LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, June 22, 1992
After Recess
The
House resumed at 7 p.m.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Now,
I would move, seconded by the member for Osborne that Industrial Relations
again be changed, and be amended as follows:
I
would now move, seconded by the member for Osborne, that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows:
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations
be amended as follows: the member for
I
move, seconded by the member for Niakwa, that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Riel for the member for
I
move, seconded by the member for Niakwa, that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld); the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). [Agreed!
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I go
into Report Stage, I would like to cancel two committees that had been called
for tomorrow morning.
They
are, namely, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
that was going to deal with the five‑year plan of the Workers
Compensation Board. I am doing that
mainly because the minister may very well be in committee tomorrow morning on Industrial
Relations.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the situation the government House leader is trying to deal with. We certainly should cancel Privileges and
Elections. I think we should have one slot available in the morning, but having
been in the Industrial Relations committee, if we do not complete things by
tonight, we should be able to complete with an afternoon sitting, although
there is some possibility we may be finished tonight and then deal with it,
clause by clause, tomorrow.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, on that point then, I will not
cancel anything. I will entertain
further discussions with the House leaders, and I will come back to those
standing committees tomorrow morning.
Mr.
Speaker, then, would you begin to call Report Stages, in the list as shown on
page 6, beginning with Bill 10?
REPORT STAGE
Bill 10‑The
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that
Bill 10, The
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 11‑The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Energy and Mines, that Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act;
Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les apiculteurs, reported from the Standing Committee
on Agriculture, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry
Amendment Act
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 12, The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les L'elevage,
reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1905)
Bill 14‑The Highways and
Transportation Department Amendment Act
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard), that Bill 14, The Highways and Transportation Department
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport,
as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be
concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 15‑The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I move, seconded by the Minister of
Health, that Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code
de la route, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 43‑The Farm Income Assurance
Plans Amendment Act
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance
Plans Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenu
agricole), reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 44‑The Milk Prices Review
Amendment Act
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le controle du prix du lait), as
amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 47‑The Petty Trespasses Amendment
Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 47, The Petty
Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion), as amended and
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 53‑The Dangerous Goods Handling
and Transportation Amendment Act
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 53, The
Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act (Loi Modifiant la Loi
sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses), reported from
the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 72‑The Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Amendments) Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 72, The Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Amendments) Act (Loi sur la reforme du droit (modifications diverses)),
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1910)
Bill 74‑The Law Society Amendment Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 74, The Law Society
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe du Barreau), reported from
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 80‑The Dental Association
Amendment Act
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Monsieur le president, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 80, The
Dental Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association
dentaire, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 81‑The Optometry Amendment Act
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Monsieur le president, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 81, The
Optometry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'optometrie, reported from
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 88‑The Homesteads, Marital
Property Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Monsieur le president, je propose, seconde
par le ministre des Finances (Mr. Manness), que Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital
Property Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la propriete
familiale, modifiant la Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 89‑The Family Maintenance
Amendment Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 89, The Family Maintenance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'obligation alimentaire, reported from
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1915)
Bill 91‑The Liquor Control Amendment
Act (2)
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 91, The Liquor
Control Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des
alcools, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
House Business
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, on House business, I was coming
across Bill 101 which passed earlier this afternoon second reading. I would refer that committee to the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, third readings, would you call
Bill 5.
THIRD
Bill 5‑The
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 5, The
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate on Bill 5 be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 6‑The Denturists Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 6, The Denturists
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les denturologistes, be read a third
time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 7‑The Real Property Amendment
Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 7, the Real
Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels, be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 8‑The Garnishment Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 8, The Garnishment
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la saisie‑arret), be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 38‑The
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 38, The
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 46‑The Jury Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 46, The Jury
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jures), be now read a third time
and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1920)
Bill 48‑The Personal Property
Security Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 48, The Personal
Property Security Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les suretes relatives
aux biens personnels), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 68‑The Public Trustee Amendment,
Trustee Amendment and Child and Family
Services Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 68, The Public
Trustee Amendment, Trustee Amendment and Child and Family Services Amendment
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public, la Loi sur les fiduciaires et
la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille), be now read a third time and
passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask for the leave
of the House to move a number of third readings that we have just passed in
Report Stage.
Bill 10‑The
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, beginning
with Bill 10, with the leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act
(Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba), be now read a third time and
passed.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 10?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Will the House grant leave to the honourable
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)‑‑actually I put the question, it
has been agreed to.
An
Honourable Member: Yes.
Mr.
Speaker: It was agreed to.
Order,
please. Will the House grant leave to
the honourable member for Flin Flon?
Actually, I put the question, it has been agreed to. Does the House grant leave for the honourable
member for Flin Flon? We are going to
revert? Okay, the honourable member for
Flin Flon, by leave.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I think honourable members will
know that I spoke at length when this bill was introduced for second reading,
and since that time there have been a number of events which have essentially
confirmed my original opinion that although the technical aspects of this bill are
supportable, this bill I think raises a series of questions about the
government's commitment, No. 1, to a process of open public review of major
capital projects that has to be discussed and needs to be discussed in this
Chamber.
Mr.
Speaker, some three weeks ago, or perhaps more, Manitoba Hydro and their
chairperson were before the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources. Of the many issues which were
discussed respecting Manitoba Hydro, one of the fundamental areas that was
covered extensively was the question of the potential costs and the potential
benefits of proceeding with Conawapa. I
know that this legislation which is technically only allowing Manitoba Hydro to
access additional capital, giving them additional capital authority, the fact
of the matter is that Manitoba Hydro, particularly as it moves into a
preconstruction period with respect to Conawapa, needs this additional authority. What is of concern I think needs to be laid
out very clearly in this Chamber once again.
Mr.
Speaker, nothing that happened in the Public Utilities and Natural Resources
committee, nothing that was said by Manitoba Hydro at the time, either in terms
of what they presented to the Public Utilities Board back in the fall of 1990 or
any of their financial projections since that time, have given anyone,
certainly on this side, reason to be optimistic about Manitoba Hydro's
assessment of the costs and benefits of this project. What we learned in committee, first of all,
was that, contrary to information presented to the Public Utilities Board, domestic
consumption projected demands in this province continue to decline. Manitoba Hydro now believes that Conawapa
would not be needed for domestic use until approximately the year 2015.
* (1925)
Mr.
Speaker, that assumes, of course, that Manitoba Hydro is able to achieve its
demand‑side management targets.
The bottom line for the people who are being asked to support this initiative
is the legitimate question of how accurate is Manitoba Hydro being in terms of
its projection. That is one question.
The
second question, which has not been addressed, and obviously could not be
addressed, really, at the committee, but which we have to address in this
Chamber, is the question of the compensation, the costs, of mitigating whatever
environmental damage there might be, both in terms of the construction of another
generating station on the
Hon.
James Downey (Minister responsible for The
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for
Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Downey) says‑‑Are we going to deny the nine communities
who may benefit from some access that results because of the construction of
the Bipole? It is a very good question.
Mr.
Speaker, no one on this side has ever suggested that if an environmental
decision shows that Bipole III entails no significant environmental damage, if
it shows that there is some sort of net economic benefit to the communities
along the east side of
An
Honourable Member: We are not making a political decision‑‑
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker, he says‑‑a political
decision? That is exactly what we do not
want to see.
What
we want to see, and what this government, in fact, has promised‑‑the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) is, of course, one of those people
who quickly forgets his political promises.
This government promised the most open, public review, of this project,
of any government. What we are trying to
do is hold the government accountable to that promise.
So,
Mr. Speaker, when the minister sits and asks the rhetorial question, "Do
we want this to be a political decision?", the answer is, no. The minister should not even be asking that
rhetorical question, because his Leader (Mr. Filmon) and this minister promised
that it would not be based on a political decision; and we are going to hold
the government accountable.
So,
No. 1 is we need to know what Manitoba Hydro's actual requirements, domestic
requirements, are going to be; No. 2, we have to know that the environmental
review process is beyond reproach, that the government has actually taken every
conceivable, every possible, step to ensure that this process is rigorous, that
it is open, that it considers the whole range of environmental issues that are
going to crop up as we continue to advance this project.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), who has very little
knowledge of history, talks about the fact that this government did no
review. Well, first of all, there was no
Environment Act until the previous government put one in place, a strong one,
to require reviews of this kind. Number two,
there was an environmental assessment of the impact of the project.
Mr.
Downey: That is not true.
Mr.
Storie: The Minister of Energy and Mines is again
showing his ignorance. There was an
environmental impact assessment done on the Limestone project. It was not done by the Department of the
Environment. It was‑‑[interjection! No, no, Mr. Speaker, the members on that side
of the House know very little, unfortunately‑‑distressingly little‑‑about
what actually took place in terms of the Limestone project. Manitoba Hydro did conduct, in their terms, I
believe, a fairly sophisticated and thorough environmental impact assessment.
I
predict that the environmental impact assessment that is conducted by the Clean
Environment Commission and by the environmental review panel will not be
significantly different in terms of the impact and the consequences they
foresee with the construction of Conawapa versus the construction of Limestone.
* (1930)
But
there was an environmental impact assessment done by Manitoba Hydro, and it was
considered by the government in terms of making a decision to proceed to
construct the Limestone project.
Mr.
Speaker, I am the last one to defend the previous government's, my
government's, actions when it comes to environmental legislation. Certainly there were many, many things,
environmentally speaking, that we could have done in the 1980s that we did not
do, but I remind members opposite that that was then and this is now, that
environmental sensitivity was only being heightened during the 1980s.
For
this minister to sit here and talk about environmental assessment, their
Environment critic did not raise one single question with respect to
environmental rule on the Limestone project.
This member did not raise one issue with respect to the environment. In fact, those members, those who were part
of the Tory opposition in 1982 to 1988, could not even spell environment in the
mid‑'80s. Now they all walk around
pretending they have it emblazoned on their forehead. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is
another one who cannot spell potato. The
fact of the matter is that the second thing that the government must do is in
respect to the environment.
There
is a third thing that the government must do.
Before we approve this legislation, before we approve giving Manitoba Hydro
additional capital authority, I believe it is imperative for the government to
once again have the Public Utilities Board, or give authority to the
Environmental Review Panel, to revisit the question of the economics of the
sale itself.
When
the former Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld), a former Minister
responsible for Manitoba Hydro, a fine man as has been said many times in this
Chamber since he resigned‑‑the government in the initial case
presented Conawapa to the people of
All
of those things have subsequently been thrown out the window. In fact, some time in 1991, the Manitoba
Hydro chairperson said, no, we are now doing Conawapa. We are going to build Conawapa for
export. What is ironic about this, of
course, is that the minister, particularly the First Minister (Mr. Filmon),
argued very strongly that we should not be proceeding with the northern States
power deal, we should not be proceeding with Limestone, because we were simply
creating economic opportunity elsewhere.
We were exporting jobs. Mr.
Speaker, what we need to do now is have the government assure the people of
The
Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Downey) says‑‑I do not
know whether he is talking to me‑‑that somehow I will be
sorry. Mr. Speaker, the people of
An
Honourable Member: They know.
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr.
Mr.
Speaker, I have said on many occasions that I have been a strong supporter of
Hydro development in the
The
Minister of Energy and Mines says: What
about Limestone? Well, of course,
Limestone is now completed. We know that
the relative damage to the environment done by Limestone was, as Manitoba Hydro
predicted in their environmental impact assessment, relatively minor. We can look with hindsight at the Limestone
project, as I heard the minister do in committee, and talk in glowing terms
both about the need for the project and the benefits to Manitoba Hydro
ratepayers. I remind the Minister of Energy
and Mines of his own words in committee, when he said that as a result of the
NSB sale,
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask
the member not to put incorrect information on the record. I did not say that‑‑[interjection!. Well, there he said: Why did I not? I rest my case. The member for Flin Flon said: Why did I not? It is an absolute untruth that
he is putting on the record.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr.
Storie: Not only does he not have a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, but he is wrong. He is
wrong, as he usually is. The fact of the
matter is, not only that, the minister talked in glowing terms about how the
rates had been stabilized as a result of this sale. Of course, we all know that there is going to
be a net economic benefit to the
Mr.
Speaker, that, of course, does not mean that we should proceed as we have in
the past. That does not mean that we should
take the same road when it comes to hydro development that we have in the past,
and that is what we have been saying all along. [interjection!
Mr.
Speaker, the minister says, do not do like we did. Certainly, we have new
legislation that we expect the government to respect. The Environment Act lays out a new course of
action, a new obligation on government.
I believe that the minister will reflect for a moment that the
Conservative Party voted for The Environment Act. They have an obligation to fulfill the requirements
under the act. So when we stand up and
ask them to do that, I do not think we need to hear from the Minister responsible
for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Downey) that somehow we are being disloyal to my
constituents, to northerners, to the people of
* (1940)
Mr.
Speaker, the environmental movement, the people who are, I guess, acting as
strongly as they possibly can in support of the environment, the people who are
pushing the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Cummings), who are urging the
Minister of Environment and this government to be as generous as possible with
those whose views differ from the government in terms of the timing and the
need for and the ultimate benefits of this project deserve to be heard. It may make the government uncomfortable. It
may make the Minister of Environment and the Minister responsible for Manitoba
Hydro uncomfortable. The fact of the matter
is that that is an obligation of the government, and we believe that in the
long run, the more information that the people of
Mr.
