LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
July 21, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Valerie Smart, S. Rex, M. De Baets and others requesting the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it
was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Sherry Peirson, Doris Verhaeghe, Darlene Funke and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Ms. Friesen). It complies with
the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Student Social
Allowances Program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Home Care
Program
Housekeeping
Services Reinstatement
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Well, today on the steps of the Legislature
in the rally that was there, we did not see a lot of confidence, and there
certainly was a heck of a lot of controversy.
Study after study of that Health Advisory
Network has recommended preservation of the home care system. Lo and behold, today we learn of another
report of the Health Advisory Network. This one is the Primary Health Care Task
Force Report and, Mr. Speaker, it states that increased availability and
utilization of home care be considered as an appropriate alternative to
institutional care, both through prevention of admission and appropriate and
well‑planned early discharge.
I want to ask the Minister of Health today
if he can tell us and all those Manitobans who joined us on the front steps of
the Legislature if he will now give his assurances to reinstate the full
aspect, all the components of home care to ensure that every single member of
our senior community, every member of the disabled community is able to have
access to homemaking services so that they can live in their homes and in their
communities with dignity.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): First of all, Mr. Speaker, if I were to accept
my honourable friend's advice, I would have to turn back the policy that she
sat at cabinet and approved of in 1984.
Howard Pawley and the NDP brought in, in Support Services to Seniors,
the policy under which seniors in
Since 1985, seniors in
My honourable friend refers to the Health
Advisory Network report which recommended that the Home Care Program be
increased, and since a $38‑million budget, the last time the NDP funded
Home Care, we have taken that advice. That is why today the budget approaches $69
million. We have made that investment as
recommended by the Health Advisory Network.
Secondly, the second report that my
honourable friend refers to says, an expansion of the Home Care Program. That is why in this year's budget we expect
to provide 11 percent more hours of personal care in attendant care, helping
seniors with dressing, with bathing.
We intend to provide 9.5 percent more hours
of registered nursing services. We
intend to provide 3.6 percent more hours of VON nursing services consistent
with that recommendation, Sir.
* (1335)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the minister can distort and
misrepresent the facts all he wants, but it is the seniors and the people with
disabilities who will tell him that they are no longer‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a copy of
this latest report, the Primary Health Care Task Force Report, which along with
the reports on services for the elderly, on ambulatory care services, all of
them state, including this latest one, that home care services are an essential
service in shifting services into a community‑based setting.
Why will the minister not listen? If he will not listen to the seniors and the
disabled in our community will he at least listen to members of his own
appointed Health Advisory Network and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Orchard: Possibly that advice that my honourable friend
so graciously gives to listen might also apply to her in terms of listening to
the answers.
How can my honourable friend avoid the
direct answer, which I have given probably 100 times in this House, that this
year compared to last year we are going to purchase 11 percent more hours of
care for helping seniors to dress, to bathe and personal services, 11 percent
more hours this year than last, 9.5 percent more hours of nursing services from
registered nurses than last year, exactly consistent with that report?
The only time, Sir, that misinformation
comes out is when it is under the authorship of one Tim Sale, defeated NDP
candidate, on behalf of press releases that he puts out on behalf of Manitoba
Medicare Alert Coalition, which causes the kinds of fears that seniors and
others have about government programs, because when you put out wrong
information and you know it is wrong when you write it, how do you expect
Manitobans to understand what the program is able to do for them, that in fact
it is spending more money and buying more hours of care service?
Sir, I will fully acknowledge less hours of
laundry and housekeeping domestic services, as has been consistent with the
policy my honourable friend approved in 1984 and implemented in 1985.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: That is utter balderdash and the minister
knows it‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for
Ms. WasylyciaLeis: Let me ask, then, the acting Premier for the
province, since actually back in 1990 the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself made a
promise to Manitobans to provide funds for additional in‑home aid and
personal care for seniors.
The seniors are tired of broken Tory
promises. I want to ask the acting
Premier if he will try to make good on that promise made by the Premier. Will he direct the Minister of Health to
abandon his plans to eliminate housekeeping, laundry and meal service for
elderly Manitobans, people with disabilities and everyone who requires care, to
live in their communities with dignity?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, when the Premier made that
commitment in 1990 we delivered on it, because in 1991 the Home Care Program
increased in funding by 12.1 percent.
The Premier lived up to that commitment in the next year, 1992, where
the program increased by 11.8 percent.
We lived up to that commitment again this
year, despite reductions in government spending across the board. The increase in home care spending is $1
million, which represents a 1.7 percent increase this year over last.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for
saying clearly and unequivocally that the information provided to Manitobans
and unfortunately reprinted in the MSOS Journal, authored by Tim
I make no apology to my honourable friend
the New Democrat who defends that kind of action by Tim Sale, defeated candidate
for the NDP. I do not believe anybody
has the right to frighten seniors and others who rely on this program when we
are putting more resources into the program, not less, Sir, and with the
changes we make which will maintain the service, not destroy it.
* (1340)
APM
Management Consultants
Contract
Cancellation
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, only one person in this Chamber
is frightening to the seniors and disabled in
Mr. Speaker, the minister fails to mention
that thousands of people are being cut off the home maintenance program, 1,200
are being forced to pay for ostomy supplies, 5,000 to 6,000 are now being
forced to pay user fees for their home care medical equipment.
He fails to mention that. He talks about '85 and other provinces and
other people, but he fails to deal with that.
My question to the minister is: Will the government finally start listening
to the public? Will they cancel the
multimillion dollar contract to their
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I forgot one valuable piece of
information in answer to a former questioner.
In 1990 when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) promised to increase home care
spending‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable minister to
deal with the matter raised.
Mr. Orchard: ‑‑we brought in self‑managed
care for disabled Manitobans at a substantial expenditure of new funds in the
Home Care Program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, yes, I have never hidden
from the fact that we are asking for a contribution by users in the ostomy
program. That contribution is lower than is asked by an NDP government in
Our asking seniors to purchase equipment
less than $50 in cost is consistent and more generous than other provinces that
have similar requests where equipment is being paid for by the consumer. We have done that while maintaining the
supply of wheelchairs and other expensive equipment necessary for independent
living, plus purchasing more hours of care and personal service care and
nursing care in the Home Care Program this year over last.
Victorian
Order of Nurse
Layoffs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is to the minister.
Mr. Speaker, VON nurses provide home care
services. Can the minister advise why 10
VONs were laid off, VONs who provide home care services, this very morning, if
this government is expanding services?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend will get an
answer to that question when I ask VON as to why they chose to do that.
Mr. Speaker, our expectation‑‑and
I want my honourable friend to understand this so that he does not distort the
facts. We expect this year to have a 3.6
percent increase in services purchased from VON this year over last. That is more service, not less service.
I cannot answer for the internal staffing
arrangements of VON, but I can indicate that we will be purchasing more service
hours from VON this year over last year.
If they do that with fewer personnel and have more hours for an
individual nurse, that is their management decision. Our concern is that we have those services
available‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1345)
Home Care
Program
Budget‑Winnipeg
Region
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, unless the minister has a
complex, only one person in history could do more with less.
My final supplementary to the minister
is: Will he also confirm, since they are
laying off 10 VONs today, whether or not the Winnipeg region Home Care budget
is, as we stated last week, down by $2 million this year for home care services
in the city of
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
expected to spend some $28 million in the
Now, I realize my honourable friend is
trying to use the language that is used consistently by opposition members,
"cutbacks" to instill fear. My
honourable friend in opposition will not acknowledge that we are increasing the
amount of personal care service, nursing service in the Home Care Program to do
what, Sir?‑‑to maintain more Manitobans in independent living
situations in their homes, to meet greater medical needs for independent living
in their homes, not less, as my honourable friend alleges.
Home Care
Program
Consultations
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the practices in home care are in
confusion. Services to seniors and the
physically disabled are affected and have affected staff. Home care clients alike do not know what
tomorrow will bring. They have not been
told how the minister's cuts or changes will be implemented, and so they cannot
help their clients plan what to do.
