, is that a total federal government
responsibility, or does the province play a role in any of the maintenance
programs for that particular area?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in most of the northern isolated
communities, the Department of Northern Affairs works out a deal with the
federal government in terms of looking after responsibility. My responsibility to my department is
basically the PR system, for example, the 373 that goes to
In
the community of Norway House, actually between my department and Northern and
Native Affairs came to an agreement as to who would share what roads in
there. We undertook to build that bridge
and then have a road up the airport in there which basically we now count as a
provincial responsibility. The balance
of the roads in the community are basically the Department of Northern Affairs'
responsibility.
In
most cases in communities like Shamattawa, as the member indicates, it is the
responsibility of the Department of Native and Northern Affairs. How they work out their funding with the federal
government I am not sure. I believe that
they have some arrangement, but I am not sure.
Mr.
Reid: Then I take it, it is the Northern and Native
Affairs' total responsibility for any repairs or maintenance to the road systems
within the reserve itself at Shamattawa.
The minister's department does not play any role in any type of
services, or support, or equipment for any of those programs?
* (1650)
Mr.
Driedger: I am told that we have no responsibility in
that community. I am sure that in cases where
the Department of Northern Affairs would want to have some of our engineering services,
they would have to ask for it and we would bill them for services rendered.
Further
to that, I might just indicate to the member that in cases where we have the
equipment at the airport which we maintain in the isolated communities, that
some of our equipment is being used by Native and Northern Affairs for
maintenance and some plowing in the communities.
Mr.
Reid: Yes, I am aware of the airports, and I thank the
minister for the information that he provided at the last Estimates process on
the different airports throughout the province.
It
is interesting to have the opportunity to go to these different facilities and
see they are relatively well maintained from the little experience or knowledge
that I have. From what I have seen there
they seem to be well maintained.
I
was concerned about the other services that are provided in the road systems
because they were in quite a deplorable state on that particular reserve, and I
hope the minister will pass on to his colleague the minister responsible for
Northern and Native Affairs that there may be a role that we can play in the upgrading
of those road systems, and also it would obviously provide some much‑needed
employment opportunities for the people who are there. I hope that the minister will take that information
back to his colleague.
That
is all the questions that I have on this.
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Chairperson, my
wife and I travel in from the country quite frequently on No. 6 Highway and
onto the Perimeter Highway, and the last few days there is a whole lot of
commotion going on in that corner, and I promised my good wife Eleanor that I
would ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation, what is going on, on the
corner of No. 6 and 101?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that on
the Perimeter we are doing the final portion of the Perimeter in terms of
repaving and building up the standards, and I think we are looking at the
alignment and the access on No. 6 as well.
Mr.
Enns: Well, I know that particularly truckers using
the Perimeter always appreciate putting some additional surface on any portion
of the Perimeter, but it looks to me as though your crews are doing a fair bit
of realignment work on that junction of No. 6 onto 101. Does that work include future consideration of
an overpass at that site?
Mr.
Driedger: I am told the work that is being done there
now would not necessarily have a bearing on a future overpass, which would be
much more extensive.
Mr.
Enns: I do want to thank, through you, Madam
Chairperson, the indulgence of all the members of this committee. I try to look after the interests of all my
constituents and they also include my wife, who is a constituent. Thank you.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(b) Winter Roads: (1) 100% Provincial $245,000‑‑(pass);
(2) Shareable with
2.(c)
Operations and Contracts: (1) Salaries
and Wages $1,952,400.
Mr. Reid:
Under this section it talks about Activity Identification: " . . . issues special permits for
highway weight limits." Can the
minister give me an indication of the number of permits that may be issued in a
year? Is it also possible to give an indication
of the revenue that would be generated by the issuing of those permits and the
type of purpose? It would be the
movement of structures of buildings that would take the most number of permit
issuances, or would there be other activities that the minister maybe could
make us aware of?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, just for clarification so
that I know what the member is asking, is the member asking for how many
permits we issue on our highway system for whatever reasons?‑‑because
we, at certain times, allow special permits oversize, certain unique
circumstances overweight.
I
want to indicate that for 1990‑91 we had 6,844 oversize transactions and
we had 4,154 overweight transactions, and the revenue was $269,800 for the
oversize ones and $259,000 for the overweight ones. For 1991‑92 we had 6,497 oversize transactions. We had 4,130 overweight transactions and the revenue
was $252,200 for the oversize transactions and $244,300 for the overweight
transactions. Does that answer the
member's question?