Speaker, development of this nature, of this scope is always a double‑edged
sword. In any kind of enterprise this large
that plays with, that tinkers with, the natural environment has the potential
for significant disruption of life, of flora, of fauna, and no one should be
taking it lightly.
I
believe that while this is the first test of the new Environment Act, the
government has to be extremely thorough and open about what are the
shortcomings of both the process and the project. If they can meet those three conditions, then
we would certainly be more than happy to support not only this legislation, but
the project, as I say, if it meets the test, the economic test, the
environmental test, that has been put before it by The Environment Act, by
environmentalists and by the people of
They
are all legitimate questions and they need to be asked. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'Hydro‑Manitoba. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Acting Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), I move, seconded by the‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable acting government House leader
would like me to call which bill?
Fourteen? Third reading, by
leave?
Does
the honourable minister have leave for third reading of Bill 14, The Highways
and Transportation Department Amendment Act?
Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 14‑The Highways and
Transportation Department Amendment Act
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Acting Government House Leader): On
behalf of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), I move,
by leave, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and add my
closing comments on Bill 14, and I know I had the opportunity to speak on second
reading of this bill. It is not a large
bill by any stretch of the imagination, but it does not mean that the intent of
the bill is not serious.
I
know, during second reading on this bill, I put my comments on the record and
the comments of our party concerning the powers that this bill will give to the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger). I made mention of the property that his
department will now be able to unload, I suppose one could term in dollar
values, which they did not have the power to do before under Order‑in‑Council. Under the previous legislation that was in
place, the minister was empowered by Order‑in‑Council to dispose of
property or assets of his department up to a maximum value of $5,000, and now
that is going to be $25,000.
I
use the examples of how there were certain buildings, residences that were held
by the Department of Highways and Transportation, and we looked at some of the
Orders‑in‑Council in past that had been approved where property and
homes of a certain size in the order of 1,200, 1,400 square feet were sold for
less than $25,000. So we see that there
is a great deal of discretionary power that will be given to the minister by
this piece of legislation.
Also,
this legislation gives the minister, his department, the opportunity to lease
property that is not currently in use by his department. We think that is a good section, Mr. Speaker,
and that it will give those in the rural areas of our province the opportunity
to use that land, particularly in farm‑use applications.
This
bill also goes toward changing the sections of the act relating to where the
previous methods of measurement were measured in feet for clearances along
highway rights‑of‑way, and of course, that has been changed to reflect
the metrification of our country, and this act changes that in that sense.
We
have had the opportunity in committee to put our concerns on the record, and I
know that the minister has listened to that advice at that time, Mr. Speaker,
and we are prepared to pass this bill on third reading.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 14, The Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Mr.
Cummings: Bill 15.
Mr.
Speaker: By leave?
Does the honourable acting government House leader have leave for third
reading of Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act? Is there leave? Leave.
There is leave.
Bill 15‑The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Acting Government House Leader): I
move, by leave, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), that Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le
Code de la route), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, there are just a few comments,
and I will be very brief in my comments.
I know the members opposite are in a rush to have this legislation
passed.
During
second reading of this bill and debate, Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to
put our concerns on the record with respect to this legislation. We thank the minister for recognizing and
giving service veterans of our province the opportunity to have the
registration fee for their private, personal‑use, light‑duty trucks
waived, as has been the practice for passenger cars, and the minister included
that in this piece of legislation.
This
legislation also exempts the passengers travelling under the care and custody
of peace officers in our province from having to wear seat belts. I know we raised this with the minister in
second reading and that we raised it with the minister during committee
hearings. The minister has agreed to notify
all of the law enforcement agencies in the
* (1950)
The
legislation itself deals with motor carrier safety standards and repairs, and
there have been changes to that as well, and we noted during the Estimates
debate that the minister has made some changes to represent the new National
Safety Code dealing with transport vehicles in our province. It appears that the minister has also
increased staff in that sense to undertake the necessary inspections. Of course, we are aware that the federal
government is undertaking a study to review the effects of deregulation on the
transport sector as it impacts upon the various companies operating in our
province.
Outside
of that, Mr. Speaker, it is a fairly straightforward bill, and with that, I
will conclude my comments.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Code de
la route. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): With leave of the House,
will you call Bill 11, please, third reading?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 11, The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act? Leave? Agreed.
Bill 11‑The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), (by leave) that Bill 11,
The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les apiculteurs), be
now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, will you call for leave of the
House, Bill 12?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave of the House for third reading of Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry
Amendment Act? Leave? Agreed.
Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry
Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 12, The Animal
Husbandry Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage), be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Go for it.
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Well, the Minister of Agriculture says, go for
it. He does not know that maybe he can
be defeated tonight. He will not talk
like that once he loses the vote, Mr. Speaker, would you not say?
We
have spoken on a number of occasions on this bill during the second reading
debate and, as well, during the committee, indicated our opposition to the
principles contained in this bill. The
bill is basically a confirmation of a decision that was made last year by the
Minister of Agriculture in his Estimates, when he privatized and removed the
four services that were being offered through the department and in fact turned
them over to the private sector.
We
opposed those moves at that particular time because we believed, Mr. Speaker,
that they were being done for philosophical reasons, not for the reasons stated
by the minister.
The
minister, with all earnestness, repeated those reasons time and again in this
House that we was privatizing the services, namely the Semen Distribution
Centre, the Soils Lab, the Feed Analysis Lab and the Veterinarian Drug Centre,
for the purposes of saving taxpayers' dollars, creating opportunities for the
private sector, including jobs in the private sector, and, of course, better
services for the farmers throughout the province. Now, those were the alleged
reasons for this privatization.
Now,
one year later, we see the results of what the minister has done, and we will
see the evidence mount every year to the contrary, I would assert. I believe the information is clearly there. The minister would like to have strong
evidence that he was right. He would
like to lay before the Legislature and before the Estimates all the evidence
that showed that he was right.
Well,
I asked questions on three of the four, Mr. Speaker, and all of the information
that was shown to us at the time‑‑and we did deal with all four,
actually, because when dealing with the Soils Lab, we also dealt with the Feed
Analysis Lab. We found, first of all,
that the number of tests were down, the costs per test were up.
As
a matter of fact, the minister gave contradictory statements in this House, Mr.
Speaker, because, when in Question Period, he said one of the benefits was that
the tests went down from $26 to $20; in Estimates, he said they went up from
$20 to $26. So I think he should get his
facts straight. Quite clearly, the
testing costs went up, as explained in Estimates, by some 30 percent this year
because of this minister's privatization in soils tests.
Now,
when dealing with veterinary drugs, what we are finding here, Mr. Speaker, is
that the markup that was put in place by the co‑operative of
veterinarians who took over was double for these drugs. The markup doubled from 6 percent to 12
percent. So we had an increase there that was passed on to the consumers, those
being the farmers who need these veterinary drugs.
Overall,
we say that the minister's‑‑well‑‑experiment in privatization
here failed on all counts, because he did not save any significant dollars for
the taxpayers of
Now,
Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, he actually lost jobs. The public sector jobs, if added up before
the privatization, and the private sector jobs added up after, you put them all
together, we are down about one job out of this. So much for the minister's job‑‑well,
he always says, well, not bad, eh, not bad.
This is for a job creation effort on his part‑‑a job
creation. He only lost one job. Now that, by any Conservative yardstick, is
success. They only lost one job. [interjection!
You
lost two jobs? Oh, now he says he lost
two jobs. You see, what we have is a
prime example of what Conservative ideology does in terms of implementation,
even when it is not done with common sense in mind. What it does is it fails on all counts.
Mr.
Speaker, we have opposed this bill because the minister did not accomplish what
he said he was going to do. As a matter of
fact, he went counter to what he said he was going to do. He went backward, and so we cannot support
that kind of initiative in this House.
It is really a counterinitiative, and we would oppose this bill even at
third reading at this time, because it implements partially that decision. All of those private decisions‑‑it
really applies to one of those, and that is the Semen Distribution Centre.
We
will be watching this closely, because we believe that in all of those areas,
Manitobans and farmers of
I
might add that if the minister had been completely upfront about it, he would
have been able to bring this bill in last year, when he was actually
undertaking the privatization. He did not
want to give us a forum to create any controversy over at that time. He held this back for another year, after the
privatization has been completely implemented so that we could not raise the
havoc about it at that time. He pulled
back and did it a year late. This
minister is known for that.
He
did it with another bill as well, The Income Assurance Amendment Act with
GRIP. He did not even have a provision
to make payments for GRIP. The Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) had to go after him, get after the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr.
The
Minister of Finance knows that; he is shaking his head now. He knows that the Minister of Agriculture has
been tardy, and I am sure he is going to have a talk with him later and tell him,
now look, when he implements changes in the department, when he makes cuts, let
him get the legislation in here at the same time or introduce the program. Let him introduce the enabling legislation at
the same time, not go for a year breaking the law and, of course, then finding
out a year later that they have broken the law and now they have to implement
some retroactive laws to make up for it.
This
is the kind of thing that was done. I
know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is fed up with the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) and those kinds of slack approaches to legislation. I am sure he is going to have a good strong
talk with him. I can just see it written
all over his face that he is just not going to put up with this again.
Now,
the Minister of Agriculture thinks it is funny.
By no means, is this funny. This
is a serious issue, a serious oversight, to put it nicely, for the Minister of
Agriculture on this. We want this on the
record, because the government will have to answer for its shoddy management
over the next couple of years, when we approach the next election.
Of
course, it is important to have it on the record that they were told and they
were given the information, the facts, and we recognized what they did. When we go to the people, we will be able to
tell them that we told them so at the time.
Mr. Speaker, with that, we will oppose the passing of this bill, as we
have in the other stages of this bill.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur l'elevage. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No.
Okay. The honourable Leader of
the Opposition, on division?
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On division, please.
* (2000)
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill 43, with
leave of the House.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill
43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act? Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 43‑The Farm Income Assurance
Plans Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance
Plans Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenu
agricole), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate some difficulties
we have had with some of the principles surrounding this bill as well, although
we recognize that this bill is necessary and that farmers need to get paid
under GRIP because of the low prices that they have experienced over the last
number of years, even though we have pointed out to the minister that his program,
as developed last year and with only some amendments this year, is inherently
unfair in its application.
The
minister, during the Estimates process, did emphasize the fact that farmers
were receiving large amounts of dollars.
I think he is talking around $320 million as the figure over the first
year of this program, and that is significant.
But
what we pointed out to the minister on numerous occasions and in some detail
during the Estimates, it was not the global amount that we were arguing with
insofar as its effect in the first year.
We know of course that this is going to dwindle because of the rolling
average, that in fact it results in lower support payments every year, but we
are arguing and taking issue with the government on the basis of the way that
it impacts on individual farmers, the inequitable way that it impacts on one farmer
across the road from another farmer and one region of the province to another
region.
The
minister tends to throw up his hands and say, well, gee, I cannot do much about
that. Yes, he can. [interjection! Did
the minister say the idea was good? [interjection! IPI, okay. The average will allow farmers to move up to
a better coverage level over a period of time.
However, initially because he based this whole program on crop insurance
data which he admits was flawed data‑‑and he knew it was
flawed. That is why he undertook a major
review of crop insurance in this province to try to, we hope, make it more
fair.
But
what he did was he brought in this program and made the basis of it the flawed
crop insurance data and did not allow individual farmers to put forward their
own records that in many cases could be verified at least as well as crop
insurance data so that they could demonstrate their long‑term average.
So,
in fact, he applied it in a discriminatory way with people who were in crop
insurance getting higher benefits than those who were not. As a matter of fact, it resulted in some differences
between farmers equally as good across the road from each other being covered
for perhaps on 1,000 acres, perhaps $30,000 less, a tremendous amount, the
whole margin of profit.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister has to remember that farmers were placed in a precarious
position. In the first year they were placed
in the position because they were being told by the federal government‑‑and
this minister did not clarify things. As
a matter of fact, I believe he supported the federal pressure tactics, that if
farmers did not opt into this program, that in fact they could forfeit any
eligibility for additional cash payments that might be approved in future
years. As it turned out they never did
receive a cash payment for 1990, and then in November of 1991, last fall, there
was a lobby led by the Premier of
As
a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
The
fact is, we know, by the minister's silence over the months before that, in
fact, he did not want to put pressure on the federal government to come through
what was fair on an acreage payment for farmers based on the inadequacies of
the previous years. That was a terrible
shortcoming on the part of the minister.
The
program then was put in place under great pressure. As a matter of fact we saw in Risk Area 12,
the farmers were promised by this minister in writing, promised in writing, he
will not do it again because he knows he has a partner there, a federal one, and
he cannot move that partner around too well.
He cannot make him do what he wants, so he is not going to put it in
writing next time, but he put it in writing and the farmers signed up for the
privilege. He said none of them opted
out. They all joined the program. Is that not great? Must be a great program, right?
Well,
the reason was there was a lot of pressure and then they were even told that
this minister would ensure that if their coverage was not fair that a committee
would be set to study it, and if they found it was not fair it would be
implemented retroactively for that year.