Will the Minister of Health put a moratorium
on the changes in the Home Care Program until he has consulted with the people
affected by these changes and until he has analyzed the impact of these
proposed changes?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): My honourable friend makes a very interesting
case, and, Sir, I will tell you what we were doing to accept that advice even
before he gave it.
Every individual who currently receives free
housecleaning and laundry service will be subject to an assessment and a review
by the professional staff in the Home Care Program. As is consistent with the NDP policy of 1984,
implemented in 1985, where those individuals have the ability to pay for that
service themselves, as currently over 50 percent of the consumers of home care
in
It is through that vehicle of assessment by
the same professionals under the same guidelines that have operated in the rest
of the province, rural
Equipment/Supplies
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, the home care equipment depot is
also in a state of confusion. There is a
backlog, and clients cannot get supplies they urgently need, like urine bags.
Will the minister direct his staff to ensure
that the backlog in medical supplies is eliminated so people can get their
supplies?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gaudry: There is a grave confusion, Mr. Speaker, over
where home care clients can get the supplies they urgently need.
Will the minister advise Manitobans where
they can get the medical supplies they need every day? They cannot wait months for him to figure it
out.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the process
that, as I explained in my first answer to my honourable friend, will be
undertaken in terms of the professional assessment by our staff of each
individual client's current needs. We
expect, for instance, with the housecleaning and laundry services, where it is
appropriate, as has been the case‑‑and I reiterate, even though my
honourable friends in the New Democrats want to avoid this, we will do this
consistent with the policy brought in by the NDP in 1984 and consistently
applied in rural
Those decisions will provide seniors with an
increased opportunity for personal care needs and nursing services to be met so
they can continue to live independently in dignity as the program was designed
to do, Sir.
Pharmacare
Backlog
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, one moral test of government is
how that government treats citizens who are in the shadow of life, like the
disabled, the sick and the handicapped, as well as the citizens who are in the
twilight of life, the seniors or the elderly.
This government imposed a deadline strictly
such that it confiscated 100 percent of Pharmacare refunds of seniors who are
late in filing, regardless of reasons. The
form in Pharmacare stated that it takes six weeks to process the claim. We have had phone calls, Mr. Speaker, where
people who are filing claims have been waiting now for more than six weeks.
Can the honourable Minister of Health
explain this unreasonable delay?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this
question has been posed by my honourable friend before and I am pleased he
posed it again today, because subsequent to the last time he posed this
question, I regret to inform my honourable friend that the delay in refund is
approximately 10 weeks now compared to the normal six or seven that has been
there.
The reason for the delay is that we have had
a 21 percent increase in numbers of claims this year over last year. That is an unusual increase. We have seldom experienced such a significant
increase year over year in claims, and we are simply behind in the refund
process and are working diligently to try to bring that claim return time down.
* (1350)
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, given, again, this government's
policy of workweek reduction whereby some government employee who wants to work
on Friday cannot work on Friday, what step is this honourable Minister of
Health taking in order to prevent this unreasonable delay in the refunds of
Pharmacare claims?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I know my honourable friend wants
to call it unreasonable that 20 percent more Manitobans are requesting a refund
under the Pharmacare program and I regret that, because we did not expect that
increase in claims to be filed. Quite
frankly, it has overwhelmed the normal increase in staffing that we have done
since I came into government.
I want to remind my honourable friend that
in 1988, in the month of May when I was appointed Minister of Health, the
delays were 12 and 14 weeks at that time because the then government of Howard
Pawley refused to put additional staff on.
We changed that immediately, Sir, on May 9,
1988, when I came in as Minister of Health and speeded the refund process. We have done that every year since. This year the 21 percent increases, quite
frankly, caused a greater delay than expected.
Pharmacard
Implementation
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Last supplementary, Mr.
Speaker: Can the honourable Minister of Health state a target date in his
schedule of reform as to when he will implement the proposal for a Pharmacare
card system so as to prevent all these problems about refunds in claims?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is one of the few issues
that we have unanimously agreed on in this House, and I have to compliment in
his absence the member for The Maples, who was a very progressive thinker in
terms of health care. It was his resolution
that you might recall some three months ago we unanimously approved to have the
plastic card technology available for the Pharmacare program and other health
care programs.
We anticipate that we will have the plastic
card system in place January 1 of next year, unless we run into some
unforeseens in the planning or any resistance from the system that we do not
anticipate at this time.
Justice
System
Victim
Services
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice
if he can explain the rationale behind these policy changes in light of his
government's oft‑repeated verbal statements that they are concerned about
victims of crime and the increase in criminal activity in this society. How does that square with these policy‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We
remain committed, Mr. Speaker, to enhance services for victims of crime.
I think in the past few years there has been
quite a change in emphasis right across the country. Unfortunately, however, the federal
government helped us get into some of these programs and, because of their
budgetary problems, we find them pulling back from some of these programs.
I have been very frank with the honourable
member about the dilemma that we in
We have Victim/Witness Assistance programs
in operation. In seven of our detachment
areas, we have victims assistance units operating now that were not before we
came along, and so on and so on.
* (1355)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the government refuses to take
responsibility and offloads responsibility onto another level of government as
they are wont to do.
Will the Minister of Justice admit to the
House today that his government's real goal in these legislative policy changes
is to divert funds that were being used to provide services to victims of justice,
to deal with criminal compensation claims, et cetera, to general revenue
because his government has absolutely no economic strategy, no rational,
logical, thought‑out economic plan, so make the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. McCrae: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not acknowledge that
we are diverting funds away from programs that are already existing which would
call for the cessation of those programs.
The Justice for Victims of Crime Act set up a
fund which we have used for the past four or five years to assist agencies in
providing special projects to their clientele, those being victims of crime.
We have a provincial fund as well as a
federal fund, and when the federal fund was set up it was always planned that
those funds would be used to run government‑operated victims programs. We
have found that the victims programs we have that are operated by government
are efficient and serve many, many hundreds of people in our province, and we
are pleased with those programs.
We do not like to have to face the fiscal
realities we have to face, but if we do not face them we will have nothing for
victims in the future.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, it would have been nice if he had
faced these fiscal realities five years ago‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask what the
Minister of Justice is going to tell these community groups that are going to
have their fine‑option programs cut, what the Minister of Justice is
going to tell the victims of criminal acts who are going to be deindexed and
the services that are going to go back into general Justice revenue rather than
special projects under the Victims Assistance Fund.
What is the Minister of Justice going to
tell these groups and victims who need these services that have been provided
and who deserve them, and are now faced with having them taken away?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member asks what I am going to
tell community groups who provide these services. The honourable member forgets who the fine‑option
program is supposed to serve; that is, people who are sentenced to high levels
of fines and cannot afford to pay them.
That is whom the program is for.
It is not designed for community groups; it is designed for poor people
who cannot afford to pay their fines.
Those people who can afford to drive Mercedes Benzes around
The fine‑option program is cancelled
for offences like highway traffic offences and parking offences, Mr. Speaker,
and I acknowledge that.
Western
Economic Co-operation
Health
Care System
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, this week
in the House when we asked the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) a question on
integrated health care system, he did not respond to our question but rather
reduced the debate to that of a partisan one.
I believe that all Manitobans are tired of that.
Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity for
some creative ways to look at savings in health if we look at what the Maritime
Premiers are doing. I think it is
important, and all Manitobans want to be assured that we will have an intact
health care system, a home care system, and that at the same time, we can look
at being more efficient in how we spend our dollars.
My question to the Deputy Premier is: Will the Deputy Premier direct the Minister
of Health to pursue the idea of an integrated health care system as they are
looking at in the Maritimes?