Mr.
Reid: Well, it does generate some modest amounts of
revenue for us in the province.
The
minister, he may not be able to give me this indication, but I am doing this
for education purposes for myself, because I am not totally up to speed on all
of the highway functions, on whether or not these special permits are issued
for various reasons or there are main reasons that take place, these overweight
and oversize.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, it is for a variety of reasons. As I indicated, those are the two main
ones: the overweight and oversize, but
then we have public service vehicles. We
have single‑trip permits; we have designated regular commodity permits;
we have motive fuel permits; we have transit licences. There is a variety of these things that all come
under the Transport Compliance statistics.
Mr.
Reid: All right.
It is, obviously, an involved area and much more than a simple
explanation.
Under
the line of communication under Operations and Contracts, there has been a decrease
in budget amounts for that section of approximately $4,500. Can the minister give me an indication on
what changes took place in the communications part of that department?
* (1700)
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the member
could help me out a little bit. Under
Operations and Contracts under communication, there is $67,000 last year and
$62,800 this year. Is that the question he is asking why it is down? I do not know. It is not a big amount that it is down. It is less than $5,000 out of my total
budget, and I do not have all that detail on it. I am told that it has something to do with
telephone rates, but I am not exactly sure whether that is the total amount. If it is important, I will try to get the
information, but it is pretty detailed when it gets down to this.
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr.
Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for Private Members'
Business. Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report
progress and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
REPORT STAGE‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 52‑The Pas Health Complex
Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Pas
Health Complex," reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills be
concurred in.
Point of Order
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, we are having a very difficult time hearing the honourable member for
The Pas. I do not know if it was in the sound
system or what have you. [interjection! Yes, and we were not able to hear the
member for The Pas.
* * *
Motion
agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 16‑The Health Care Directives
Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 16, The Health Care Directives Act; Loi
sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante, standing in the name of the
honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [Agreed!
Bill 18‑The Franchises Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 18, The Franchises Act; Loi sur les concessions,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Bill
18 is The Franchises Act. It is
legislation that has been brought before this House as a private member's bill,
legislation that should be supported very quickly, completely, and unanimously
by all members of this House. But, Mr.
Speaker, for reasons unknown to members on this side of the House, the government
has chosen not to support this particular piece of legislation, and later in my
remarks I will be commenting on the single government speaker who has put his
comments on the record for this House. I
think his comments may shed some light on the government's position on this
bill and its lack of interest in seeing it move forward through the legislative
process and, one would hope, into actual legislation.
Mr.
Speaker, over the last 20 or 30 years throughout North America, throughout the
western world, and most recently in the city of
Mr.
Speaker, in our society today many individuals and families have, due to early
retirement, due to thrift and good pension plans on the part of individuals and
due to the fact that people are living longer, many people have the opportunity
to make a career change, a lifestyle change, if you will, and have some money
that they would like to invest. Many of
those people are choosing to make those investments in franchises. There are some very good reasons for choosing
to do that. There are also some pitfalls
that have come to light, pitfalls that can befall any one of us as we
particularly move into an area that we are not familiar with, which is often
the basis for the difficulties that individuals find in dealing with
franchises.
Mr.
Speaker, many of the people who go into the franchise business do so at the
end, as I have stated, of their first career.
They have taken early retirement, they have funds that they are prepared
to invest, they want to have an opportunity to participate in the business
community, and they see stories and examples of many successful franchises.
So,
with the best intentions and with the goal of not only providing for their
retirement years and providing them with a guaranteed income and perhaps the
opportunity to expand their financial resources, and also, Mr. Speaker, with
the goal of providing service to people in their communities. Many of these individuals go into the
franchising business.
Again,
Mr. Speaker, unlike almost any other kind of business venture that I can think
of, franchisees usually have virtually no experience with franchising. They often have no experience with business
per se. Many of them go into this
franchising after a career spent in other forms of business or in professions such
as teaching. While they have income to
invest, and they are interested in the concept of franchising, they do not have
a lot of business experience and background.
Currently,
in Manitoba and throughout most of Canada, the situation when people look at
franchising as a possible source of livelihood are back in the Dark Ages when
it comes to business. They are truly victims of caveat emptor, let the buyer
beware. This is particularly a problem for us because many of these individuals
do not have background in business and experience.