He did not do it when the report came in, but he blames the fact that
the report came in late, and therefore he did not want to do it‑‑oh,
it is six months late.
The
minister should have kept his word on that.
He could not deliver on that one, and he was worried about other
retroactive, about the precedent that would be set and I guess that is why he backed
out ultimately realizing that he made a huge mistake when he promised this
retroactivity. But the thing is, the
fact that he did that resulted in more people signing up that would not have
otherwise.
Let
him not congratulate himself and pat himself on the back so vociferously with
this program. There are many instances
of unfairness. We want to say to the
minister that he can find an excellent program, one that is based on realistic
costs, one that is based on the records that farmers had so they could be implemented. He could have ensured that those who were
hardest hit in southwest
So
the minister has left those who are hardest hit, who are most in need, out in
the cold with this program. We told him that,
Mr. Speaker. We said that in southwest
corner they should be putting in a provision.
Now they are asking for 50 percent of their coverage to be at the area
average, and the minister has not even responded to that.
* (2010)
So
I say there are many inadequacies in the program. We have urged this minister to address
those. We continue to do that. We
believe that it should be based on cost of production, that this is a
bureaucratic program that could have had the same benefits for the farmers of
If
you look at
So,
Mr. Speaker, we will again indicate here that the minister is passing a bill a
year too late. When he finally did not
have a proper provision, a legal method of paying the farmers, he had no choice
but to bring this bill in a year late. He should have brought it in at the same
time, as I mentioned earlier. He should
have done that with the other bill. So
he faced the music at the time he was introducing the program instead of a year
later.
Now
the minister wants me to sit down. I
think maybe I should reiterate these things.
I think what we have done in this House is shown to the minister many
inadequacies of the program that he tends to congratulate himself about every
opportunity he has.
We
want to simply point out to him that he has a tremendous responsibility to
ensure fairness under this program. He
has not done that to the extent that he could have in the first two years. He has an opportunity with the signatories
committee, as he likes to say is responsible for all of these decisions, to rectify
that situation. We know he can actually
plug into that signatories committee.
He
likes to say, oh, it is kind of arm's length; they are looking after
things. But we know he plugged in on
lentils pretty quick, and we know he can plug in when there are inadequacies in
the program. He just has to believe them
first, and he has to be committed to them.
Once he is committed to them, we know he can do something about it with
that signatories committee. He can try
really hard to ensure that this committee will be influenced in its decisions
to act quickly for equity and fairness for farmers in
I
think he should still look at that and undertake to deal with that issue,
particularly as it applies to southwest area farmers now. They still need that help, and they need it
right now. So we would urge the minister
to do that, Mr. Speaker, as this bill passes third reading. Thank you.
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to just comment very briefly on the comments. [interjection! The member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), he is very concerned about the producers of
southwest
I
would also like to remind the member that back in 1989 with the drought
program, we specifically focused on putting the money into southwest
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenu agricole.
Point of Order
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I do not think the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) should criticize a former member in this Chamber
who cannot speak for himself. I am very,
very ashamed‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: Again, the question before the House is third
reading of Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenu agricole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Doer: I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments
be amended as follows: Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak); and Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen). [Agreed!
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 44,
The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act? Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 44‑The Milk Prices Review
Amendment Act
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Acting Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, by leave, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay), that Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi sur le controle du prix du lait) be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Bill 47, with leave of the House.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 47, The Petty Trespasses Amendment
Act? Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 47‑The Petty Trespasses
Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 47, The Petty
Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion) be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, Bill
53, would you call it please?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Amendment Act? Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave, it is agreed.
Bill 5‑The Dangerous Goods Handling
and Transportation Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that by leave Bill 53, The Dangerous
Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses), be now read a third
time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Gary
Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate on Bill 53 be now adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: With leave of the House, would you call Bill
72?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 72?
Is there leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave, it is agreed.
Bill 72‑The Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Amendments) Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that by
leave Bill 72, The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act (Loi sur la
reforme du droit (modifications diverses), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, would
you call Bill 74?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 74, The Law Society Amendment Act? Is there leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave, it is agreed.
* (2020)
Bill 74‑The Law Society Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), by leave that Bill 74,
The Law Society Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe du Barreau),
be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the member for
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, would
you call Bill 80.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 80, The Dental Association Amendment
Act. Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed to.
Bill 80‑The Dental Association Amendment
Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),
that Bill 80, The Dental Association Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'Association dentaire), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, would
you call Bill 81.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 81, The Optometry Amendment Act? Is there
leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: There is leave.
Bill 81‑The Optometry Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), that Bill 81, The Optometry Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur l'optometrie), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, would
you call Bill 88.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act?
Does he have leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed to.
Bill 88‑The Homesteads, Marital
Property Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
that Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi sur la propriete familiale, modifiant la Loi sur les biens
matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now
read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, would
you call Bill 89.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 89, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act? Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Yes, there is leave.
Bill 89‑The Family Maintenance
Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, would
you call Bill 91.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 91, The Liquor Control Amendment Act
(2)? Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: There is leave.
Bill 91‑The Liquor Control Amendment
Act (2)
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): By leave of the House, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger),
that Bill 91, The Liquor Control Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi
sur la reglementation des alcools) be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
Presented.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I would
just like to put a few comments on record here because I have had a lot of
positive comments on this bill. It has
been an effort that has been brought about by very concerned people of
If
he was in at the committee meeting, he would have seen the people who were
there, the individual who gave a presentation, there was a letter which came
forward from the Point Douglas Residents' association. I was at a meeting in Point Douglas when there
were about 50 to 60 people who were there at that meeting and they praised the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) for bringing forward
this bill, not only for bringing this forward, but for listening to the people
and for consulting with the people who were in charge of the Liquor Control
Commission, and consulting with the Chinese community that it had a direct
impact on.
It
showed the people that when there is a will, there is a way. The people are saying now: What happens to Lysol? This deals with cooking wine which was a
problem but will now be rectified. Now
they are saying, the other problem that we have is Lysol. Does that fall under this bill? That was never brought forward, never
clarified, and the other thing that individuals were saying, and saying very
clearly and with a lot of conviction, they were saying: What happened to the antisniff bill? That is the other half of it. If you deal with high alcohol content, then
how do you deal with sniffing nail polish, sniffing glue, and sniffing
gasoline? You can just take a walk down
The
individuals who phoned and came forward were saying, well, the government and
the committees dealt with half of the problem.
What happens to the other half?
In fact, if you watched the news over the weekend, there was another
death that came about by a person abusing sniff. So that raised the awareness again of the
activists and the interest groups. They are
saying, well, if it passed through the House and nothing has happened for over
two and a half years, how can we be sure that this bill will get proclaimed?
* (2030)
I
guess that is what we all kind of wonder too now, because the other half of the
problem was the whole sniffing problem. Nothing had ever come about it. It passed through all the readings and
everything else, but over two years now it has not been proclaimed. How many more individuals have to lose brain cells,
ruin their whole lives, ruin their careers?
How many kids have to be affected before the government wakes up and
says these two bills go side‑by‑side? One without the other is only a half measure. When is this government going to wake up and
see that when you deal with a problem, you deal with a whole problem? Half
measures are not good enough.
The
Minister of Consumer Affairs was able to bring this through and consulted with
people to bring it through, and we have nothing but praise for her. The community individuals, the activists have
worked so hard to try to at least save some individuals' lives or save some
children's lives or also individuals to save their careers.
They
are saying, why can the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) not proclaim Bill 91,
the antisniff bill. I wonder, too, why not,
because they go hand‑in‑hand.
It is a golden opportunity. The minister cannot say, well, I do not know
what will happen, because the Minister of Consumer Affairs has already shown
the way, how to do it and how to do it properly, and how to work with organizations. It is not only her bill that brought this forward. It is the citizens out there who were
lobbying the minister and took time out of their careers and their families to meet
with the minister and she gave the time to meet with them. That is what they
are saying now, the people are saying:
Where is the other half? We have
half a pie; let us have the whole pie, because it is the same problem for a lot
of the individuals, whether it is nonpotable or if it is potable or if it is
sniff. That is what they are saying.
So
what I tell them is talk to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and maybe she can
talk to the Minister of Health, and maybe she can educate the Minister of
Health to maybe listen to some of the people.
An
Honourable Member: I doubt it.
Mr.
Hickes: Oh, he might.
That way, the whole problem, hopefully, will be solved. The police are very happy with this bill.
Just
in closing, I would just like to commend the minister for her efforts, for
passing something that has been long overdue.
I just hope that she can have some effort on the Health minister to
proclaim Bill 91, because that is what the people want next. They want the whole problem fixed, not only
half a measure. With that, we are ready
to pass third reading.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading
of Bill 91, The Liquor Control Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur
la reglementation des alcools. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Industrial Relations be amended as follows:
the member for Niakwa for the member for
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member
for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), for Tuesday, June 23, 1992, for 10 a.m. [Agreed!
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to be calling the motion to go into Committee of the Whole to consider bills
referred.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker
do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the
Whole to consider and report on matters referred, and they are the bills listed
on page 5.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider and report on matters
referred (Bills 92, 94, 95, 96), with the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Bill 92‑The Provincial Auditor's
Amendment Act
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): The Committee of the
Whole will come to order to consider Bill 92, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le verificateur provincial).
Does
the honourable Minister of Finance wish to make an opening statement?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): No, Madam Chairperson.
Madam
Chairperson: Does the Finance critic for the official opposition
wish to make an opening statement?
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Just a comment, Madam Chairperson. This does not seem to be a controversial
issue whatsoever. As I understand, the
Provincial Auditor has requested it. It
is a matter to enable them to do their job without possible legal action being
taken against them, as I understand it.
We have no objection to the bill.
It seems like a good move, so we would be prepared to see it pass.
Madam
Chairperson: Does the honourable critic for the second opposition
party wish to make an opening statement?
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): No.
Madam
Chairperson: Okay, we will proceed to consider Bill 92, clause
by clause.
Clause
1‑‑pass; Clause 2‑‑pass; Clause 3‑‑pass;
Clause 4‑‑pass; Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass. Bill be reported.
Bill 94‑The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1992
Madam
Chairperson: The Committee of the Whole will now give consideration
to Bill 94, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992
modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite).
Does
the honourable Minister of Finance wish to make an opening statement?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Chairperson, I would
like to indicate to members two items of note.
Firstly, the other day, when I was reading my speaking notes, I deliberately
skirted around the issue of some of the environmental protection measures. If members went through the volume of
information that I provided, they would have come across the specific detail
associated with those announcements. I would like to, at this point, indicate
what those levels are for the record.
* (2040)
Madam
Chairperson, in the Budget Address I noted that work was proceeding on the
extension of environmental protection taxes to tires and disposable
diapers. These will be implemented by amendments
to the retail sales tax, which is part of this, which introduced a $3 per tire
charge to be in effect from August 1, 1992, until June 30, 1993, and also, we
are proposing to remove the present sales tax exemption for disposable diapers.
I
do not know whether those two items or announcements come as any great surprise
to any of the members of the House, but I wanted to provide that information
for the record. Certainly, the
legislation that I have tabled and which makes up, in part, Bill 94, will give
effect to those changes.
Also,
Madam Chairperson, I wanted to indicate that because of some discussions that
we had with the community last week and also some information that has come
forward from
Indeed,
if an individual comes in and they underreport, we will give authority to the
federal government to collect up to the proper amount, and secondly, there was
an issue dealing specifically with Canada Post and I think tobacco coming in by
way of the mails.
What
I am trying to get at is, Madam Chairperson, it was because of these two
events, unrelated, that I have seen fit to bring in nine amendments dealing
with The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) bill.
I
shared the notes, or at least I sent copies of the proposed amendments to both
Finance critics, and I hope they have had an opportunity to digest same. With those few comments, Madam Chairperson, I
am prepared to consider Bill 94.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition wish
to make an opening statement?
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Chairperson, this
bill, of course, is an omnibus type of bill, a collection of various amendments
to existing legislation. It is not one
that lends itself to an opening statement on a particular theme. We are quite prepared to just go into this
legislation section by section, not that we have major concerns with everything
here.
I
would simply start, if we could, on the first section, therefore, which is The
Corporation Capital Tax Act, if this is appropriate, and simply ask why‑‑there
seems to be a fair amount of amendment.
I am surprised that this would not be the subject of a separate bill.
My
opening question to the minister therefore is, why is this in Statute Law
Amendment? Why would this not be a
separate bill, unless I am‑‑I have not had that much of a chance to
study all of this, but there seems to be a fair amount of detail at least. In fact, we have passed some bills or are in
the process of passing some bills that are only a fraction of this and they are
separate bills. Here we have it in with
The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act.
I
guess I am asking a procedural matter.
That is one question. The other
one is: What is the thrust of this whole
part 1, The Corporation Capital Tax Act?
What is the general intent of that part?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, the member brings up a good
point. I can tell him for the record
that although governments may be tempted from time to time to slide under the
guise of a Statute Law Amendment bill, whether it is taxation or otherwise, some
substantive information, I can indicate to him that I do not think we have put
any great undue pressure and certainly Legislative Counsel has, in my view,
almost the final word on what comes into an act like this.