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I really am intrigued with my
honourable friend's suggestion. I wish
my honourable friend had taken the time during the Estimates process to put a
little more flesh on the skeleton of what opportunities for integration she
might see with our neighbouring provinces of
Let me tell my honourable friend what we are
doing to date in terms of a national integration of program and approach, and
then what we are attempting to do on the prairie scene.
Firstly, nationally, all provincial
Ministers of Health‑‑New Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives‑‑agreed
to the reduction of graduate school sizes in medicine to come to grips with the
physician supply. As a further
reinforcement of that, that we have undertaken in Manitoba, we have discussions
underway now with Faculties of Medicine in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta
to attempt to find areas of program co‑operation, specialty co‑operation,
so that we do not each, province by province, replicate a complete menu of
specialty training programs but rather build programs of excellence province by
province, medical school by medical school.
Those discussions have been underway, Sir.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, well, that is interesting, that
the Minister of Health has asked that we put a bit more flesh on the
ideas. This is the minister who has the
budget. This is the minister who has all
the staff who can make sure they know exactly what is going on in the other
provinces.
I would ask the Minister of Health: Is he prepared to make the idea of integrated
health care a priority, and will he himself convene a conference of western
Premiers and Health ministers to specifically look at this very important
issue? Will he do that?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the reason I wanted to have my
honourable friend give me a little more enlightenment as to what the Liberal
Party would believe would be appropriate areas‑‑for instance, I
would like to know whether the Liberal Party agrees with the decision in
Saskatchewan to close 52 hospitals in rural Saskatchewan. I do not know whether my honourable friend is
in agreement, for instance, with some of the program changes that we made that
the Liberals have criticized which are consistent with changes that were made
in
We are doing a lot more co‑operation
in terms of provision of health care services than ever before. Some of the decisions my honourable friend's
colleague just criticized in the Home Care Program are consistent with
decisions made in
That is why I want to know, what does my
honourable friend believe we ought to co‑operate on?‑‑because
where we have co‑operated my honourable friend the Liberal has disagreed.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to the
Minister of Health.
Can the Minister of Health tell us: His Quality Health for Manitobans: The Action Plan, is this to be a made‑in‑Manitoba
action plan, or is it to be a made‑in‑Saskatchewan action plan?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where my honourable
friend is coming from, because my honourable friend well knows that the Health
Action Plan that was tabled May 14, 1992, and supported by the member for The
Maples‑‑would he still be here, we would have a consistent approach
from the Liberals in health care, but unfortunately he is not.
I indicated at the time that consultation
with Manitobans by the Health Advisory Network, and that advice was
incorporated into the Health Action Plan, consultation, for instance, with the
Urban Hospital Council, with the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation, with experts in Manitoba and some of the leading health‑care
planners in Canada and indeed, Sir, occasionally, United States, had input and
added‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Personal
Care Homes
Fee
Schedule
Mr. Bob Rose (
We all of us from time to time as MLAs have
phone calls from our constituents, and in the last couple of weeks a number of
calls have come in to my office concerning the personal care home
increases. Upon investigation, I found
that many of the concerns were based on a news release put out by the Manitoba
Medicare Alert Coalition‑‑of a number of organizations listed, I
note that Choices is one‑‑sent out by Tim Sale.
I am not going to read the whole news
release to identify all the inaccuracies, but I would like to give the Minister
of Health a question so that we may finally discern the facts.
Is it true, as is said in this news release,
that, therefore, income taxes are payable on the total fee?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I really
thank my honourable friend the member for
I assume the member for Kildonan passed this
on to his confrere, Tim Sale. But what
he failed to do was to pass on my explanation in Estimates that day which
explained the personal care home charges, because Mr. Sale inaccurately
portrayed the $15,600 independent living allowance as being taxable income,
with the threat in here that it was going to cause people‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable opposition House leader, on a point of order, I am sure.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker. We
let the question go by initially, although it violated several provisions of
Beauchesne 409. I can understand if the
Minister of Health and the government members are sensitive about criticism, particularly
by Tim Sale, who is respected in the community, but we hardly need to get into
this kind of debate.
If the minister wants to debate health care
with Tim Sale, I am sure that can be arranged.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable opposition House leader does not have a point of order.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Health is having great difficulty in hearing
the instructions from the Chair, and I wonder why.
Order, please. Right, Harry?
I have told the honourable Minister of
Health the honourable member did not have a point of order, and then I have
recognized the honourable Minister of Health to finish with his response.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the reason for my concern about
this press release by Tim Sale, the defeated NDP candidate, is that it was
basically reprinted word for word in the latest edition of the journal of the
Manitoba Society of Seniors. When it
contains incorrect, false information which raises fears among seniors, I am
concerned. That is why the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Mr. Rose: My supplementary is to the same minister, and
I would hope that all members of the House would have as much concern for the
seniors as I have for those people who have called me, and I am asking for
facts in response to information that is out in the general public. It is causing considerable trouble to the
point where some of my constituents have gone to a lawyer to ask if this is
fact.
My question to the minister: Is this quote from the press release put out
by Tim Sale fact? Quote, MMAC understands
that fees will be assessed by nursing home administrators who may be forced to
seize family assets to pay these new fees if the family refuses or is unable to
pay without selling their assets.
Mr. Minister, this is the kind of
information that is forcing my constituents to go to lawyers‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend my colleague
from
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that information
that people in
Mr. Speaker: And your question is?
Mr. Rose: My final question, again, from that press
release that says, this is clearly in violation of the spirit and intent of the
Canada‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
* (1410)
Point of
Order
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne
Citation 410.(5) says very clearly:
"The primary purpose of the Question Period is the seeking of
information and calling the Government to account."
Maybe the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
For sure, you have overstepped your bounds. You do not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
The honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), the two members, if you want to carry on a conversation you can easily
do so outside the Chamber. Right now the
honourable member for
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will make it very brief. I am merely trying to seek information‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would remind the honourable member that the honourable member should
ascertain the accuracy of his own facts prior to bringing it to the House.
Now, the honourable member for
Mr. Rose: I would ask the Minister of Health if this
quotation from the press release, that is clearly in violation of the spirit
and intent of the Canada Health Act, is correct.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, again, that is the reason why I
am so concerned when defeated NDP candidates put out this kind of information,
because again it is false.
When the Schreyer government insured
personal care home services, they charged a per diem. They have, in the Schreyer government, the
Pawley government, the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health will take
his seat, now.
Labour
Force Development Agreement
Consultations
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, in response to my question on
Labour Force Development agreements yesterday, the Minister of Education
indicated that she had completed five months of consultation with her joint
federal‑provincial management committee, and now there will be a
subsequent six months of consultation with Manitobans, thus extending the whole
process to 11 months.
Will the minister tell us today why on March
26 she promised that, and I quote, consultations to produce a made‑in‑Manitoba
solution would be completed in about six months, when in fact she has dragged
out this process so that the local boards, when they are established, will be
simply established at about the same time that the agreement expires in March
of '94?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
of course, as I said when I responded on that day, the consultation process
will be a six‑month consultation process. In preparation for that
process, agreement had to be reached between the federal government from whom
the funds will flow and the provincial government for a made‑in‑Manitoba
solution to come to agreement as to how that consultation will take place. That is exactly the work that has been done.
A Memorandum of Understanding is now
prepared, and we look forward very soon to starting the consultation process.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think we have another of those
rolling Tory deadlines here.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister give us a date when these
consultations will begin? Will she confirm
that those consultations will include the Manitoba Federation of Labour and
education and equality groups?
Mrs. Vodrey: The date will be set when the federal government
has signed the Memorandum of Understanding.
That is the position that we are at now.
Then, when that is completed, I will be announcing for the people of
Highway
Maintenance/Repair
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
our Highways critic raised concerns about northern roads. We have been advised that the
There are other problems that have also been
identified with 391 in northern
I would like to ask the minister, in the
same spirit in which he has indicated he will look at a stretch of the highway
that has led to two fatalities in the past year, will he also now look at the
very serious situation with Highways 384 and 391, and look at a significant
upgrade to those northern roads?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on Highway 384, I have
had the privilege to meet with some of the people directly in my office about
the condition of the road.