Mr.
Speaker, we have seen in many cases, and it has been put on record here in
speeches by members of my caucus in support of Bill 18, case histories of
individuals who have fallen afoul of the lack of regulation in the franchising
industry in
* (1710)
Mr.
Speaker, I think we need go no further than the daily newspapers, the front
pages, or the business section these days to see a case where business people
of world‑wide acclaim have fallen afoul of, not only our current economic
situations, but I would venture to say, fallen afoul of their own sense of
being above the laws of the operation of the market place and the business
community. I am speaking, of course, of
Olympia and York and the Reichmann Brothers who will be providing material for
business schools and law schools for decades if not centuries to come, and
certainly provide us with a classic case example of deregulation, unregulation,
gone wild, where banks which are supposed to be made up of the most
conservative, in the small "c" sense, cautious people, lent money to
this consortium without any understanding of their private books and knowing
that they had no access to their private financial records. It is not only the banks, but it is all of us
who are going to be affected negatively by this situation.
I
think, on a global scale, this is the kind of thing that Bill 18 is attempting
to alleviate. It is attempting to alleviate
the basic possibility of individuals being taken, Mr. Speaker, through illegal
and unethical business practices on the part of franchisers.
Case
examples abound, Mr. Speaker, and I will not delay us anymore in talking about
this. It is very interesting, and I was quite
interested in reading the speeches of particularly the critic who put forward
this legislation, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the only province
in this country that currently has legislation that protects franchisees is the
Now,
Mr. Speaker, if I had to make a choice of the 10 provinces and two territories
in this country that would be the only one that would have franchise
legislation, I will be very honest with you, it would not be Alberta. The
It
is the basis for much of the meat of Bill 18, the experience and the
regulations that are in place in the
Even
that individualistic
The
legislation that in the
Because
there is no consistency in the contracts and the prices for franchises, the
current allowance just says, whatever the market will bear and whatever the
person's ability or willingness to pay.
That is something that we are saying is not fair and is not equitable
and would be dealt with in Bill 18.
This
section of the bill would also make sure that a franchise in Minnedosa and a
franchise in
Mr.
Speaker, I know that I have just a few minutes left on my speech, so I will
again end by speaking just very briefly about the sole government speech on
this bill. The speech was presented by
the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
The
speaker from Niakwa talked about only one aspect and that was the securities commission. He talked only about the bureaucracy. He talked only about the fact that this would
make for more government, would be cumbersome and, in effect, agreed with the
basic thrust of caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. Mr. Speaker, this again
in, albeit, a small way states very clearly and shows very clearly this
government's hidebound traditional ideological base and its lack of concern for
the small businessperson in this province.
One very important part of this province is the small businessperson. As we all know, the vast majority of jobs in
this province are provided by businesses with less than 15 employees, and
franchises provide a large portion of that kind of small‑business
support.
Mr.
Speaker, in conclusion, this bill would not cost an additional cent.
[interjection! The Speaker has already ruled on that, because the Speaker would
not have allowed this bill to come to private members' hour if it had any
financial cost attached to it. It is
solely to provide a measure of security for franchisees, to protect them from
the possibility of the franchiser taking advantage of them.
I
will close my remarks again and urge government members to join us in
supporting Bill 18, which is a very fine, necessary, important and certainly
overdue piece of legislation.
Mr.
Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, with the
indulgence of the House, I could ask for‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Emerson, I would just
like to advise the House that Bill 18 will remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), as was already previously agreed
to by leave.
* (1720)
SECOND READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 97‑The
and Theological Seminary Incorporation
Amendment Act
Mr.
Jack Penner (Emerson): I wonder, with the indulgence of the House,
Mr. Speaker, whether I could ask for leave to revert to Bill 97 for second
reading.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for Emerson have
leave to revert to second reading of private bills, Bill 97? [Agreed!
Mr.
Penner: I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that Bill 97, The Winnipeg Bible College and Theological
Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en
corporation le "Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary"), be
now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Penner: I am going to be very brief on a very brief
bill. This bill is simply introduced to this House to make a name change to the
With
the indulgence of this House, I ask all parties to support the change of the
name because that simply is all it will do.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), Bill 25, The University of Manitoba Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand. Is there leave?
[Agreed!
Bill 27‑The Business Practices
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 27, The Business Practices Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, standing in the name
for the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave? [Agreed!