Let
me say with respect to Bill 94, The Corporation Capital Tax, other than
including some definitions which now allow‑‑for instance, on page 1
the definition of "commission", because of course, Bill 95 sets up
the whole commission aspect, and of course, we are giving a definition of what
the commission is so that indeed it can hear appeals with respect to the
corporation capital tax.
Page
2, as the member can see by way of his notes are clarity with respect to
definitions. Then at the bottom of page
2, basically leading from 3 to 5 are definitions and empowerments associated
with the general anti‑avoidance definitions that we are putting into
place.
I
would say to him, as I announced in the budget, what we have indicated is that
we are going to try and provide some greater degree of uncertainty with respect
to those accountants who would try to find ways around government taxes. What we are doing here, not only in this
particular act, but in the other two‑‑mainly retail sales tax and
payroll tax areas‑‑you will see exactly the same wording. We are giving effect, or at least we are
trying to, by way of legislation, provide rules that will somehow discourage
anti‑avoidance practices. So what
he sees here is what has been required in this one taxing authority to give
government that type of empowerment.
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please.
I think, procedurally,I had asked if the honourable member had an
opening statement. I believe the
honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) does wish to make a brief opening
statement and, procedurally, we generally then revert and ask the questions as
we go clause by clause. Okay. [interjection! I am sorry. It was my mistake. I should have interjected and recognized the
honourable member for Osborne.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I have no opening statement.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for the explanation. I gather there has been some problem, and
there is a potential problem as well in the future. So we would support this particular
measure. I gather this is also
applicable to‑‑did he say two other parts? Was it The Gasoline Tax Act, and The Health and
Post Secondary‑‑that same argument applies to Part 3 and which
other part? Part 4.
Madam
Chairperson: We will begin to consider the Bill 94, clause
by clause. Part 1: Clause 1‑‑pass; Clause 2‑‑pass;
Clause 3(1)‑‑pass; Clause 3(2)‑‑pass; Clause 4‑‑
Order,
please. I have been advised by Leg.
Counsel that the honourable Minister of Finance wishes to move an amendment to Clause
4.
Mr.
Manness: I certainly do thank Leg. Counsel. Madam Chairperson, I move
THAT clause (c) in the definition
"avoidance transaction" in the proposed subsection 11(1), as set out
in section 4 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "to obtain the tax
benefit, or" and substituting the following:
(i) To obtain the tax benefit,
(ii)
To reduce, avoid, or defer a tax or other amount payableas tax or in respect of
tax under any other Act orincrease a refund of tax or other amount in respect
oftax under any other Act, or
(iii)
both (i) and (ii);
[French version!
Il est propose que l'alinea c) de la
definition de "operation d'evitement", au paragraphe 11(1), enonce a
l'article 4 du projet de loi, soit amende par substitution, a ". . .
l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal n'etant pas consideree comme un objet veritable;"
de ",a l'exclusion:
(i) de l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal,
(ii)
de la reduction, de l'evitement ou du report de l'impotou d'un autre montant
payable a titre d'impot ou al'egard de l'impot en vertu d'une autre loi ou del'augmentation
d'un remboursement d'impot ou d'un autremontant a l'egard de l'impot en vertu
d'une autre loi,
(iii)des
operations visees a la fois au sous‑alinea (i) et ausous‑alinea
(ii);
Madam
Chairperson, I am moving that in both official languages.
* (2050)
Mr.
Alcock: Could I just ask the minister a question?
This
entire bill flows from the actions taken by the government, some reference in
the throne speech, mainly the budget, to put that into law.
At
this point, we come along with a very healthy set of amendments. I have no question about the intent of this amendment,
and I have offered my support to the minister in what he is attempting to do in
tightening up the act, but why is it that we are into such a lengthy package of
amendments this late in the process?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, as I indicated in my
opening remarks, three of these amendments are identical, I am led to believe,
this one and two others. There are nine
amendments; three of them are identical.
There are two that mirror these.
What
we found out in discussions last week, when we took out the proposed
legislation to the community, some said, well, if you, for instance‑‑and
this is anti‑avoidance and the associated companies ruling‑‑and
it is how specifically in this case, in The Corporation Capital Tax bill, what
happens if our company has decided to use the associated companies or split up
our corporation into several and we have done it not because of corporation
capital tax, but because of other reasons, like payroll tax.
We
would say, well, yes, we really came at you on this act but it is not
there. So what this amendment is doing,
is saying, regardless of in what area you have done it, if we have found it in
the corporation capital tax area, we can take the general empowerment here and
apply it within all the tax areas. That
is why this same type of wording will be found in those same other three parts
that I talked about, also in the retail sales tax area and in the payroll tax
area‑‑is that more or less correct?‑‑so there are three
amendments of the nine that are identical.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I move
THAT section 16 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed subsection 2(6):
Waiver of subsection (3) by minister 2(7)Notwithstanding
subsection (3), the minister may, on application and in accordance with such
criteria as may be prescribed, waive in whole or in part the application of subsection
(3) in respect of any corporation for such period of time as the minister
considers appropriate.
I
move same, in both official languages.
[French
version!
Il
est propose que l'article 16 du projet de loi soit amende par adjonction, apres
le paragraphe 2(6), de ce qui suit:
Dispense
de l'application du paragraphe (3) 2(7)Par derogation au paragraphe (3), le
ministre peut, sur demande et conformement aux criteres reglementaires,
dispenser une corporation de tout ou partie de l'application du paragraphe (3)
pour la periode qu'il juge indiquee.
Mr. Alcock:
Madam Chairperson, could the minister just explain the intention of
giving the minister this authority?
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, I will read from my notes:
This
is an amendment to the payroll tax act.
In 1991, amendments were made requiring associated corporations to share
the $600,000 exemption. Those amendments
were intended to address the situation where businesses had split into separate
corporations to avoid the payroll tax.
The amendments that were made, however, surpassed the government's
intention by capturing businesses which operate as two or more corporations
purely for business reasons.
For
instance, Madam Chairperson‑‑and I digress from my notes‑‑let
us say a car dealership in location A wants to run a hot dog stand in location
B, 500 miles away, 300 miles away. The intent
was never, of course, to rule against that type of split. That was done purely
on business reasons. They are obviously
two different, in essence, operations.
This
amendment will allow regulation to be made setting out their criteria under
which the 1991 association corporation rules will be waived by the minister in
an appropriate case. The criteria will
take into account such factors as the organization of separate corporations due
to diversity of business operations, separate locations and financing opportunities.
It
is not the government's intent to stop entrepreneurs from developing new,
distinct businesses that otherwise would not attract payroll tax.
Madam
Chairperson, unfortunately, the only way I can get around the harsh decisions
that would flow out of last year's amendment would be to allow some discretion,
some common sense, for the minister and/or the department, given criteria that
will be laid out in regulation.
Point of Order
Mr.
Leonard Evans: On a point of order, are we still not on Part
1?
Madam
Chairperson: No. We
have passed all of Part 1, all of the clauses contained under Part 2, and we
are now proceeding through Part 3. The
amendment under consideration is for Clause 16 of Part 3, for reference purposes,
page 10 of the bill.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, I was hoping we could go by
parts, and having discussed Part 1, then we could go on to Part 2 and Part 3,
just to expedite it. I did not realize
you were not calling the parts, you were just calling the section numbers. I guess it does not matter, but it does in a
way, because we discuss one part at a time.
Then, having agreed to Part 3 or 4, you could routinely pass the
sections. So I was waiting for you to
call Part 2 while I was doing some other reading.
At
any rate, I had a question on Part 2, The Gasoline Tax Act, Clause 2(23)(b).
Madam
Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee for the honourable
member for Brandon East to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) a question
on Part 2, which has already been passed?
Agreed.
* * *
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Well, it is a very simple question. One of the major intents of this amendment is
to reduce taxes on aviation fuel. I was
wondering if the minister could comment. This will decrease the tax revenue by
$1.4 million, but what benefits does he really expect to get from this?
I
mean, maybe he explained earlier on why he is doing it, but I am not quite
clear what economic benefit there is to the province from this particular
measure, which will lose $1.4 million to the treasury.
* (2100)
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, what we are trying to do,
after major consultation, not only with Winnipeg 2000, with the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce, is trying to provide some economic development incentive
to the airlines industry to once again establish Winnipeg specifically as a
major centre for either freight or cargo, given the fact that we are so ideally
located. We are told that one of the main disadvantages of
What
is happening is that because of differences of fuel, tax included,
So
one can imagine, if you are trying to build an infrastructure around air
freight and you are trying to develop an industry which again is going to,
because of logistics in place and all of the other factors, cause freight to
maybe come into Winnipeg and, during the night, in large measure, go onto our
trucks and begin to roll down the highways and move into the U.S., indeed if
you believe that globalization is here, and there is an opportunity for freight
and manufactured goods that are produced anywhere but yet are being assembled
for the purposes of transferring either to the eastern part of our continent or
indeed are going to another continent, that the location that that might be
done in is Winnipeg.
Well,
you have to provide some advantages or remove some of the disadvantages. It has been shown to us that one of the real disadvantages
is the total cost of fuel. Now we
believe that by moving it down by this amount‑‑I am talking it,
meaning the aviation fuel tax‑‑it will be a signal to that industry
to locate in
I
am not saying that this may not be the final decrease. There may very well have
to be a further decrease if indeed we believe that there is additional benefit
to be attracted, if we make sure that this is a competitive factor. There are many other competitive factors, not
the least of which is our location, not the least of which is our airport, can
take in these large cargo planes and very quickly expedite the movement of
freight off of the plane onto trucks and moving down the roadways to their
ultimate markets. That was the intent of
this measure.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Well, I appreciate the intent, but as the minister
himself indicated, there are so many variables at work here, so many variables
that will affect these decisions, and it would seem to me that it would be very
difficult to measure the impact of this tax reduction. I do not know how you measure. I mean, there could be an increase in
traffic, but it could be because of other reasons, getting out of the
recession, some other changes in airline policy, or whatever.
So
I do not know really how the minister and his department proposes to measure
the impact of this tax relief.
Obviously, it is not going to discourage; it is obviously going to
encourage. There is no question about that.
The logic is there, but the degree of the tax relief remains a question
mark, to the degree to which the tax relief provides the required or hoped‑for
incentive to have the business expand.
It leaves a lot of question marks.
Mr.
Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, the member is right
in part. I mean, I do not think we could
ever model this, do a recession analysis and determine whether or not this
factor in itself, in isolation, could provide the necessary stimulus. I do not know what weight you could give to it,
but I am mindful of the request made by several people, business people in our community,
who have nothing to gain personally but who believe that if Manitoba, and
Winnipeg particularly, is going to maintain their role as a transportation
centre, that we have to do something.
Members
across the way, of course, have been challenging us everyday to show us the
economic plan. This is an element of the
economic plan. I can tell the member,
this is a very deliberate move. This is
a signal to the industry. Look at
So
we sense that not only is there an opportunity for them to take on more fuel
here if we become more competitive, but also the large carriers like UPS,
Federal Express and several others, that this is a place that we would like to
entice them to. One way we can do that,
of course, is to look at the total cost structure of locating here, and this is
an important element.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: As I said, I can understand the logic of it, but
I would just comment, unless the minister can tell me otherwise, I would gather
then that the tax relief would apply to all air carriers operating in Manitoba,
whether they are a national or international carrier moving through here, or
whether they are intraprovincial, within the province. So to the extent that we are dealing with
intraprovincial or within province carriers, to that extent, these carriers are
getting a windfall from this tax relief.
Am I correct?
Mr.
Manness: It is hardly a windfall. I mean, in the jurisdictions to the east, I
know if anybody flies along the border and they want to take on fuel, small
airlines, and they want to take fuel in Dryden or Kenora, I can tell you they
pay three cents a litre, and if they are against the Saskatchewan border, and
they want to move into that jurisdiction to take on fuel, I think they pay less
there too.
In
my view, it is a mute point whether or not they are going to receive a benefit
because I would claim that a lot of them are not taking on fuel here right now. I mean, this tax area does not bring in an
awful lot of money right now.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Well, it is true. You could, presumably, pick up in
neighbouring jurisdictions where the tax may be lower. I do not know what the rates are, but
nevertheless, there are operators who are based in
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I want to share with the
member and indeed members of the House a story that I heard, and this is a true
story. Northwest Orient that flies into
our province has not bought, I understand, a litre of fuel here, virtually a
litre of fuel for several years.
Somebody was in
The
person who related the story to me was surprised to see when they took off the
ground that there were four empty seats. It is not that they were being
bumped. It was not that they were being
overbooked, and he asked why. Well,
Northwest Orient had taken on so much fuel and obviously had some heavy cargo,
so much fuel because they would not replenish in
Mr.
Leonard Evans: That is a very revealing, interesting story, but
that was not the point I was making before though. I was talking about Winnipeg‑based
carriers operating within the province.
Let
me ask the minister then, this is my last question, will this measure now
induce Northwest, since the minister mentioned this as an example, to now pick
up fuel in
* (2110)
Mr.