We had a limited amount of crushed gravel
that was available that was used for a portion of the road. A contract was let to take and do more
crushing, and, unfortunately, the operator could not get down there until
about, I think, a week ago. The crushing
should be taking place now. As soon as
that gravel is available, we will be spreading it on the road.
I have talked with my maintenance people to
make sure that we try and keep that road in as reasonable shape as possible.
Unfortunately, the weather conditions have been such that 384 is not the only
road that is having difficulty. Most of
the gravel roads are having difficulty with the amount of rain that we have
had. We are trying desperately to try
and keep them in reasonable and safe shape.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows:
the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for
St. Vital (Mrs. Render).
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) for the
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson)
for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources, meeting July 20, at 7 p.m., be amended
as follows: the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) for the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask if you could please call for continuation of debate on
second reading, to begin with Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act.
We will have other announcements, House
business, as the day progresses.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 52‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act; Loi sur la
Fondation du Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Inkster.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
It is my understanding from a briefing from
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that this act in fact came about as a
result of the desire of the universities and the hospitals in the province of
Manitoba to get a larger than normal tax credit for very large donations to
either the hospitals or the universities.
Since the hospitals and the universities of this province provide very
valuable and considerate service to the people of this province, I think it is
reasonable that they should be given the opportunity to raise large sums of
money and to be given an appropriate tax receipt or credit for those monies
raised.
I want to comment more specifically, Mr.
Speaker, on the role of the universities in this. There has been in the past a great reluctance
on the part of universities to accept corporate donations because of the whole
issue of academic freedom. I am pleased to
see that they are moving somewhat away from that. I do not think there has to be any conflict
between academic freedom and donations from corporations or indeed individuals
to those university institutions.
I think the corporate community and
individuals are unwilling to put too restrictive a control on the grants which
they give to universities. Should they
do such, then the universities are well within their right to refuse that
donation, and they should indeed do that.
But there has to be an ability, I think, for our universities and,
unfortunately, because of some of the policies of this government, even our
hospitals, to look more and more to the private sector for the raising of funds
to conduct not only primary research, but ongoing programs. If this Foundation Act makes it possible for
those universities and those hospitals to attract those donations which can
continue a high level of service, a high level of service which used to be
provided by government, but is no longer provided by government, then there
must be a vehicle whereby those universities and hospitals can obtain that
funding.
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to support
this bill. I will be the only speaker
from my party addressing this bill, and we are prepared to allow it to go to
committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 52, The Manitoba Foundation Act; Loi sur la
Fondation du Manitoba. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask if you could please call in this order Bill 49, The
Summary Convictions Amendment Act; Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime
Amendment Act; followed by Bill 42, The Liquor Control Amendment Act; followed
by Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, and then there will be
some further announcements on House business.
Bill 49‑The
Summary Convictions Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 49, The Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
poursuites sommaires et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre
loi, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett).
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the
principles of Bill 49, according to the Minister of Justice's (Mr. McCrae)
opening statements on second reading, is to, No. 1, remove parking tickets and
traffic fines from the fine‑option program, and the second major thrust
of this piece of legislation is to remove incarceration as a penalty for
nonpayment of these parking tickets and traffic fines. I will base my comments on the assumption
that those are the two principles in this particular piece of legislation. I am sure that the Minister of Justice will
correct me if I am wrong in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, on the second principle, that
of deinstitutionalization, if you will, or deincarceration for failure to pay
parking fines and small highway traffic act fines, we have no quarrel with that
element of the piece of legislation. We
would have preferred that The Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act would have included only that particular element of the
legislation, and we would be willing to support this bill should the minister,
in committee, choose to amend and delete all other elements of this
legislation.
However, Mr. Speaker, and I am not trying to
prejudge what the Minister of Justice will do in committee, but past experience
in dealing with this government in public hearings is that they are not prone
to make major changes in legislation. (interjection) I said they were not
prone; I did not say that they never did make major changes.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, when you look at a
government, a government brings in legislation and they have reasons and
principles and goals behind legislation.
If it is well drafted and well thought out they should have. So I do not expect legitimately the Minister
of Justice to make huge changes in pieces of legislation, nor do I expect other
members of the government to make major changes in legislation unless it can be
proven or shown very clearly by the opposition comments and most particularly
by concerns raised by the people of the province that the elements in the piece
of legislation are flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the House
today, and most particularly to the Minister of Justice, that much of Bill 49
is fatally flawed. Let me restate my
reasonings for saying that the first part of the legislation is flawed, that
is, removing many people in the province from accessing the fine‑option
program. That is flawed if the government is interested in carrying on the
goals of the fine‑option program which were and are, according to my
understanding of the legislation, to enable people to have an option to paying
fines.
Mr. Speaker, this particular element of the
current legislation has been used greatly by people who financially feel that
they cannot afford to pay the fine, although there is no means test for being
able to access the fine‑option program.
It is open to anyone as an option.
Mr. Speaker, if the government is committed
to retaining the principles of the fine‑option program, then the first
part of this legislation is fatally flawed, as an implementation of that goal.
However, Mr. Speaker, if, as I believe is
the true case and as I stated in my question this afternoon to the minister,
this government's true interest in making a change to Bill 49‑‑as
it has been the government's true interest in making other changes to other
pieces of legislation in this House‑‑is really not fairness and
equitableness and good service provision, but it is, where can we get some more
money?
The minister, in his statement on second
reading‑‑and as I have said before, the minister is very open about
it‑‑said, these changes to the fine‑option program are going
to save us a quarter of a million dollars.
The minister said, and I quote from Hansard
of June 25: "By removing them"‑‑that
is the highway traffic and parking ticket elements of the fine‑option
registration‑‑"we could save the province in the order of
$250,000 annually, beginning with just under $125,000 this fiscal
year." And my understanding of that
is that the legislation will not be implemented until approximately half.
According to my reading of what the minister
stated, is he saying that one of the benefits of this change will be saving the
government $125,000 or $250,000?
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that another
outcome of this legislation is going to be a reduction in the numbers of people
that will be able to use the fine‑option program. It will be a reduction in the number of
people that community groups will be able to access to help them with their
service provision.
This is an element of this piece of
legislation that was not discussed in detail by the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) and part of the legislation that I think is something that should be
looked at very carefully.
As the minister states, there is a network
of more than 140 community resource centres and over 500 work centres that
currently use the fine‑option program.
Now, by extrapolation, if you take 55
percent of the registrations from the fine‑option program out of the fine‑option
program you are left with approximately 45 percent of the numbers next year
that you have this year. I want to ask
the minister some questions on this, but out of that 45 percent that remains in
the fine‑option program a portion or the majority of those people will be
people who are responding or are doing the fine‑option program as a
result of a criminal conviction.
Now, some of the community groups that have
made use of the fine‑option program in the past are child care centres,
personal care homes, as well as community organizations such as the John Howard
Society, Winnipeg Harvest, the CNIB, the Manitoba Wheelchair Sports. I have not had an opportunity to get the
entire list, but many, many community groups.
Now, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I and others have questions about the
efficacy of this piece of legislation, because the impact is going to be so
devastating to these community groups and organizations which have made good
and effective use of the fine‑option program in the past.
The minister, I believe, and I am
paraphrasing him because I have not got Hansard from Question Period today,
stated in a response to one of my questions that the purpose of the fine‑option
program was to enable people who could not afford it to pay off fines. That is one of the purposes of the fine‑option
program.
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, one of the positive outcomes of
the fine‑option program as it is currently implemented is that not only
do people have the opportunity to pay off fines through community work, but the
community organizations also benefit greatly from the work that is done by
these individuals. That is going to be
taken, in large part, away from those community organizations, and that is an impact
of this piece of legislation that either the minister has not thought through
clearly enough or he has thought it through and is willing for those community
organizations to pay the price so that the government can save a quarter of a
million dollars.