Bill 31‑The Municipal Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Bill 31, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave? [Agreed!
Bill 32‑The Immigration Consultants
Registry Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 32, The Immigration Consultants Registry
Act; Loi sur l'inscription des conseillers en immigration standing, in the name
of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave? [Agreed!
Bill 36‑The Health Care Records Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 36, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave? [Agreed!
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this
particular bill today because it is an important bill. It is a matter in which I have had some
exposure in the past. As former Health
critic, I met with a number of individuals who really have been pushing for
this kind of legislation for a significant period of time. I think it is important that we look at
exactly what this particular bill entails.
As I said it is a very important area.
The member for
As
I mentioned, I had the opportunity a number of years ago of meeting with the
Health Care Consumer Rights Committee of the Manitoba Association for Rights
and Liberties which has pioneered in getting this matter dealt with in the
public arena. I think much of the credit
for the push behind this kind of legislation should go to MARL. I know I had the opportunity at the time to meet
with a number of individuals and in particular with Gord MacIntosh the convenor
of the Health Care Consumer Rights Committee who is well known to the members
of the Legislature with his association as deputy clerk a number of years ago,
now a practising lawyer very active in the Manitoba Association of Rights and
Liberties and pioneering in terms of pushing for access, for the access of
patients to their records.
I
think it is important to make it very clear on the record what kind of access
is being considered. The bottom line,
Mr. Speaker, is this is important legislation in the sense that it would
enshrine once and for all in legislation the right of access to those records.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I
would point out that this is not the only time this matter has come up in terms
of public debate. The access to medical records
was a key concern in the early 1980s in terms of Workers Compensation. I remember some of the discussions at the
time as a member of the then‑government when we brought in the access of claimants
to their files including medical records.
I remember some of the concerns of physicians, Mr. Acting Speaker, and
the fact that we were able to deal with those concerns, the legitimate concerns
of physicians, and yet at the same time provide access to medical records by
Workers Compensation claimants, the patients.
I
can tell you it had a significant impact on Workers Compensation, particularly
in terms of disputed cases where claimants felt they were not getting their
just desserts, where claimants felt they were not being treated fairly by
Workers Compensation. They were able to
see on what basis those decisions were being made. It was very important in terms of their being
able to file the appeals to know exactly what kind of information was on their
records, what kind of information had been used, in most cases, against them in
terms of the final ruling of the case.
It was particularly important in being able to obtain other medical
evidence, because without access to those records, in many cases the claimants
did not know what the physicians had said formally. They might have had conversations with the
physicians. The concern, I know, in many
cases was that physicians would not necessarily put directly to the claimants
in their conversations with them the discussions, the kind of material they
were putting in the formal reports that went to Workers Compensation.
So
there has been a precedent in terms of this debate. The precedent, I think, has shown that when
you have access to medical records, it does not fundamentally breach the physician‑patient
relationship. In fact, I would suggest
it can enhance it because everything is on the table. The medical records are clear, and indeed in
the case of Workers Compensation it has not led to major problems. In fact, it has in many ways I think improved
the fairness of the system.
I
think there needs to be reference when we are talking about this access
obviously to a need for some controls and safeguards. As I said before, I think that is
important. I know the member for St.
Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), when she introduced this matter in the
Legislature, indicated that following her discussions with many community
groups and in fact following a great deal of work by not only her predecessor,
but my predecessor as NDP Health critic Jay Cowan, who did a great deal of work‑‑I
am glad to see that members of the opposition remember Mr. Cowan so
fondly. So they should; he made a major contribution
to this House. This indeed is one of his
contributions, in addition to the work done by the member for
Indeed,
I note the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), as is his usual habit, is speaking
rather loudly from his seat. I hope he
only takes the same opportunity to speak from his seat a few minutes later when
I sit down, so we can hear where he stands on this bill, whether he will be
supporting the passage of this bill in this session of the Legislature to
ensure fair access to patient records by the patients of Manitoba, by the
people of Manitoba. We will see where
the Health minister stands in terms of this major issue.
As
I said, this was developed with a clear sense of the need to have safeguards
put in place. I think that is something
that is very important. There are a
number of ways that is done. The basic
process is to give a statutory right of access upon request of all medical
files. This would include records held
by individual physicians, as well as the institutions in an organization.