Manness: Well, the short answer to that is no with
respect to Northwest Orient. I do not
think they pay any more than a fraction of a cent in Minnesota, but still in
the sense that we have other attractions, particularly in the cargo area, we
sense that as long as we can begin to show the signal and that we have something
for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) when he goes
not only to our Canadian carriers, but elsewhere to try and sell Winnipeg, that
this is another element that he can carry in his quiver with respect to selling
our province and our city.
To
that end, to the extent that we are becoming more competitive, that we are
reducing this rate, I think there is a meaningful story to tell.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I just want it on the record, we are not opposing
this. I am just questioning the
effectiveness of the measure. I wish
that we have lots of success with it, but I am a doubting Thomas at this point.
We
have already passed Part 2, so we can go on now, please.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 16, as amended, be passed? Clause
16, as amended, is accordingly passed.
Clause
17‑‑pass; Clause 18‑‑pass; Clause 19‑‑pass;
Clause 20‑‑pass; Clause 21‑‑pass.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: In passing Clause 21‑‑or 21 has a
bearing on some new legislation that has been brought in, I believe, in this session. That is the Tax Appeals Commission. I am just reading here, the new procedure
will benefit taxpayers by enabling their appeal to be reviewed independently
from the staff and the department. This
particular section, or whatever, is being passed in conjunction with the new
legislation that, I guess, we will be considering later this evening. Is that correct?
Mr.
Manness: Yes.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Okay, thanks.
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 23 be passed?
Mr.
Manness: I would like to move an amendment in this
section. I move
THAT clause (c) in the definition
"avoidance transaction" in the proposed subsection 26.1(1), as set
out in section 23 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "to obtain the
tax benefit, or" and substituting the following:
(i) to obtain the tax benefit,
(ii) to reduce, avoid, or defer a tax or other
amountpayable as tax or in respect of tax under any other Act orincrease a
refund of tax or other amount in respect of taxunder any other Act, or
(iii)
both (i) and (ii);
[French
version!
Il
est propose que l'alinea c) de la definition de "operation d'evitement",
au paragraphe 26.1(1), enonce a l'article 23 du projet de loi, soit amende par
substitution, a "‑‑ l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal n'etant
pas consideree comme un objet veritable;", de ", a l'exclusion:
(i)
de l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal,
(ii)
de la reduction, de l'evitement ou du report de l'impotou d'un autre
montant payable a titre d'impot ou a l'egard del'impot en vertu d'une autre loi
ou de l'augmentation d'unremboursement d'impot ou d'un autre montant a l'egard
del'impot en vertu d'une autre loi,
(iii) des operations visees a la fois au
sous‑alinea (i) etau sous‑alinea (ii);
I
would so move in both official languages.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Sorry, Madam Chairperson, it is not on this particular
section, but it is on this part. It is a
point that should be discussed for a minute.
It is still on the part that we are under. That is the fact that we have set up a Tax
Appeals Commission or there will be a Tax Appeals Commission. That commission is for taxpayers to appeal
against the decision made by the department.
But now, I gather from 22(1), beyond that, the taxpayer can then appeal
the decision made by the Tax Appeals Commission. It seems therefore that the minister will be
a post‑Tax Appeals Commission person.
Is that correct? It seems rather
unusual. Here the department makes a
decision and you have set up a mechanism for an appeal, so that happens. But now, as I read this, you can then go
beyond that commission, if you do not like its ruling, and go through the
department and appeal to the minister.
Mr.
Manness: Well, it depends from where you are basing
your argument. Right now, any tax filer
has an opportunity to appeal directly to me as the minister. That is the method and the process that has
been in place for a long period of time.
Taking into account what other jurisdictions are doing and the fact that
the federal government over the last few years has instituted a tax appeal
mechanism, we sensed that there was probably some legitimacy in providing a tax
appeal system, one that was based on a minimal process.
We
are not going to elect a board, a quasi‑judicial board. What we
contemplate doing on an infrequent, periodic basis is bringing in a former tax
officer who has strong knowledge and background within our taxation fields to
sit in an impartial position to try and lend some counsel with respect to the difference
of views as between the department and the tax filer.
In
our view, this mediation process in some respects will go some distance to
reduce the number of appeals that ultimately come to the minister. In the sense that the aggrieved party feels
that a ruling has not come out favourable to their end, they can then still
appeal to me. That is the old system,
and if they are not happy with my decision, ultimately of course, not the
department, but indeed the tax filer has the right to go to court. That is the process that we are implementing.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I was not asking for an explanation of the setup
of the commission. I do not disagree
with that and it is a good idea. I just
thought that is was a bit unusual that having now set up an appeal mechanism,
which is fine, then you still have the additional stage of appealing the appeal
body's decision to the minister.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 23, as amended, be passed? Clause
23, as amended, is accordingly passed.
Clause
24(1)‑‑pass; Clause 24(2)‑‑pass.
Part
4, The Income Tax Act.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister could
explain the impact of this particular amendment proposed in Part 4 which has a
bearing on mutual fund trusts. Could he briefly
just tell the committee what impact this particular amendment will have?
* (2120)
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, for some period of time
now, the application of the net income tax as dictated by the federal government‑‑if
the member can remember, the former government when they applied to Ottawa for
a flat tax probably would have preferred to see its location on the tax form in
a different position than it was, somewhat akin to where Alberta has it.
In
actuality, there are many farmers who are forced off the land, and they are
forced to sell their property by a forced sale.
You have a bizarre situation where even though they have made no money,
the land that they have sold has been evaluated because when they bought it, it
was valued maybe at $100 or $200. It is
now at $400 or $500. It is a forced
sale. There has been a capital gain, and
the capital gain does not accrue to them because the security has been sent to
the bank and yet they are the ones under The Income Tax Act who have the
capital gains. We have many situations
where farmers who have gone broke have lost their land and everything they
have, have had a $5,000, $8,000, $10,000, $20,000 income tax bill because of
the application of the net income tax.
We have granted remission.
What
we are trying to do in this area because of the fact of where it is taxed, we
are trying to provide some relief for trust by bringing in this area where indeed
maybe the inappropriate place of the flat tax is within our tax laws at this
point.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 25‑‑pass; Clause 26(1)‑‑pass;
Clause 26(2)‑‑pass; Clause 27(1)‑‑pass; Clause 27(2)‑‑pass. Shall Clause 27(3) be passed?
Mr.
Leonard Evans: This has reference, I believe, to the Budget Address
of this year where reference was made to a tax credit for manufacturers. Am I correct in this, and is this the reason?
Are we now implementing a policy decision made or announced in the Budget
Address of the minister earlier this session?
My
question is, this whole section which deals with manufacturing and investment
tax credit, is this the follow through of the policy announcement made in the
Budget Address delivered by the minister earlier this year whereby, I believe, this
is the occasion where he announced a particular type of investment tax
credit? It is page 19 of the
explanation.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I think the member is
referring to the essence of Section 28.
Again, this gives effect, of course, to the manufacturing investment tax
credit. I am sorry. I was so busy
looking at page 18, dealing on Clause 27, and I did not hear the member's
question again. So he may want to‑‑
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I think the minister answered the question. It
relates to the proposal outlined in the Budget Address earlier this year. In other words, this is not another tax. It is the same one that was referred to. Thank you.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 27(3)‑‑pass; Clause 28‑‑pass.
For
reference purposes of the committee, we are now on page 26 for consideration of
Clause 29, Part 5, The Insurance Corporations Tax Act.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Which document are you looking at, Madam Chairperson? You are looking at the bill itself, are you? Okay. I am sorry.
I have been looking at the [interjection! They collated this. So, I am sorry, what did you just call? Part
5?
Madam
Chairperson: Part 5, page 26, and the clause to be given consideration
is Clause 29.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Is this the section where we are referring to‑‑oh,
I guess it this is the definition of insurance which then relates later. I have some concern about Blue Cross and what
is happening there. I guess this is a
definition that simply relates to a later section. Is that correct?
Mr.
Manness: No.
These clauses and the consequential amendments that flow thereafter give
full effect to the removal of the exemption that Blue Cross once had with
respect to premiums to do with the premium tax.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Yes, I am not sure whether I heard the entire
explanation of the minister, but there is reference here to the Blue
Cross. Just reading from his own notes,
on page 26: This change in the
consequential amendment to The United Health Services Corporation Incorporation
Act in Part 12 of the bill removes the exemption from tax on insurance premiums
that were previously available to the Blue Cross, and then to accommodate administrative
difficulties faced by Blue Cross, this provision will take effect on August 1,
1992, rather than July 1.
What
my question is‑‑so there is an impact on Blue Cross‑‑what
is the impact? Does this mean that the premiums‑‑will
Blue Cross be forced to increase premiums as a result of this?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, they may very well be
forced to do that. I do not know what
margins they have in place now, but this decision was made, because in a number
of areas under their purview, they were in direct competition with private
carriers who had applied to the premiums an insurance tax.
The
government sensed, to level out the playing field, that it was only fair that
they be brought into a competitive position taxwise. Now there is no way that the government wants
to impose upon Blue Cross a status of a taxable corporation. We still want to see it maintain its
uniqueness in respect to remaining a nonprofit corporation, because certainly
it provides coverage in a number of areas that other insurers do not. We recognize the commitment they are making
within the health field in trying to do some systems development. Let me go on the record as saying that on
behalf of all the government of
* (2130)
Mr.
Leonard Evans: We are not too happy with this particular amendment,
Madam Chairperson. Can the minister give
us some idea of what additional revenue will accrue because of this change? In
other words, what burden is being put on Blue Cross, which is, as he himself
explained, a nonprofit organization benefiting thousands of Manitobans? In effect, he is concerned about a level
playing field with the profit‑making insurance companies, but he is
hurting a nonprofit agency which is there to help Manitobans. So, in effect, Manitobans, those who deal
with Blue Cross, are ultimately going to have a burden put on them. They are going to have to end up paying
higher rates, but I do not know to what degree, so I am asking the
minister: Just what type of a burden is
this on the Blue Cross organization?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I do not have my budgetary
document with me. That certainly is in
one of the appendices of the budget that says what additional revenue will flow
because of this tax measure. Again, it
is not substantive in terms of millions of dollars, but what we are saying is
that in their tax areas, where they are directly competing with private providers‑‑and
I am talking now within the group plan areas‑‑indeed regardless of
whether they are nonprofit or not, they are going to have to pay the same
premium tax.
I
remind the member opposite that there are significant surpluses enjoyed by Blue
Cross, and some would say, well, that is to all of our benefit. The reality is, tax law does not work that
way. I mean, a nonprofit organization is
not supposed to build up any surpluses, any reserves. If they do, then, of course, they
theoretically, under federal income tax law, would lose their nonprofit
status. So this has been an area that
has been brewing for some number of years.
I understand there are only three provinces left that do not impose an
insurance premium tax on nonprofit such as Blue Cross, and we felt that given
the circumstances, it was important to level the playing field.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yes, I would like to ask
the Minister of Finance: How much money
does Blue Cross contribute to research in health and other preventative health care
projects in the
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether Mr. Bittner
shared in a quantifiable way that number or not. Certainly, we did talk about
the contributions they have made and are making towards a systems development
so that we can better capture the costs associated with providing health
care. We are mindful of the contribution
and to the extent that a lot of their noncompetitive products, in a sense,
hopefully will not be in any way harmed by this move, that they still will have
excess funds to direct towards that good end.
That is our understanding.
Again,
we have discussed this in great detail.
What we have tried to do is provide a level playing field, but in no
way, do we want to see the status of Blue Cross in its nonprofit basis harmed. I can tell members that nonprofit
organizations and Blue Cross in almost all other provinces of
Mr.
Doer: Did the government receive the amount of
money that the nonprofit organization Blue Cross has contributed on a yearly basis
over the last number of years to health research, health projects, to disease
prevention and other projects in the province of Manitoba that have been funded
through nonprofit subsidiaries of the Blue Cross organization in Manitoba and therefore
applied to health care in the province?
Did they take these into consideration when they made their decision?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, we have taken a lot of
these particular factors into decision.
Not all of them, of course, can be measured. It is hard to do a balance sheet on this.
I
know one of the competitors, for instance, Great‑West Life, the
tremendous contributions it makes to this community in a whole host of areas,
and I dare say in health care also, an incredible contribution in a number of
areas to the community and to the province.
We have not, for instance, tried to do the balance sheet to see who
contributes more, who contributes less in what fields, but I am saying in the
sense that a significant portion of the Blue Cross activities in direct
competition with those that are paying, those companies who are themselves not paying
it‑‑or if they are paying it, are billing into the premium structure‑‑I
would say that it is a fair move to make.
Mr.
Doer: Did the minister consult with the Manitoba
Society of Seniors, and do they support the taxation changes that he has proposed?
Mr.
Manness: Well that is the most ridiculous question I
have ever heard. I mean, if the Minister
of Finance is going to consult with those who he is going to impose an
increased tax on, I can tell him what the answer will be 10 times out of 10.
An
Honourable Member: No you cannot.
Mr.
Manness: Yes, I can, 10 times or maybe 12 times out of
10, what the answer will be if there is going to be an imposition of a greater
tax. The answer will be, no, no, no and
no, and another eight times of, no. That
is the reality.