I feel that is not fair. It is not just. It is not equitable, and it does not make
sense either from a social service point of view or from an economic point of
view. Those community groups, many of
whom have received major cutbacks from this provincial government over the last
few years and many of whom also have at the same time seen an enormous increase
in their workload and in the people that they service, are now being told that
they will not have access to the fine‑option program to enable them to
provide services more effectively and efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, there will still be people in
the fine‑option program, and I will ask the minister and discuss this in
committee, because it is not clear. The
percentage of those people left in the fine‑option program will be people
who are paying off fines as a result of criminal activity, as a result of
criminal convictions. There are many of
these community groups such as child care centres, daycares and possibly
personal care homes, who will not feel that they can make use of the fine‑option
program under this category. They were
able to make use of the fine‑option program as it was expanded before
Bill 49 because there were many people who were convicted of noncriminal
activities, who were convicted of traffic fines or speeding tickets or parking
fines. So I think this is a major
shortcoming in this piece of legislation.
Also, Mr. Speaker, another impact that this
legislation will have on the individuals who were, in the first place, able to
work off these noncriminal fines is that many of these individuals through
their fine‑option community work began to understand the importance of
working in a community, began to understand or had reinforced for them the
importance of "citizenship," finding that they enjoyed working in the
community.
I have people from Winnipeg Harvest telling
me that one of the most positive things about the fine‑option program for
them has been that not only do they get assistance with their program delivery,
but also that many of the people who worked off their fines came back after
their fines were paid and continued to volunteer at Winnipeg Harvest. I am sure that there are other community
organizations for which this is also true.
Mr. Speaker, I would also suggest that if
the minister is serious about breaking the cycle of violence, about dealing
with citizenship and prevention, the impact of the fine‑option program
before Bill 49 was positive. Now maybe
there are not thousands and thousands of people who would fit into this
category, but there are a number. I
think the minister has not thoroughly thought through the negative impacts of
this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like, through you to
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), to bring up a couple of issues that I
hope he will be able to address in committee or on third reading. The minister is fairly vague in his opening
remarks, and that is legitimate because it is an introduction of the bill. The minister states that currently one of the
weaknesses is that the fine‑option program can be used for small fines,
which may be less than the $40 fee paid by the province to community
organizations as the registration for the fine‑option program.
I would like to ask the minister what the
actual numbers are. What is the actual
number of people that will be affected by this?
What is the number of fines that are actually less than $40? Frankly, Mr. Speaker, is this a legitimate
concern other than in the area of the minister's trying to save money?
The minister also talks in his opening
remarks about the variety of collection measures that will now be put into
place instead of incarceration. As I
stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of the elimination of incarceration
as an option for people who have small fines, et cetera, that they are being
forced to pay, so we applaud the government for this change.
The minister talks about a variety of
collection measures that can be employed ranging from warning letters and
refusing to renew drivers' licences to seizure of vehicles and other
options. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
ask the minister what some of these other measures are that are being looked at
and see how efficacious they will be in actually implementing the goals of Bill
49. I would also like to ask the
minister what those costs are going to be, because implementing these new
collection measures will not be without cost.
When the minister stated that they would be
able to save $250,000 per annum by implementing Bill 49, we wonder if that is
after the costs have been taken into account of the new collection measures, in
which case this $250,000 would be a net figure, or is that a gross figure and
the costs of the new measures will have to be taken off that?
I tend to think it is the second. The $250,000 is a gross figure, not a net
figure, and the actual benefit in a financial way to the government will be
much less than is stated by the minister, which only reinforces our concerns
about this program. It is not cost beneficial, certainly not to the government
and most definitely not to the community organizations that have used the fine‑option
program. Frankly, it is probably not
going to be cost effective or fair economically to the people who will be now
forced to not have the option of working off their fine, and I will deal with
that in more detail when we get to committee hearings.
I would also like, finally, to ask the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) to clarify for me one final issue. I understand, according to the Minister of
Justice, that they are taking away incarceration from the bill, so that if a
person does not pay their fine, they will not be incarcerated. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned, and not being a
lawyer, I need clarification on this. It is my understanding that ultimately
there may be, in fact, incarceration as a result of Bill 49.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
I would like to give a specific case, a
suggestion. A person has been convicted
of a highway traffic violation. The
person is given a fine of $100. Now
there is no longer a fine‑option program available for this person, so
this person is required to pay that $100 fine.
The person does not pay the fine.
The collection measures, whatever they are, are unsuccessful in getting
the person to pay the fine. I would
suggest that there could be, in that particular case, the end result of
incarceration, a general warrant being issued for that person's arrest.
I hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) will be able to clarify that position for us prior to or during
committee hearings. But, if that is the
case, this really is not that much of a change.
In effect, it puts further down the road incarceration as an option, but
it does not eliminate it completely.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have outlined our
concerns on this piece of legislation.
It has only one positive element to it, and that is the
deinstitutionalization for minor infractions, which we heartily support. But that positive feature is far outweighed
by the negative impacts on the people who will come under this piece of
legislation, and the negative impacts of the community groups that currently
take advantage of the fine‑option programs, and the lack of real meaningful
financial savings to the government.
* (1440)
It is an ill‑conceived, ill‑thought‑out
piece of legislation, and I would hope that the minister will seriously
consider major amendments in committee, or perhaps even withdrawing the piece
of legislation entirely.
With those remarks, I conclude my comments
on Bill 49.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I can indicate that I
anticipate I will probably in all likelihood‑‑most likely‑‑given
that there are no changes and perhaps no altered circumstances, be the last
speaker from our side on this particular bill.
I think that the member for
The fine‑option program, I think all
members of this House will agree, is a very progressive and a very useful
program, particularly in instances where incarceration should not occur. It
provides an alternative to many individuals in our society who, through some
kind of contact with the criminal justice system or otherwise, are sentenced
and have an opportunity, rather than being incarcerated, to work through the
program.
In addition, the community benefits. Is that not indeed one of the primary functions
of our criminal justice rehabilitation system, which is to provide some
benefits to the community in return, through the working of the individual or
individuals‑‑in the case of an individual, who provides a return to
society.
The concerns, as raised by the member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett), are something that we would like to have answered in
terms of committee, as it relates to situations where an individual is perhaps
facing a fine, a nonpayment, and the fact that they might be incarcerated with
respect to an open warrant issued for their arrest as a result of an unpaid
fine.
I note that in this part of debate we are
generally not to deal with specifics.
I do note that Section 17(11) of this
particular act in general states that imprisonment cannot be imposed and a
warrant for persons' arrest and detention cannot be issued if the offence
relates to parking or offences related to The Highway Traffic Act, which may
very well, given that particular response in the bill, indicate that in fact an
individual will not indirectly be incarcerated as a result of this change in
policy and this change narrowing of the definitions of those who were able to
take advantage of the fine‑option program, et cetera.
We would like assurances from the minister
that in fact that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the exception
would refer to, quote, parking offences as referred to in Section 16(2) of the
act, as well as offences under The Highway Traffic Act or regulations under
that particular act. I do not know if it
appeals to other summary convictions or convictions of other summary matters
relating to perhaps regulatory offences and the like.
I think that a review in committee is
necessary as to when and where individuals could be incarcerated as a result of
an open warrant issuing for failure to pay fine, to ensure that an individual
is not indirectly incarcerated, as indicated by the member for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett), under the changes proposed by the minister concerning this act. So we will look very closely for
clarifications, Madam Deputy Speaker. We
will be looking for clarification from the minister in committee with respect
to that particular issue.