* (1730)
Once
again, a parallel to Workers Compensation‑‑it would reinforce the
confidentiality of medical files. This
is an important point, and the restrictions on access for third parties who do
not have the permission of the patient to obtain or review files. Those files are the files of the
patient. They have a proprietary right
to those files, not to other organizations.
I think that element of consent is vital, whether it be in terms of Workers
Compensation or whether it be in terms of other government agencies, there has
to be an element of consent. This is one
provision of this bill.
This
bill also allows holders of medical files, who believe they may contain
information that may be detrimental to the patient's health or information
about other patients, to withhold those files, so there are safeguards built
in. If the patient still desires access
to those files, however, they could ask an independent third party to review
their request with the power to order or restrict full or limited access. So there is a double protection built in in
terms of the holder of the medical records, but by the same token, the ability
of the individual requesting access to be able to appeal to an independent
third party.
This
bill allows persons to find incorrect information in their files and to correct
those files and to inform others who may have had access to those files of any
such corrections. That is important,
because indeed there are errors that can occur.
If you look at what may occur, I liken it to, in this case, someone applying
for a job, perhaps giving a reference of a physician who may give certain files
to the employer. There may be incorrect information
on the record; that incorrect information may lead to the individual not being
hired.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
By
having this access, people can clear the record, they can update the
information, they can correct any misinformation. That is important. I know that is something that has been very much
under consideration in other areas‑‑consumer records, credit records,
for example. People do not have access
to their own files and are unable to correct any information that is not correct. That is something that is enshrined in terms
of the practices in that particular industry.
It is the same thing in terms of medical records.
There
should be the ability to correct misinformation that is on the record. In addition, this bill provides legal
protection to health care providers against frivolous lawsuits which can arise
as a result of production in the file.
That
is a fairly significant point, because I remember in the discussions that took
place, in terms of access to Workers Compensation records. The concern was expressed that this would open
up physicians to lawsuits based on, not necessarily that serious indeed,
frivolous lawsuits which might suggest there had been some problem in terms of
the information put on the record by the physician, when in fact that may have
been strictly an error, there may have been some suggestion of
malpractice. That has not been the case.
We
have the experience of nearly a decade in terms of Workers Compensation to show
that in making medical records available to the individuals involved does not
lead to frivolous lawsuits, that this builds in that protection, over and above
that.
As
I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly important piece of legislation. Now, the question that has to be asked, I am
sure, and I know the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will be asking this question
of himself, and I hope he has asked some questions on this bill, because I
think it is something the government itself should be introducing: What are other jurisdictions doing?
This
is the same minister who‑‑I know in Question Period‑‑seems
to have an answer about what every other jurisdiction in
We
are continuing, and we hope before the end of the session I should get one
answer from the Minister of Health, one clear answer, one direct answer
providing information about Manitoba, but if the minister wants to know what is
happening in other provinces‑‑Alberta, Nova Scotia, Quebec and the
federal government have legislated access, Mr. Speaker.
I
repeat that for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). There are other provinces
that have this kind of legislative access,
Mr.
Speaker, so he does not even have to worry in that sense about the politics of
it. It is politically correct for the minister
to consider. These are provinces and
jurisdictions, three out of four currently have Conservative governments. I am not saying that legislation was brought
in by those governments, but they currently have Conservative governments.
Indeed,
I say again, we have legislative access in terms of compensation
claimants. I forgot to mention earlier,
we have legislative access in terms of psychiatric facilities, patients being
examined in a psychiatric facility. I
know that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) I am sure will consider that to be
a good precedent.
So
we have precedent in
The
bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no reason for the government not to
be moving on this particular bill. If it
has difficulty with specific sections, let it amend those sections. If it has a different approach, let it bring
in its own bill. Let it not allow this
government to put the province in a position where we are dragging our heels in
an area where other jurisdictions move significantly ahead. Where in this province, under the previous
government‑‑and this may bother the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard)‑‑the previous NDP government took two significant steps in
terms of opening up the access to medical information.
I
just mentioned them, Mr. Speaker, both significant initiatives. Let us see the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) talk about his in terms of the context of his own health care reform
package, the so‑called health care reform action plan. I have read through the document. I was at the unveiling. There is a lot of talk in there about
community‑based medicine, and we have discussed that in other forms, and
I have said that is the road to go, Mr. Speaker.