That
is why we have something called a budget and a deadline, because if we were to
consult, we never would raise the necessary revenue needed‑‑and I
am talking about taxation, the additional taxation measures. Certainly since we announced this, we have had
extensive consultations with Blue Cross to try and mitigate as to the impact,
certainly on a timing basis.
Mr.
Doer: Has the government done an overall review of
both the actions of the federal Conservative government and their own government
on the impact on seniors' lives? In
other words, do they make these decisions in isolation from other
decisions? The minister said that he
thought if he would have consulted with seniors, they would have said, 10 times
plus eight times, no.
Have
they conducted an overall review? You
have drug costs going up dramatically, you have changes in those kinds of programs
both federally and provincially, you have changes dealing with many provisions
dealing with seniors. Surely, this is
one of the groups going to be hardest hit.
Is there an overall review of the impact of government budgetary
decisions on seniors, or is there no review whatsoever?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, the member is wrong.
Seniors are not going to be impacted the most on this unless, in his mind, he
conjures up the image of those seniors who are using travel insurance under
Blue Cross to go and spend a significant portion of the winter outside of the
province.
I
say to him, a much greater portion of the portfolio, Blue Cross‑‑the
premiums in support of the group insurance programs and, indeed, of the Blue
Cross that we use as members in our dental plans; indeed, as parents of family
who take supplementary insurance related to accidents that our children may
have on the playground or anywhere else‑‑these are also large
subscriber area fields of Blue Cross.
So
when the member says, did we consult with seniors?‑‑in fairness he
should say, well, did you consult with the parents of children? Did you consult with all of the civil
servants within the province who derive some benefit from Blue Cross by way of their
dental programs? I mean, he, for his own
political end is trying to direct it purely to seniors. Certainly, Blue Cross has activity with a
much greater number of people than just the seniors in society.
Mr.
Doer: Madam Chairperson, you know, let the Minister
of Finance make his own leaps of logic, but please do not expand them to other
members of this Chamber. [interjection! Well, having negotiated the dental plan
with the former Premier Lyon years ago, and fully conversant about who got the
plan through tendering, I am fully aware of the details of the plan, and I am fully
aware of the politics of who did not get the plan. I can tell the minister lots of interesting
stories about that interesting bit. [interjection! I just went back to the old tendering
system.
Madam
Chairperson, I just want to ask another question to the Minster of Finance, has
he reviewed how much money Blue Cross invests in credit unions in
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, that was not shared with
me, but I must indicate that I did not ask either, and that is a new issue to
me.
* (2140)
I
can indicate that if that is the basis on which he would rest an argument not
to remove the exemption on the insurance premium tax that was in place and if
he is saying then that this should be factored in, I wonder what weighting one
would give to that.
I
mean, again, we are talking about a tax on Blue Cross, in a sense aligning what
will happen in
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 29 pass?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Chairperson: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam
Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam
Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Clause 29 is accordingly passed.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, let me say for the record
at least that it was not unanimous.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 30‑‑pass; Clause 31‑‑pass.
Is
it the will of the committee that I group clauses on pages? There are 97 clauses to this bill, and my
understanding is that there are no further amendments for some time.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I would suggest that we do it part by part, and
that is why I was confused a while back when we proceeded with section
numbers. My preference is to have a
discussion on the part and then pass it.
Madam
Chairperson: Part 6, The Liquor Control Act. For reference purposes, page 27 of the bill.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Okay, briefly then, can the minister advise what
additional revenue will accrue to the province through this agreement entered
into or about to be entered into with the Government of Canada in collecting
provincial alcohol fees at the border?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I am looking for a signal
from up above. It seems to me it is a
nominal amount. It certainly is not a
million dollars, I do not think. It is
some portion of a million dollars.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Yes, just a detail question, Madam Chairperson. When will this come into effect or has it?
Mr.
Manness: July 1, '92.
Madam
Chairperson: Clauses 32 and 33‑‑pass; Clauses
34 and 35‑‑pass.
For
reference purposes, page 29 of the bill, Part 7, The Mining Tax Act.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Again, Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister
could just give us a very brief explanation.
What is the thrust of this particular part?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, there are certainly in the
first two pages or so, definitions, and that is for the purpose of a number of
areas, particularly to give effect to our new mining tax holiday, so we can
more properly define such terms as "new mine" and also
"project", "rehabilitation" and "progressive rehabilitation"
and "closure plan."
It
is all to provide in the first section those definitions, so that we can ensure
that when we provide incentives toward a new mine, significant millions of
dollars for anybody who comes forward, that it does not mean that they are
simply going to be able to take an existing orebody which may have been
mothballed or something, and now by way of opening it under this legislation,
garner for themselves a significant tax.
So
we are trying to give much greater definition to the terms, so that we are
still in control, and if the taxpayers of the province do provide incredible
tax relief, that it is done within the strictest of conditions.
That
is the first part. The rest of this
basically lays out what it is we are hoping to do in this incentive of a new
mine.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I gather, Madam Chairperson, the minister is concerned
that the legislation or the intent of the policy is not abused and that
corporations fulfill the intent of the government.
The
government wishes to entice or enhance exploration, but you want to entice or
enhance bonafide exploration and try to get around legal maneuvers where
companies may get some benefit from the legislation without actually bringing
forward mining development.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I could not have said it
better myself. The member has got it
hammered right on the head.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I have one final comment in passing. It just seems strange that here we have, in
this particular Statute Law Amendment bill, pages 29 to 43, which is what‑‑14
pages. That is a lot in my judgment for
Statute Law Amendment legislation. It is
not, I do not believe, in keeping with the tradition of this type of
legislation. It would seem, therefore,
it could have been a separate bill.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I only say that it gives
effect to the taxation measures that were announced in the budget. The greatest element of what we have seen
before us, of course, or the greatest elements are definitions and also the formulas.
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Chairperson, I imagine the tax acts
could also be separate bills, although it is standard procedure in terms of
what has historically been done here. Normally, in Statute Law Amendments
dealing with other matters, they are very, very small, minor amendments‑‑housekeeping
really. They are much more sweeping when
it is involving taxation.
I
wanted to ask the minister just to clarify these amendments to give effect to
the tax holiday that he talked about‑‑if he is paying attention.
Mr.
Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, I am advised by‑‑sorry?
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Chairperson, I was in the middle of a question.
* (2150)
Mr.
Manness: I am sorry‑‑my apologies.
Madam
Chairperson: I am sorry. I thought you had finished.
Mr.
Plohman: I would ask him whether this has been
borrowed from other acts that are currently in place, so that really it is not something
that has been developed for this particular purpose but taken from other
legislation. I notice, for example, that
the minister mentions clarification when production begins consistent with long‑accepted
federal legislation.
Is
this basically something that has been done in the federal legislation, and
this is consistent with that for all parts or just for that aspect?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I am advised that it is
just for that aspect. I can tell the
member, with respect to the definitions and all that, that is pretty well our
own writing. We have learned a lot from the
I
know the
I
would like to point out, Madam Chairperson, with respect to the member's
comment, it has been the
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Chairperson, that is exactly what I was
saying when I was being so well ignored by the Chairperson and the
minister. So the minister is saying here
in this bill that mining companies will not be able to take advantage of this
tax holiday unless they explore for and find and develop from scratch a new
mine.
Mr.
Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, the short answer is,
yes, but we still will allow some leeway‑‑in that if we are
convinced that there is an undeveloped orebody that has been identified, and
now because of this incentive it is going to be developed, we will provide the
relief. If it is an area that has been
held back because of other market circumstances, and now the major has been
waiting for this just to rush in, no, we can deny it under this legislation.
Madam Chairperson: Clauses 36, 37(1), 37(2) and 37(3)‑‑pass;
Clause 37(4), for reference purposes for the committee, page 31‑‑pass; Clauses 37(5), 37(6), 38(1) and 38(2)‑‑pass;
Clause 39‑‑pass; Clauses 40(1), 40(2), 40(3)‑‑pass;
Clauses 40(4), 40(5), 41, 42(1), for reference purposes, page 36‑‑pass;
Clauses 42(2), 42(3), 42(4), 42(5) and 42(6)‑‑pass; Clauses 43(1),
43(2), 43(3)‑‑pass; Clauses 44(1), 44(2), 45(1)‑‑pass;
Clauses 45(2), 45(3), 46(1), 46(2)‑‑pass; Clauses 47 and 48‑‑pass.
Part
8, The Motive Fuel Tax Act.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, it seems to me that the most
important clause in this particular part is Clause 2(28)(h), amended, which
reduces the tax rate on diesel fuel for railway locomotives by a penny per
litre, from 13.6 to 12.6, effective July 1 of this year, and thereby decreasing
the revenues to the province by $1.6 million.
Obviously,
this is in response to the lobbying by the railways. I would like to ask the minister, how does
this rate of 12.6 per litre now compare with the other provinces, and particularly
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, from memory, we were lower
before. It seems to me
I
pointed out to the member, the reason we did it is because the railways still
employ, I am led to believe, 10,000 people in the province of the
I
sense that nobody in the national context is dealing with the transportation
policies that are necessary to try and keep at a status quo level many of our
national carriers. What we try to do in
this budget is by way of a signal, even though it cost $1.6 million, and
although in itself probably does not reflect an awful lot to the bottom line of
our national rail carriers, we try to show them that we are at least one
jurisdiction that is listening to their arguments, because I think they have
some serious arguments to make.
Governments
have jumped all over the railway companies in a tax sense for several years
now. I believe that they are making decisions
that are hurting collectively all of us at this point in time.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Well, Madam Chairperson, I think the minister
is alluding to the fact that this is probably more symbolic than effective,
because surely that is a small amount of money in terms of the operations of
the railways in this province. Regrettably, it seems to me‑‑and
maybe it is a positive signal to the railways, fine‑‑I really do
not think it is going to do much because there are two factors that concern me
and that are at work. One of which is
the fact that the present government, with its CEO Deputy Prime Minister,
namely Mr. Don Mazankowski, from Alberta, who is determined, it seems to me
from experience, to move a substantial portion of CN railway operations from
Manitoba to his home province of Alberta, for all kinds of reasons, to the city
of Edmonton in particular.
We
have had examples of many employees being transferred and there is threat of
additional transfers in the future. I
doubt very much whether this particular move will have any impact on that
whatsoever. Mr. Mazankowski, who is
really the CEO of the federal cabinet, has had a very effective role, played a
very effective role in moving railway employees out of this province, in our
opinion at least.
The
other point I want to make, Madam Chairperson, is that there is such a thing as
the Free Trade Agreement. The Free Trade
Agreement, if anything, is going to cause more north‑south traffic, and
to some great extent, I believe that it will diminish the role of
Well,
we have a lot of objections to the Free Trade Agreement in terms of job loss in
this country, and I believe that this is one factor in diminishing
* (2200)
Madam
Chairperson: Clauses 49, 50(1), 50(2), 50(3), 50(4), Clause
51, for reference of the committee, page 44 of the bill‑‑pass.
Part
9, The Retail Sales Tax Act, for reference of the committee, page 47 of the
bill.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam Chairperson, before we get into clause
by clause on this particular part, I would just like to ask the minister a
couple of questions about the changes he has made here under the guise of
environmental protection, the tire charges and the changes to‑‑well,
the additional tax on disposable diapers.
I
am wondering what sort of research was done to determine, in the case of
disposable diapers, that they were in fact more injurious to the environment
than cloth diapers?
Mr.
Manness: Well, you take me back to when I was a young
parent when I get on this subject, but I may have to ask for the support of my
colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings).
Madam
Chairperson, we did not enter into the removal of the tax exemption on
disposable diapers. As a matter of fact,
I have even had representation made to me in my office not too long ago where
the latest generation of disposable diapers were presented to me as compared to
the newest or the generations before it.
Let
me say, we are very well aware that society seemed to be suggesting that
upwards of 1 percent to 2 percent of landfill material was composed of that
type of disposable diaper. I think there
seems to be a cry out in society that the amount of hard waste, I think was the
term, that is going into landfills be reduced, solid waste be reduced. We sense that probably in fairness, to try to
drive society back to cotton diapers, that indeed some disincentives should be
put in place.
That
was the basis on which we considered and ultimately brought forward the removal
of the exemption of sales tax on disposable diapers. Now, I know there are many other arguing points
around this issue. I am well aware of
that. But nevertheless, we joined B.C.
as being the second jurisdiction that taxed this type of product.
Mr.
Alcock: The minister had a choice between taxing the companies
and taxing the individuals who utilize these diapers, and he chose to tax
individuals.
It
is also going to impose considerable additional costs on hospitals, daycare
centres and the like who utilize these materials, in addition to the families
of the children. Why?
Mr.
Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, I know the member is
not so naive as not to know that when you tax corporations, you do not
ultimately hit their bottom line. Those
costs are passed along to the consumer anyway.
I know he realizes that.