In general, we are concerned that the fine‑option
program, however, has been whittled down and cut down by this government. It is
something that does raise concerns on members of this side of the House,
because we have seen a whittling down of many of the very positive programs
that have been in place in our justice system for several years, primarily as
cost‑cutting measures. We only
need to look to the Department of Health to see a department where a government
proposes to reform and make things better and at the same time what they really
do is downsize and cut programs after programs after programs to the detriment
of the community and to the detriment of those who are receiving those
programs.
One only looks to the rally today of
hundreds of individuals at the Legislature to decry the minister's coldhearted
and ruthless cuts to the health care system.
That is why we on this side of the House are on guard and ever vigilant
from this government when they are engaging in their cutbacks and their
downsizing because the minister wields huge axes that pare away at the very
roots and the very foundations of many programs that have been put in place in
Manitoba and that, in the long run, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this is the
irony, cost us far more. One only needs again to look at the Department of
Health to see examples of this. It costs
us far more in the long run.
For a bunch over there who think they are
economic managers, they are very penny‑wise and pound‑foolish. They cut away programs that are preventative,
that help keep people, in this instance, out of reinvolvement with the
law. They might, in the long run, be
creating more of an expense and more human misery in this province as a result
of these kinds of cutbacks.
Again, one only needs to look at the
Department of Health as an example of a minister who has gone amuck, slashing
and cutting, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the detriment of the health and welfare
of the citizens of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) asks, what are we debating? I am only giving, by way of example, that we
are ever vigilant of this government in any area or any department when it cuts
and slashes, because what they say they are going to do and what they
ultimately do are generally two different things.
Madam Deputy Speaker, having provided those
comments, I believe, as I indicated earlier, I am the last speaker from our
side. I believe we are prepared to pass
this particular bill on to committee stage for consideration and, in
particular, for consideration of the issues raised by the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
* (1450)
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 49, The Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires et apportant
des modifications correlatives a une autre loi). Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No? All
those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 53‑The
Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 53,
The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'actes criminels), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker, I must apologize to
the House. I almost let myself be
distracted by the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard). I suggest it is a shame that we in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, to get back to‑‑(interjection)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I would appreciate the co‑operation of the honourable
members. I am certain the honourable
member for
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bill 53, which is an amendment to The
Justice for Victims of Crime Act, is again one in a long list of pieces of
legislation that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has brought forward this
session which is regressive in tone and punitive in implementation and outcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a theme and a
tone running through these pieces of legislation and through these bills that
bodes ill for the people of
As I have stated earlier in discussion on
these other bills, and think that Bill 53 follows in this guise, this
government has absolutely no political plan.
They have absolutely no idea of how to get this province out of the
deepest recession that it has ever been in.
The statistics are frightening enough and have been put on the record on
numerous occasions by members of my caucus.
It is not just the statistics nor even majorly the statistics we should
be concerned about when we deal with pieces of legislation like Bill 53. It is the people behind those statistics who
are our concern and should be the concern of the government.
The government certainly talks a good
line. The government talks about a
domestic violence‑free zone. The
government talks about its concern over the rising juvenile crime rate. It talks about its concern for maintaining
the basic services that the people of
When you take a look at the legislation that
this government has brought in this session and you couple it with the
legislation that it has brought in over its five years in office, very clear
themes emerge, and those themes are, as I have stated earlier, that this
government has no economic strategy. It
has no good, positive, concrete ideas as to how to get us out of the recession;
no good, positive, concrete ideas as to how to get people working again. It has no good, concrete ideas for protecting
the basic services that Manitobans deserve and have a right to expect from its
government.
This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not, on my
part, partisan rhetoric. I know that the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) in particular and his Premier (Mr. Filmon),
the member for Tuxedo, both state in responses to questions in this House with
a great deal of regularity that we are politicizing the issues. I would like to suggest to the government
that we are not politicizing issues. We
are raising issues that are of concern to us.
We are raising issues that have been brought forward to us by our
constituents throughout the
I know that every single member of this
House, including every single member of the government benches, has received
phone calls, conversations and letters of concern around every single one of
the issues that we have raised in this House.
This is not, in its most basic form, a political discussion, a partisan
political discussion. We on this side of
the House are doing our job as opposition members to call the government to
account for its actions.
In the context of Bill 53, I am going to
attempt to call the government to task for its actions in this piece of
legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, The Justice for Victims of Crime Act was
first implemented in 1986, and it was designed to provide a fund from which
nongovernmental programs could take resources.
The fund was to be established and is currently established through
surcharges on fines that are levied on individuals who have been convicted of
criminal offences.
It is a very nice concept, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that there is a direct correlation between the punishment levied on a
person convicted of a criminal action and the positive consequence that can
come out of that punishment; that is, this fund which is established out of
part of the punishment for a crime then enables groups and organizations to
fund projects and programs to assist the victims of those same criminal
actions.
It is a very simple concept in theory, and
it has worked quite well in practice. We
are very concerned that Bill 53 will gut the bases of the victims of crime
assistance fund.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just very
briefly like to read into the record some of the grants that the Victims
Assistance Fund has funded over the years.
These grants come from the 1989‑1990 annual report, but they are
grants that are similar throughout the history of this fund. There was a grant to implement a needs
assessment for victim services. There
was a grant to enable a publication of domestic abuse information. There was a
grant to assist the Age and Opportunity Centre in attending the Canadian
organization of Victims Assistance conference which enabled people who work
with victims‑‑in this case, elderly victims‑‑to get together
to talk about issues of concern, to bring forth ideas, to do
"networking."
There was a grant to provide for the
continuation of service delivery to survivors of homicide, again, victims of
crime, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a
research project on childhood victimization, antecedence to prostitution. Again, if we are going to be able to assist
people to get out of the cycle of poverty, to get out of the cycle of violence,
to get out of the cycle of prostitution, to get out of the cycle of drug abuse,
we have to understand what the causes of these situations are. We have to be able to identify the kinds of
programs that can help, and research is essential in this regard. The Victims Assistance Fund has over its
years funded a number of research projects that have, as their specific target,
victims' assistance programs and support services.
* (1500)
We have a police project. The
Now, every single one of these programs and
research projects were delivered to nongovernmental agencies. In some cases, they were delivered to
agencies which are funded partially by the government, such as Age and
It was not designed to provide general
operating revenue for the Department of Justice, nor was it designed to provide
general operating revenue for any other government department. It was specifically designed to provide
nongovernmental groups with funding.
I was not a member of government in 1986
when this particular piece of legislation was originally passed, but I would
assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the careful separation shown in the Victims
Assistance Fund act was deliberate.
It was deliberate because it was an
understanding and a recognition on the part of the government of the day that
these projects are not the kind of projects‑‑they are not the kind
of pilot project or research project that can legitimately be undertaken by a
government under its department with any degree of success. That is largely due to the fact that
government responsibilities are, in large part, with direct service provision.
The role of government is very different
than the role of pure research or even applied research in most cases. So the government of the day recognized this
and said, well, we need to have pilot projects; we need to have research in the
area of victims' assistance.
Let us set up a fund paid for by fines
levied on people who have been convicted of criminal acts and use that fund to
assist nongovernmental organizations and agencies in doing pilot projects and
research projects that may then eventually have the outcome of becoming
governmental programs, such as we hope the elder abuse project will become
ultimately part of the core funding of the government. That may be an end result of some of these
projects.
But the research grants would not be
ongoing. These projects and these grants
were all time limited, and they were all designed to provide the government
with assistance in services and information, but not directly under a
government line in the budget.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, my reading of the
minister's comments on second reading in this regard is to really undermine
that basic principle of separation of the fund from government programming because
this amendment‑‑and I quote from the minister's comments, Hansard,
June 25‑‑" . . . will allow for the cost recovery of
government‑driven programs from the Victims Assistance Fund. This will enable these programs to expand and
provide better service to victims of crime in
There is no one in this House on either our
side of the House or the government side of the House who would disagree with
the need for increased and expanded programs to service victims of crime.