That
is what our caucus believes, but surely, if we are going to ask people to become
involved in the health care process, why can we not give them access to
information about themselves as a start?
We need a system that empowers people and empowers community, not that
empowers bureaucracies. That is why I
say, this is consistent with any real health care reform.
This
empowers people. It makes them a partner
in the health care process. It gives
them access to information about themselves, while there may be some with a
bureaucratic outlook with problems with that, surely in the days when we are
talking about the need for health care reform, we must proceed along that basis.
So
I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a result of a lot of hard work
by the previous member, Jay Cowan, by the current member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis),
by the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties. This has precedent in
It
is consistent with health care reform in this province. It will empower
patients. It will provide a better
balance. It will provide greater
fairness in terms of medical records.
There is no reason why not to pass this bill this session of the Legislature
and bring it into legislation.
Mr.
Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing
in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Bill 50‑The Beverage Container Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable Leader
of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), Bill 50, The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed!
* (1740)
Bill 51‑The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 51, The Health Services Insurance Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, standing in the name
of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed!
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
This
bill, Mr. Speaker, is a very simple, very short bill, but, as is often the case
with matters of basic principle, simple is the best. I would commend the honourable member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema). [interjection!
Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) just
suggested that I might commend the honourable member for Pembina (Mr.
Orchard). He suggested it, and while I often
and usually follow the advice of my honourable colleague, in this case I must
put on record the fact that I have never expected, nor do I ever expect to be
able to commend the actions of this Minister of Health, certainly not based on
his‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, should my honourable
friend the member for
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Ms.
Barrett: Mr. Speaker, after that brief interlude, I
would like to get back to the issue at hand, which is a discussion of Bill 51,
The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act, which simply states that the five
principles underlying the medicare system in our country be enshrined in
legislation in our province.
Mr.
Speaker, we have an enormous number of bills and statutes and legislation and
regulations in this province dealing with a vast array of issues and concerns
that face our province. This however, I
think, is perhaps potentially one of the most important pieces of legislation
that we will be discussing in this session.
It
is important because should it be passed by this government and the legislators
here, which I hope it is, it would send a very clear message to the federal
government in Ottawa, a message whose clarity has been clouded in recent years
by the actions and inactions on the part of this provincial government when it
comes to health care.
We
all know that in 1984, when the current Prime Minister was seeking that
position, he stated that medicare was a sacred trust. If there is one sentence that the Prime
Minister of this country has uttered in his eight long years as Prime Minister
of this country that encapsulates the man and his party and his government, it
is that sentence: Medicare is a sacred
trust.
Mr.
Speaker, what has the federal government done in this last eight years to
respond to that? I am not going to put
on the record again the chronology of unconscionable actions that this federal
government has undertaken, but the end result of the actions of this government
in the area of health care and also post‑secondary education is an
enormous offloading, the parent of offloading that puts to shame any of the
large offloading propositions and bills and legislation and regulations that
this provincial government has undertaken in its four long years in government
in the province of Manitoba.
What
Bill 51 attempts to do is to put, front and centre, our commitment as a
province to the five principles of medicare, which are public administration,
comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility.
I
try not to speak in public about my past experiences, because I think that it
is inappropriate in many cases. I do think
that when we are talking about the medicare system in Canada that it is
important to have the perspective of someone who lived 35 years in the United
States and has a number of personal examples of what that medical system, if
you can call it a system, does to its citizens.
Members
of my caucus have put on record what it was like to live in the
It
is just unbelievable that, at a time when the United States of America is
finally starting to wake up and understand the enormity of the problems that
are facing their health care system and the enormity of the impact that their
devastating health care system, or lack of it, is having on their ability to compete
in the world global markets, at a time when they are finally beginning to
realize that, this government in Manitoba and its Tory counterpart in Ottawa
are proceeding to move backwards, decades, decades, Mr. Speaker.
It
is just unbelievable. You know
what? The people of
The
people of
Mr.
Speaker, in four years of government in the
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): More and more and more money
spent.
* (1750)
Ms.
Barrett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the member for Lac du Bonnet
(Mr. Praznik) talks about more and more money spent on the health care system,
and what do we have to show for it? We
have delisting, deindexing, wait list, private doctors coming in and $50 user fees
for northern Manitobans and a pile of studies that is as tall as the NDP Health
critic, taller, as tall as the Minister of Health.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Health if he would be prepared to table, at
some appropriate time‑‑I would think about at an appropriate time,
asking the Minister of Health if he would table in the House the cost of the
studies, the working group's studies, directives, reviews, consultations.