Let
me also say that Procter & Gamble and/or Kimberly‑Clark, the
producers‑‑and maybe there are others‑‑of these types
of products are not head office located here in the
Madam
Chairperson, I thought the environment, if it were the No. 1 issue, all of us,
regardless of where we are, who we are or how we use the product, if we all
subscribe to the desire to remove solid waste from landfills, I would think
regardless of where we are, we would want to impose that type of restraint on ourselves. I would think it is an environment issue
certainly every bit as much as it is a taxation issue.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam Chairperson, as the minister has
already referenced, there is a great deal of argument about whether or not
disposable diapers are more of a burden on the environment than cloth diapers
and the energy that goes into using them, et cetera, et cetera.
But,
just a final question, how much do you anticipate raising with this
measure? How much do you anticipate
crediting to the environmental protection tax?
Mr.
Manness: I am wondering if, in the first half year of
it, it is $600,000.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Yes, on Part 9, in the early part of this part,
there is reference made to repealing the definitions "designated
land", also "Indian" and also "reserve." I wonder if the minister can explain why they
are repealing those definitions.
Mr.
Manness: I am led to believe that legal advice
suggested we take it out of the legislation, that there is no requirement to provide
this type of definition. I am also led
to believe that we in no way are infringing on federal jurisdiction in this matter.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I wondered if it had any relation to what I believe
was an amendment brought in last year in the same legislation, The Statute Law
Amendment, where retailers were no longer permitted to exempt people from
retail sales tax collection. In other
words, there used to be provisions, where people, including, I understood,
people living on reserves, could refuse to pay, and the retailer could fill out
a form, send it to the ministry of Finance explaining why that tax was not collected. As of last year's amendment, I understand
this is no longer possible, and if that is the case, I was wondering whether this
had some bearing or any relation to that.
Mr.
Manness: Very definitely, absolutely no relationship whatsoever,
Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Leonard
Evans: All right, the minister says it is in no way related
to that, but he does ecollect that that important change was made last
year. I wonder just generally‑‑again,
we have not had as much time as we like to study this legislation, which has a
lot of detail in it, to say the least.
What is the major thrust of this particular part of the bill?
* (2210)
Mr.
Manness: From memory, Madam Chairperson, I would say
the major import of this particular section, besides providing for the 1‑800
telephone service amendment, is to provide additional penalties for failure to
remit tax. We have individuals, believe it
or not, out there who are collecting provincial sales tax, knowing fully well
that their commitment is to remit that tax, that revenue, to the provincial
government and who are in essence saying, from their point of view, we do not
have the powers in the act to force them to comply.
So
we want to make it ever so much clearer that not only will they remit, but if
we find that they are doing so because of their intention, not because of
negligence or carelessness, but because it is their express desire to try and
avoid permitting the tax, we have put in some very large penalties, as the
federal Income Tax Department has. I
would say that that is the import, basically, of this section.
Madam
Chairperson: Clauses 52, 53(1), 53(2), 53(3) and 54‑‑pass.
Clauses
55(1), 55(2), 55(3), 55(4), 56(1), 56(2), 57, 58 and 59‑‑pass.
Clause
60‑‑pass; Clause 61‑‑pass; Clause 62.
Mr.
Manness: I would like to move an amendment under
62. I move
THAT clause (c) in the definition
"avoidance transaction" in the proposed subsection 20.1(1), as set
out in section 62 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "to obtain the
tax benefit, or" and substituting the following:
(i) to obtain the tax benefit,
(ii) to reduce, avoid or defer a tax or other
amount payableas tax or in respect of tax under any other Act or increase arefund
of tax or other amount in respect of tax under anyother Act, or
(iii)
both (i) and (ii);
[French version!
Il est propose que l'alinea c) de la
definition de "operation d'evitement", au paragraphe 20.1(1), enonce
a l'article 62 du projet de loi, soit amende par substitution, a "‑‑
l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal n'etant pas consideree comme un objet veritable;",
de ",a l'exclusion:
(i) de l'obtention de l'avantage fiscal,
(ii) de la reduction, de l'evitement ou du report
de la taxeou d'un autre montant payable a titre de taxe ou a l'egard dela taxe
en vertu d'une autre loi ou de l'augmentation d'unremboursement de taxe ou d'un
autre montant a l'egard de lataxe en vertu d'une autre loi,
(iii)
des operations visees a la fois au sous‑alinea (i) etau sous‑alinea
(ii);
I
so move in both official languages.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 62, as amended, be passed‑‑pass. Clause 63, 64(1)‑‑pass; Clause
64(2) and 65‑‑pass; Clause 66(1), 66(2), 66(3) and 66(4)‑‑pass;
Clause 67, 68‑‑pass; Clause 69‑‑pass.
Shall
Clause 70 be passed? I am sorry, Part
10, The Revenue Act.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, I do not have any difficulty
with parts of this, particularly where you are allowing two years for claiming
of a refund, which seems to be reasonable.
I presume this is based on experience of the department. There are other sections dealing with the
actions of directors and so on, whether a director is prudent or not, and just
to refresh my memory, is this one of the sections which is really here to prevent
tax avoidance, uncalled‑for tax avoidance?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, again, I think the key
operative word in this, and I will read Directors liable section on page 61. The measures in Section 22.1 are intended to
apply to directors of a corporation who have conducted themselves imprudently. That is the key word,
"imprudently," relative to the nonpayment of tax liability owing by
the corporation.
So
again, to the extent that an honest mistake has been made, carelessness maybe
has been practised‑‑and it can be shown to be carelessness‑‑that
has come forward in an honest fashion, but indeed if it is just pure snubbing
rules that are in place and/or it is pure imprudence, then obviously we want to
hold the directors liable for the tax liability.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 70‑‑pass. Clause 71.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I move
THAT the proposed clause 5.1(2)(b), as set out
in section 71 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "the minimum
amount" and substituting "$25. or such other amount as may be".
[French
version!
Il
est propose que l'alinea 5.1(2)b), enonce a l'article 71 du projet de loi, soit
amende par substitution, a "le montant minumum reglementaire", de
"25 $ ou tout autre montant qui peut etre determine par reglement".
I
would move same in both official languages.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 71 as amended‑‑pass. Clause 72‑‑pass. Clause 73‑‑pass.
Part
2, The Tobacco Tax Act. For reference
purposes, page 65 of the bill.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: This is Part 11, Madam Chairperson, not Part 2.
My
question to the minister is, is part of this prompted by the recent agreement
with the federal government to collect provincial taxes on tobacco products at
the Customs offices at the international borders?
Mr.
Manness: Yes, Madam Chairperson, this gives effect to
that agreement.
* (2220)
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Just a detail question, Madam Chairperson. Why
is there reference to excluding the federal government from normal requirements
of collectors? I am sure this is a minor
technical matter, but I am just curious as to why would you not sort of deem
them to be legally your collectors, rather than excluding them from normal
requirements?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, they would not agree under
those rules. They do not need bonds, and
they claim they never go bankrupt. They
are a different, special type of collector.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 74‑‑pass. Clause 75.
Mr.
Manness: I move, Madam Chairperson
THAT section 75 of the Bill is amended
(a)
by striking out clause (a) and substituting the following:
(a)
in the definition "collector", by adding "or anagent for
enforcement" after "deputy collector";
(b)
by striking out clause (d) and substituting the following:
(d)
by adding the following definitions in alphabeticalorder:
"agent
for collection of the Canada Post Corporation" meansany person authorized
in writing by Canada Post Corporationto collect as its agent duties as defined
in the Customs Act(Canada) under terms and conditions consistent with acollection
agreement in respect of mail; ("agent deperception de la Societe
canadienne des postes")
"agent
for enforcement" means
(a)
an officer as defined in section 2 of the CustomsAct (
(b)
The Canada Post Corporation, where the Minister ofNational Revenue has entered
into a collection agreementwith that Corporation in respect of mail; and
(c)
any agent for collection of the Canada PostCorporation; ("agent
d'execution")
"collection
agreement in respect of mail" means an agreementin writing between the
Minister of National Revenue andCanada Post Corporation pursuant to which the
Ministerauthorizes the Corporation, and the Corporation agrees, tocollect as
agent of the Minister duties as defined in theCustoms Act (
[French
version!
Il
est propose que l'article 75 soit amende:
a) par substitution, a l'alinea a), de ce
qui suit:
a) dans la definition de
"collecteur", par adjonction,apres "collecteur adjoint", de
"ou d'un agentd'execution";
b) par substitution, a l'alinea d), de ce
qui suit:
d) par adjonction, dans l'ordre
alphabetique, desdefinitions suivantes:
"accord de perception relatif au
courrier" Accord ecritintervenu entre le ministre du Revenu national et la
Societecanadienne des postes selon lequel le ministre autorise laSociete a
percevoir a titre de mandataire du ministre desdroits, au sens de la Loi sur
les douanes (Canada), relatifsau courrier et la Societe s'engage a percevoir
ces droits ace titre. ("collection agreement in respect of mail")
"agent de perception de la Societe
canadienne des postes"Toute personne ayant recu l'autorisation ecrite de
la Societecanadienne des postes de percevoir a titre d'agent decelle‑ci
des droits, au sens de la Loi sur les douanes(Canada), conformement a des
modalites compatibles avec unaccord de perception relatif au courrier.
("agent forcollection of the Canada Post Corporation")
"agent d'execution" Selon le
cas:
a) agent, au sens de l'article 2 de la Loi
sur les douanes(Canada), qui travaille a un bureau de douane situe auManitoba;
b) la Societe canadienne des postes, si le
ministre du Revenunational a conclu avec cette derniere un accord de perceptionrelatif
au courrier;
c) agent de perception de la Societe
canadienne des postes.("agent for enforcement")
I
so move in both official languages.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 75, as amended, be passed?
Some
Honourable Members: Pass.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 75, as amended, is accordingly passed.
Shall
clause 76(1) be passed?
Mr.
Alcock: Can I just ask the minister a question on
this. There is the imposition of the tax here, the changes in that, but relative
to this amendment that the minister just passed, is part of the agreement to
collect the tobacco tax at the border?
Mr. Manness: Yes, this is in accordance with the wish of
the federal government to make collection at the border easier. That is why this change is being recommended.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Chairperson, I have had it raised with
me, and I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not he has received
any legal advice from within the department as to the constitutionality of
these provisions in respect of liquor control and tobacco, that is, the federal
purporting, as I understand it, to essentially collect the provincial sales tax
at the border on behalf of the province.
I understand that that is the plan.
If it is not, perhaps the minister could correct my interpretation of
it.
Mr.
Manness: Generally that is what is being sought by the
legislative change, and the member asks whether or not we have a legal opinion
as to the constitutional right of the province to delegate its authority to the
federal government to collect on its behalf.
I think that is what he is saying; maybe there is a nuance to it. I will look to see whether or not we had
legal opinion in any of those areas.
Mr.
Edwards: Let me explain the problem that I perceive,
and it is interesting to know. I do not
purport here to have any final answers, but I am curious as to whether or not
the federal government collects provincial sales tax in other provinces on essentially
foreign goods, that is, goods purchased in the United States, tobacco and
alcohol, coming into Canada and we are purporting to charge provincial sales
tax on those goods at the border through the federal government. Do they do that in any other province?
Mr.
Manness: Oh, yes, the goods and services tax in
Mr.
Edwards: I would just ask, is the minister aware of
any federal legislation in the case of
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I understand they have legislation
which allows them, by way of agreement, to enter into arrangements with
provinces. So they have the statutory authority
in place federally.
Mr.
Edwards: Then that just closes this section, Madam Chairperson.
I
do not mean to hold up this committee‑‑by asking the minister, at
his convenience, to forward to me a copy of any provisions that he is relying on,
the specific statutory references that he is relying on. I wonder if he could have his officials at
some point give me the federal statutory provisions that are being relied upon
to implement this tax as well as the other ones across
Mr.
Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, I am out of my depth
significantly now. I undertake to
provide whatever it is I can, to the member, in this area.
Mr.
Edwards: Was this issue ever canvassed by the minister
and the minister's department? Were
there negotiations or discussions with the federal government on this issue, specifically
with respect to the legality of doing this?
Mr.
Manness: The short answer is yes. I mean, you just do not get into arrangements
like this without having studied the legislative framework. To support this type of move, I mean naturally,
the federal government particularly, just would not be caught not having done
that type of homework. So the short answer
is yes.
Mr.
Edwards: Well, if that has been done, and it obviously
has, then there must be a brief to the minister or there must be some explanation
for the legal authority granted. There
must be some rationale which has obviously been part of the discussions leading
up to this act.
I
would appreciate receiving a copy of the explanation as to how this came about,
what was necessary to be done at the federal level, if anything, to achieve
this, and a general explanation as to what authority is relied upon to achieve
this?
Mr. Manness:
Madam Chairperson, I would ask Legislative Counsel Mr. Carnegie to
discuss this issue with Mr. Edwards, immediately, after the consideration of
this bill, outside. I think between the
two trained legal minds, we will be able to give the clarity of answer that the
member wants, rather than it coming through me.
If he seeks other information, certainly we will do our best to provide
it.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 76(1)‑‑pass.
Clause
76(2).
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I move
THAT the proposed clause 2(3)(b), as set out
in subsection 76(2) of the Bill, be amended by striking out "to a customs
officer".
[French
version!
Il
est propose que l'alinea 2(3)(b), enonce au paragraphe 76(2) du projet de loi,
soit amende par suppression de "a un prepose".