That is not the point here. The point is that the government is raiding
again. It is saying we have a fund here
of money and, oh boy, we need to access that money. We need to get our hands on that money. We have gotten our hands on some money
through deindexing criminal compensation; we have gotten our hands on some more
money by eliminating over half of the fine‑option program. Here is another way, here is another pot that
we can access.
We do not have an economic development
strategy. We do not have any job
creation programs. We do not have any
concept of revenue generation, except to take from the victims and take from
the external agency that provides service to victims of crime in the
They are doing it because they do not have
any other sources of revenue. They are
doing it because they have no ideas.
They have no concept of what government should be about, and they are
saying, we really want to not have to make tough decisions on making fair
revenue decisions. We want to be able to
have our Bob Kozminskis and our Arni Thorsteinsons and our major profit‑making
corporations continue to reap the benefits of tax loopholes and regressive tax
policies. We are going to instead claw
back services, claw back benefits, take away from the victims of crime in this
province.
I say that with all sincerity. I really believe that this a disgusting,
despicable piece of legislation, and it has no business seeing the light of
day. I would like to conclude my remarks
by commenting on what the minister stated in his remarks of June 25, when he
said: " . . . the purpose of this
legislation is to clarify the intention of The Justice for Victims of Crime
Act."
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have spoken
in this House about the fact that this government reinvents definitions. They reinvent definitions of contribution in
health care. Here again is another
example of a reinvention or a new definition for a word.
The purpose of this bill is not to clarify
the intentions of The Justice for Victims of Crime Act. The purpose of this piece of legislation is
pure and simple: to emasculate the
intentions of The Justice for Victims of Crime Act. It is to open the cookie jar so that the
government can take the money that this fund has established, and can use it
for its ongoing operations.
There is nothing in this legislation that
says that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) cannot use this fund to help pay
for the deputy minister's salary. There
is no prohibition on the uses that this money can be put to under Bill 53. Before Bill 53, it was very clearly
identified that that fund was to be used for nongovernmental services,
projects, and research grants.
Now, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae),
and I suppose by definition, any member of the government or of the front benches
can say, h'm, here is a million and a half, here is $2 million. Well, we are a
little short on Connie Curran's next monthly payment, so let us take some of
the money that was supposed to be used for services for victims, and we will
say, because we are going to pay half a million dollars to Connie Curran out of
this fund, we can free up a half a million dollars, so we will not have to cut
half a million dollars out of some other program.
That kind of sleight of hand is going to
happen under Bill 53. I say that because
this has happened in other legislation in this government. This government cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted.
* (1510)
When the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) says, trust me, we will not do this; when the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) says, this will not happen; when the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
says, this is going to be the only outcome of this piece of legislation, trust
us, the people of Manitoba know that this is not true. The government cannot be trusted because it
has gone back on its word innumerable times.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I would
just like to state that if it had not been made abundantly clear before, I will
state it very clearly now, the New Democratic Party in caucus assembled is
totally unalterably and forever in opposition to Bill 53 in principle and in
every single one of its clauses. Thank you.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 42‑The
Liquor Control Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 42
(The Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des alcools et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
We have some major concerns with this piece
of legislation, and I am counting, as I know I can with utmost certainty, on
the words of wisdom from my caucus colleagues to clarify our concerns on this
piece of legislation, so I will not spend any more time dealing with Bill 42 at
this time. Thank you.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to spend
some time going over Bill 42 and expressing some of the concerns that the
member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I expect that I will
not be as brief as the member for
Over the past 12 years there have been many,
many amendments to The Liquor Control Act.
On many occasions in the past 12 years we have amended the act which has
led, really in my opinion, to bringing our governance of the control of alcohol
in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many of us
who look at the current regime of control of alcohol as really a throwback in
response to prohibition, response to genuine concern amongst people of the day
about the effects of alcohol. I do not
think anybody, certainly not in this Chamber, can deny that alcohol has, is
having and will have a profound effect on our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want anything
that we suggest, that we talk about in this Chamber, and nothing that I say
about relaxing some of the rules and regulations that govern alcohol
consumption in the province, to suggest that alcohol is not a serious
problem. Alcohol is, without doubt, the
most used drug in the world. It is used
in virtually every society around the world in one form or another. The consequences of its use are to be found
everywhere, especially when we had prohibition, the member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner) says. The impacts of the
consumption of alcohol are as profound in my constituency as any of the
province.
People will know that in the past two
decades health care officials have identified a new syndrome related to alcohol
consumption, particularly alcohol consumption during the early stages of
pregnancy. Fetal alcohol syndrome, which
is the condition caused by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy, is a
serious health problem, but it is, more importantly, a serious social problem. This syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, has
side effects, has repercussions for our community, for our education system,
for our family services, our social assistance system which are profound and
lasting.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those who are affected
by alcohol, who show the symptoms of fetal alcohol syndrome, can, in effect, be
nonfunctioning members of society. In
some communities, particularly some remote communities, certainly in most
northern communities, there are individuals who show symptoms of fetal alcohol
syndrome. We are just now beginning to
understand the additional cost that we are going to incur because of
consumption of alcohol.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not one who
believes that we are going to, in any way, be able to eliminate the consumption
of alcohol, but I think there are many things that we can do to ensure that we
educate the public, that we educate, in particular, pregnant women about the
dangers of consuming alcohol during pregnancy.
I do not know how many members of the Chamber know that in the Yukon,
for example, every single bottle of alcohol that is sold through the Yukon
Liquor Commission, the equivalent of the Manitoba Liquor Commission, has a
large yellow sticker on the bottle, whether it is a bottle of liquor or a
bottle of beer or a bottle of wine that says:
Drinking alcohol may harm your child.
I believe that as we proceed and as we have proceeded in the past few
years to attempt to, in some sense, liberalize our drinking laws, that we have
an equal responsibility to make sure that the public is aware.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the things
that I think the government should consider, and I wish and I hope that the
minister will read my remarks, because I believe the time has come for us to
put warning labels on alcohol bottles. I
remember when the first warning labels were applied to cigarettes. I remember the reaction of the industry,
reaction of the advertising industry, but since we began to seriously educate
the public about the dangers of smoking, the dangers of smoking while you are
pregnant, the long‑term dangers of smoking, the statistics clearly show
that Canadians have heeded that warning. We have seen a decline in smoking that
would have been so unpredictable and was unpredictable.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I recently attended a
meeting where there were some 45 people.
Not one of those people in that public meeting was smoking. When someone asked whether the group minded
if he smoked in this case, everyone said yes.
It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago
for anyone to even consider that an individual smoking might interfere with the
rights of others. To suggest that a
person could be ejected from a room for simply smoking would have been
completely inconceivable, 20 years ago.
Today, it is commonplace. Today,
the shoe is on the other foot and the people who smoke ask, in most cases
pleadingly, if you mind if they smoke.
We can do the same thing with alcohol. If we are going to liberalize, and I am not
going to say encourage, but liberalize the laws governing alcohol consumption,
then we should take the next step and make sure that people are aware of the
dangers. We all know that alcohol is
addicting. We all know that alcohol has
serious side effects. The government,
and I have given them credit for this on many occasions, took the initiative
with Bill 3 to make sure that impaired driving and drinking and driving was not
condoned in any sense by members of the Legislature or by most Manitobans.
We need to take the next step and ensure that
the next most serious repercussion for alcohol consumption, and that is
consumption of alcohol during pregnancy with the corresponding fetal alcohol
syndrome children that we are seeing‑‑we need to put a large
warning on our bottles of alcohol, and we should do it now. Other jurisdictions are doing it. It is time that we did it.
* (1520)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make sure
that this is not construed as an attack on the alcohol industry, the alcohol
producers, the breweries in our province or an attack on those who supply
alcohol, because drinking, like smoking, is a matter of individual choice. If we accept that premise, we should believe
here that it is informed choice.