Mr.
Speaker, other than the rapid move to the United States form of medical
coverage, which is a dreadful form of medical coverage which no other
industrial nation in the world has, the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) only
other actions are to study, to consult, but his consultation is a move to
obfuscate. It is obfuscation in action in the guise of action.
The
people of
Mr.
Speaker, in closing I would just like to say that Bill 51, The Health Services
Insurance Amendment Act, as put forward by the member for the Maples (Mr.
Cheema), is a bill that we would commend to the House, because it states it
very simply and very clearly that we as legislators, we as people who have a responsibility
to the people of Manitoba to ensure that something that is believed in and
honoured and seen as one of the legacies of the Canadian experience is
maintained, is enhanced and not destroyed as this provincial government is in the
process of doing knowingly, not even through ignorance. They are choosing to destroy the medicare
system, and they are choosing not to bring this issue to their federal
counterparts, the Tories in
Until
they do, we are in major trouble in this province and in this country, and on
their heads be it.
Mr.
Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing
in the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
Bill 54‑The Consumer Amendment
Protection Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 54, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act;
Loi sur la protection du consommateur, standing in the name of the honourable
member for
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave? [Agreed!
Speaker's Ruling
Mr.
Speaker: On April 16, 1992, during private members'
hour in debate on Bill 55 the opposition House leader raised a point of order
and this was somewhat complex, so I will recap the events.
First
of all, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), the sponsor of the bill, rose
during the debate on Bill 55 and had begun his speech when a point of order was
raised questioning how the member could close debate on the bill when there
were other members wishing to speak on the matter.
Secondly,
I indicated at the time that I had not heard the member for Transcona say that
he was closing debate, and after some interventions by members, I recognized
the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) to speak to the bill.
Thirdly,
subsequently the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) attempted to adjourn
debate. A point of order was raised that
he could not adjourn debate and that the matter should stand in the name of the
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Fourth,
at the time I suggested to the House that the matter could be resolved by, in
essence, ignoring the fact that the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
had begun to speak and to allow the honourable member for Transcona to close
debate when all members who wished to had spoken.
Fifth,
following further interventions by members I took the matter under advisement.
I
have carefully reviewed Hansard and the events of April 16 with respect to Bill
55 and I was indeed in error. Whether or
not I heard the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) say that he was
closing debate, I should have realized that as sponsor of the bill he was, by
speaking, doing so and should have intervened at that point to ascertain if
there were any other members who wished to speak to the bill. I regret the ensuing confusion and
difficulties that this error has created.
As
to the principles of the issue in question, may I draw a parallel to a
situation we have had in this House. If
a motion is made that a certain member be now heard, but that motion is made
after another member has uttered even a few words while in legitimate
possession of the floor in debate, the motion that the member be now heard is
out of order‑‑in essence is null and void.
I
would say that the situation we had on April 16 with the member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid) is a parallel one. Once the member
for Transcona had begun to speak, he had the floor and did not have to
relinquish it. Anyone who wished to
participate in the debate after the member for Transcona had even begun his speech
would have required leave to do so.
Therefore, the bill is in possession of the honourable member for
Transcona. Any other member wishing to
speak to the bill will require leave of the House to do so. This is a unique situation which differs from
the more usual one in which leave is sought for a bill to stand or to continue
to stand in a particular member's name, and once that leave is given, if it is,
another member may speak. In this case
the honourable member for Transcona who is a sponsor of the bill had been
recognized and had begun his remarks to close debate.
One
final note, during the points of order raised during this incident, the
suggestion was made that a type of conditional leave would be granted, that
leave would be given to a member to speak if certain other matters were
complied with. I must point out that
when leave or unanimous consent is given it cannot have any conditions attached
to it. If a member is given leave to speak
she or he receives that leave in an unqualified way.
Again,
my apologies, and I trust this clarifies matters for the future. I will make a point in future that when a
sponsor of a motion rises, to make it very clear that person will be closing debate,
in order to ensure that anyone else wishing to debate may do so.
To
conclude, leave is now required if any member other than the honourable member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) wishes to speak to Bill 55.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for‑‑six o'clock?
Is
it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and stands adjourned till 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Wednesday).