The
same is moved in both official languages.
Motion
agreed to.
* (2230)
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 76(2), as amended, be passed‑‑pass.
Clause
76(3)‑‑pass; Clauses 77 and 78‑‑pass; Clause 79(1), 79(2)‑‑pass.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I move
THAT the proposed subsection 20.1(2), as set
out in section 80 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "by customs
officers at customs offices".
[French
version!
Il
est propose que le paragraphe 20.1(2), enonce a l'article 80 du projet de loi,
soit amende par substitution, a "par des preposes aux bureaux de douane
du", de "au".
I
move same in both official languages.
Motion
agreed to.
Mr.
Manness: There is another amendment in Section
80. I move
THAT the proposed section 20.2, as set out in section
80 of the Bill, be amended
(a)
in the section heading of subsection (2), by striking out"Customs
officers" and substituting "Agent for enforcement";
(b)
in subsection (2), by striking out "A customs officer"and
substituting "An agent for enforcement";
(c)
in clause (3)(a), by striking out "a customs officer asthe customs
officer" and substituting "the agent forenforcement as that agent for
enforcement";
(d)
in clauses 3(b) and (c), by striking out "the customsofficer" and
substituting "the agent for enforcement";
(e)
in that part of subsection (5) following clause (b), bystriking out "the
customs officer" and substituting "theagent for enforcement";
(f)
by adding the following after subsection (6):
Refunds and collection of underpayments 20.2(6.1)
The government of
(a)
to collect tax owing in respect of tobacco that wasreleased from customs
without payment of all or part of thattax; and
(b)
to refund any amount that was collected by an agent forenforcement that is in
excess of the amount of the tax inrespect of tobacco
in accordance with the terms and conditions of
agreement under subsection 20.1(2).
(g)
in the section heading of subsection (7), by striking out"customs
officers" and substituting "agents for enforcement";and
(h)
in subsection (7), by striking out "against a customsofficer" and
substituting "against an agent for enforcement";and by striking out
"that customs officer" and substituting"that agent for
enforcement".
[French
version!
Il
est propose que l'article 20.2, enonce a l'article 80 du projet de loi, soit
amende:
a) dans le titre du paragraphe (2), par
substitution, a "despreposes", de "des agents d'execution";
b) dans le paragraphe (2), par
substitution, a "Lespreposes", de "Les agents d'execution";
c) dans l'alinea (3)a), par substitution,
a "prepose", de"agent d'execution";
d) dans les alineas (3)b) et c), par
substitution, a "auprepose", de "a l'agent d'execution";
e) dans le passage du paragraphe (5) qui
suit l'alinea b),par substitution, a "Le prepose", de "L'agent
d'execution";
f) par adjonction, apres le paragraphe
(6), de ce qui suit:
Remboursement
et perception du moins‑percu 20.2(6.1)
Conformement aux modalites d'un accord conclu en vertu du paragraphe
20.1(2), le gouvernement du
a) percevoir la taxe due sur du tabac qui
a ete dedouane sansque soit payee tout ou partie de cette taxe;
b) rembourser tout montant qu'a percu
l'agent d'execution ensus du montant de la taxe payable sur le tabac.
g) dans le titre du paragraphe (7), par
substitution, a"preposes", de "agents d'execution";
h) dans le paragraphe (7), par
substitution, a "Lespreposes", de "Les agents d'execution".
I move same in both official languages.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Shall Clause 80, as amended, be passed‑‑pass.
Clause
81(1)‑‑pass; Clauses 81(2) and 81(3) and Clause 82‑‑pass;
Clause 83‑‑pass; Clauses 84 and 85‑‑pass; Clauses 86, 87(1),
87(2), 87(3), 88, 89(1), 89(2), 90(1)‑‑pass; Clauses 90(2), 90(3),
90(4), 91, 92, 93(1), 93(2), 94(1), 94(2)‑‑pass; Clauses 95(1),
95(2), 95(3), 95(4), 95(5), 95(6)‑‑pass; Clauses 96(1), 96(2), 97‑‑pass.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I would like to move a
final amendment, and it is this:
THAT
Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all section numbers and internal
references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee.
[French
version!
Il est propose que le conseiller
legislatif soit autorise a modifier les numeros d'article et les renvois
internes de facon a donner effet aux amendements adoptes par le Comite.
Motion
agreed to.
Madam
Chairperson: Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass. Is it the will of the committee that I report
the bill?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam
Chairperson: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 95‑The Tax Appeals Commission
Act
Madam
Chairperson: We shall now give clause‑by‑clause
consideration to Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act. Does the honourable Minister of Finance wish
to make an opening statement?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): No, Madam Chairperson.
Madam
Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition wish
to make an opening statement?
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Chairperson, I do
not think it is customary for opening statements in clause‑by‑clause
committee considerations. At least I do
not recall that, but I have no opening statement anyway.
Madam
Chairperson: Does the honourable member for Osborne wish to
make a statement?
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister
could just give us a few comments on the reason he has brought this in at this
time?
Mr.
Manness: Do you want the reasons?
Mr.
Alcock: Yes.
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I brought this in. I thought long and hard about this. As a matter of fact, three years ago when it
was proposed, I was a nonsupporter of bringing this in, because I always sensed
that the buck stops at the top and ultimately the minister should be
accountable for all decisions made.
Given
the taxation changes that have occurred over the years and given the
reorganization within the department, particularly where we now are catching up
in a rapid fashion, a lot of the backlog, the files, is a result of that
reorganization, and the member has had a lot to say about that over the course
of the years.
* (2240)
We
are finding a number of tax filers now who are not happy with the fact that we
are visiting them, and that we are doing assessments, and that we are going
back some number of years. They are coming up with various arguments as to why
they should not be assessed. Not the
least of one is if this is a problem, why did you not get a hold of us several
years ago, and quite frankly, I cannot sit in judgment of all of these. Ultimately I have to, but in the first
instance, I cannot and I sense then it is probably the best time to ride for a
minimal appeal body, because I do not want to see rules of law or conduct or
lawyer representation come into this type of an appeal. I want the tax filer to have an opportunity
to make his presentation to somebody who understands the law, somebody who, on
both sides, an impartial body who will also listen to the other side in an informal
setting and render a judgment.
I
am hoping that will clean up an awful lot of the activity that now is beginning
to come to my desk. If it does not, then
obviously I am going to have to sit in further judgment of the decision
rendered by the appeal body, so I think it is time to take this step. I think some are calling for greater impartiality,
greater removal from the minister's office in the first instance. That probably should be provided and that is
the essence of Bill 95.
Point of Order
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Just on a point of order, I want to put this on
the record. I have no problem in
listening to an explanation by the minister of the need for this act, but I
understood that that was given its second reading, not at committee stage. At committee stage, we ask questions with
regard to the specific sections, and then we do not spend time engaging
ourselves in whether or not the philosophy behind the bill is acceptable or not. Although I appreciate what the minister said,
the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is really asking the minister to engage in
making remarks that are appropriate for second reading.
At
any rate, when we get to Section 2(1), I have a question or two on. You do not like that?
Madam
Chairperson: I would just like to remind all honourable members
that I have been advised that the procedure in Committee of the Whole is
exactly the same as the procedure for consideration of a bill in a standing
committee.
* * *
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 1‑‑pass.
Clause
2(1).
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Clause 2(1), the commission may consist of one
or more members, who will not be civil servants. Can the minister indicate what his intention
is? Is it his intention to have a one‑person
body, or is he going to have three or four people, and what type of people is
he planning to ask to sit on this commission?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, in the first instance, the
body of one person. My intention is at
the beginning to probably call upon some individual who is very familiar with
the tax laws, somebody who is familiar with the application of those laws, and this
will not be a full‑time position, I am not contemplating it. So that is the type of person.
This
will not be a traditional political appointee if that is the fear of the member
opposite. I mean this person that is brought
forward has to have some technical and taxation interpretation skills.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 2(1)‑‑pass.
Clause
2(2).
Mr.
Leonard Evans: I guess to some extent the minister answered part
of my question and that is, he does not intend this to be a full‑time
position. So what are we looking at,
someone who will sit in his office and hear applications or receive
applications one or two days a month, or is this half time, or what is the degree
of work that will be engaged in by the commissioner?
The
other question I have, because we are talking about tenure, is it a matter of
appointing someone indefinitely or is the minister going to start off with,
say, a six‑month appointment or a year appointment subject to renewal if performance
is satisfactory?
Mr.
Manness: Madam Chairperson, I would imagine that the
initial appointment will be for a year.
Certainly the requirement of time directed towards this function will be
periodical. I mean, I do not contemplate
that it will be a half‑time job, but it will be a handful of days a month
is my expectation of this.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 3‑‑pass; Clause 4(1)‑‑pass.
Clause
4(2).
Mr.
Leonard Evans: The minister just indicated he is contemplating
only one person, yet we are making reference to a deputy chief
commissioner. Presumably this is just to
give the government flexibility in case there may be need for a bigger body or
group of people rather than just the one person.
Mr.
Manness: The answer to the question is yes, and
certainly at this time I have no intentions to name a second person, unless I can
see where the workload dictates that somebody should be named as a deputy so
that they can step in because of extra workload and/or for health reasons. But right now I am not contemplating having
two people doing this work.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Can the minister give the committee some idea
of the number of appeals that the department receives per month or per year?
Mr.
Manness: I would say upwards of 50. More?
The hands are going up. I guess
it is 100. More? More than that. I guess I do not see them all in a year.
Madam
Chairperson: Clause 4(2)‑‑pass; Clause 5‑‑pass;
Clause 6(1)‑‑pass; Clause 6(2)‑‑pass; Clause 7‑‑pass;
Clause 8‑‑pass; Clause 9‑‑pass; Clause 10‑‑pass;
Clause 11(1)‑‑pass; Clause 11(2)‑‑pass; Clause 12‑‑pass;
Clause 13‑‑pass; Clause 14‑‑pass; Clause 15‑‑pass;
Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass. Bill be reported.
Bill 96‑The Special Operating
Agencies Financing Authority Act
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Chairperson, we in
the opposition feel that it is inappropriate for this bill to be at this
committee, because primarily it does not give the members of the public an
opportunity to be heard on this piece of legislation, and we would request that
it be considered by some other committee of the Assembly so that delegations
may be heard, assuming that there are delegations. We understand that there are some concerns.
The
legislation is pretty broad. It is
relative‑‑well, it is a new concept. The minister is shaking his head in the negative. To me it is a new concept, and the whole notion
of it is a little fuzzy, and there are some legitimate concerns out there. So I would request, we would not wish to
proceed with this bill at this time. We
would like to see it referred to another committee.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Chairperson, I think
there is an oversensitivity with respect to bringing it to this committee, but
I know that there is an individual who would like to make representation. On that basis, I am prepared to take it to
another committee so that the public can make comment.
Madam
Chairperson: That concludes the work before this committee. Committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
* (2250)
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of the Whole has considered Bills 92, 94 and 95 and reports the same
with certain amendments. I move,
seconded by the honourable for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that the report of the committee
be received.
Motion
agreed to.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on
House Business, I would like to make some announcements.
I
would like to cancel the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That will be called either late tomorrow or Wednesday
morning. I have not decided which at
this point.
An
Honourable Member: Do we know what we are doing in that committee?
Mr.
Manness: I do not know if you know what you are doing;
we are going to put forward another option.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to announce that Law Amendments will resume sitting
tomorrow at 10 a.m. to consider bills referred.
I would like to also refer to that committee Bill 96.
I
would like the unanimous consent of the House to change the referral from the
Committee of the Whole to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave? There is leave? It is agreed to.
Mr.
Manness: I would also like to‑‑this has already
been announced‑‑but I just want to indicate that we will follow through
the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources that was going
to look at the five‑year plan of Workers Compensation Board. That committee will continue to sit at 10 a.m.
tomorrow.
Furthermore,
I would like to serve notice that the Standing Committee on Industrial
Relations and Municipal Affairs will continue to sit at 2:30 tomorrow afternoon
to consider the bills referred to those committees.
I
am led to believe that all other bills have passed second reading and have been
referred to committee. I also serve
notice that it is my intention tomorrow to have the House sit in the afternoon
and consider some other Finance bills and the concurrence motion. House leaders at that time will determine which
will come first, whether it is The Loan Act and/or the concurrence motion.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The LERA bill, has that
been referred to Law Amendments? Can the
government House leader please indicate?
Mr.
Manness: Do you have a number for that?
Mr.
Doer: It is in the 90s.
Mr.
Manness: The answer is yes. Bill 87 has been referred to the Law
Amendments standing committee.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, just a
question to the honourable House leader (Mr. Manness), did you say Bill 96 was
referred to Law Amendments committee, and that Law Amendments was called for 10
a.m., tomorrow?
Mr.
Manness: The answer is yes, but that committee has an
awful lot of work to do; I do not imagine that it will complete its work
tomorrow morning. Therefore, almost for
sure, we will be called for tomorrow evening.
Mr.
Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
Mr.
Manness: I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings) that the House do now adjourn.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable
government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment that
this House do now adjourn. Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
This
House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).