Informed choice means knowing all of the risks associated with an activity
and clearly, because from my perspective the costs of not addressing the
question and the concern over fetal alcohol syndrome children is of such
proportion that we just cannot ignore it.
I think that we should have an amendment
that provides for a warning label on all of the alcohol containers distributed
in the province which identifies that particular concern. I was told, as a matter of fact, in an
emergency meeting that was held in Thompson to deal with the community of
Shamattawa's crisis, that one in three in that community are or may be affected
by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this problem is not
confined to rural communities or northern communities. This problem exists in every part of the province
in every social strata amongst every ethnic group. The fact is that until the last decade, the
serious nature, the serious consequences of drinking while pregnant were not
well understood. We now know the
consequences, and we should do something about it.
I am going to leave that issue and I hope
that the minister responsible will take this seriously, will look at the
potential for taking that next step. I
do not believe that in jurisdictions like the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to add,
although those specific suggestions do not come from the Assembly of Manitoba
Chiefs, I do have a copy of a letter that was sent by Grand Chief Phil Fontaine
to the minister responsible, expressing concern for the liberalization of the
laws governing alcohol consumption in the province. I will leave it to the minister to address
the concerns directly that are raised by Grand Chief Fontaine. I think clearly there is a recognition that
alcohol is not simply a revenue generator for the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to spend
a minute or two on some of the specifics of the bill and some of the areas
where we have some concerns.
I believe, first of all, that one of the
fatal flaws and one of the reasons why it is going to be very difficult for
members on this side of the House, members of the New Democratic Party to
support this legislation is the decision on the part of the government to begin
privatizing alcohol sale. Madam Deputy
Speaker, the issue of the establishment of privately owned wine boutiques is a
serious issue that needs, I think, public discussion.
I have already said, in other forums, that
perhaps what we need is a period where this specific issue is dealt with,
because once we establish the principle that the Manitoba Liquor Commission is
no longer the sole supplier of alcohol and the profits that we derive as a
society from the sale of alcohol are now going to be shared with private
entrepreneurs, I think we are on a slippery slope. I am not sure that any government would be
able to withstand the pressure to continue that process into beer and other
spirits, heading us again to the Americanization of the distribution of alcohol
in
Madam Deputy Speaker, what I want to talk
about when it comes to the specialty wine shops or the wine boutiques is the, I
think, rather‑‑I was going to say devious, but it is not really
devious. I think it is clumsy more than
devious, the approach they have taken to this problem.
I asked the minister some days ago, when the
Manitoba Liquor Commission was in committee to review its annual report, what
motivated the government to proceed with the establishment of specialty wine
boutiques. I want to remind this Chamber
what the minister said motivated her, what her first response to that question
was. What the minister said was, one of
the first meetings she had was with three individuals who wanted to sell
alcohol, three individuals who I believe she said were members of a wine club
or were wine enthusiasts who wanted to start selling specialty wines.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister
acknowledged there was no hue and cry from the public of
Mr. Smith, the president and chief executive
officer of the Manitoba Liquor Commission, indicated that, yes, indeed, not
only had they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars establishing specialty
wine boutiques, one of the largest of which is in the Grant Park Shopping
Centre, but he also indicated and was quite enthusiastic about the fact that
the Liquor Commission had also spent thousands and thousands of dollars of
taxpayers' money training staff so that they would have the necessary expertise
to work in these wine boutiques.
So the Liquor Commission spent hundreds of
thousands creating the wine boutiques, building the actual facilities, and then
they spent more money training staff to make sure that they could provide a
level of service that was commensurate with the boutique status, I guess, Madam
Deputy Speaker. So you have to ask
yourself‑‑and this government was in office most of the time during
which these wine boutiques were being established‑‑what is the
strategy? If they are going to spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars creating wine boutiques for the public and
training staff, why are they turning around and allowing, encouraging the
establishment of specialty wine boutiques which are going to compete with the
very boutiques they established on their own?
Madam Deputy Speaker, it gets worse than
that, and I think this is where you have to seriously question the integrity of
the government itself for the way they have conducted this particular
implement. As I was saying a minute ago,
there was no hue and cry from the public for the establishment of wine boutiques. The chief executive officer of the Liquor
Commission indicated there was certainly no complaints from the public to his
knowledge, so why then, even before this legislation passed, did the government‑‑and
I believe they instructed the Manitoba Liquor Commission to place ads in our local
stores and local papers advertising for an entreprenurial opportunity for
people interested in wine boutiques.
* (1530)
There are two other sinister facts which we
have to look at before we talk about this particular advertising. No. 1, Madam Deputy Speaker, was the
establishment, the registration of a business name, which was clearly designed
solely to take advantage of the opportunity to become a wine boutique. What is also transparently obvious to members
of the
But what makes it more obvious, what makes
it more transparent that the government actually has a hidden agenda, that the
government is going to use this legislation as an opportunity to help out some
of their friends, are the criteria they use to screen the specialty wine
boutique proposals that the Liquor Commission is going to get.
I should say that it is not the Manitoba
Liquor Commission that is ultimately going to decide who gets to establish
these opportunities in
But I want to spend a minute talking about
the criteria. These criteria were quite obviously written for people that the
minister responsible had in mind, and I want to read into the record the
criteria that were published in the paper.
It says:
Pending the approval of legislation‑‑acknowledging that we
do not even have any‑‑successful applicants for this program will
be selected from interested persons who meet the following minimum
requirements: knowledge, background and
interest in wine‑‑well, that would pretty well cover most people
who enjoy wine‑‑successful business experience in the province, and
sufficient financial resources, minimum $250,000 in liquid assets.
Now I asked the minister whether there was
some pun intended in using the words "liquid assets," and she assured
me there was not, but the $250,000 minimum is ludicrous. It is absolutely and totally ludicrous. It is meaningless.
If someone could not organize a wine boutique
with less than $250,000 worth of liquid assets, they probably should not be in
business. I personally have spoken to
someone who is very knowledgeable in the industry who indicates that $50,000 or
$60,000 would certainly be adequate. All
that this is doing is eliminating and limiting who shall apply. That is all that they are doing.
The fact of the matter is that if the
government was serious about this proposal, if it was not going to turn into
some opportunity on behalf of the government to lay out some political plums,
they would offer these licences the same way they offer beverage licences and
cocktail licences and all other categories of licence in the province of
Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what they would do is
simply establish the criteria that need to be met for you to be eligible to
have a licence to sell specialty wines.
That is all they would have to do.
Just as anyone who builds an establishment
now has to meet certain criteria to get a beverage licence, they would have to
meet the criteria, and there would be no interference. That is what it is going to be: political interference on the part of the
Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council and part of the cabinet to
ensure that "friends" get these licences.
So this in and of itself is sufficient
reason to vote against this legislation.
The fact of the matter is‑‑(interjection) The member for St.
Norbert usually drinks a once‑famous wine that was made in
The provisions in this section of this bill‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to pay particular attention to the honourable member
for Flin Flon on his remarks, and I am being distracted by some peripheral
noise around my chair.
An Honourable Member: Oh, we are sorry, Mr. Minister.
An Honourable Member: That is not a point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Well, that is questionable. The honourable minister I do believe did have
a point of order. I was trying to listen
to every word the honourable member for Flin Flon was saying too, and I was experiencing
some difficulty.
* * *
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the
interjection of the member for
On this point I think there are two sets of
objections, and I want to emphasize that we are not alone in expressing concern
about the privatization of liquor sale in
Madam Deputy Speaker, they point out another
fact which the government has missed, and I mentioned it. Right now, the way the legislation reads, any
wine that is listed with the Manitoba Liquor Commission that is being sold at
the specialty wine boutique has to be sold at the same price. What is going to happen and what happens in
What has happened in other provinces, and I
will use
The discount‑‑for the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), who probably knows this‑‑is more
significant for the specialty wine boutiques than it is, of course, for other
cocktail lounges and beverage rooms and licence holders who purchase it, where
I understand the discount is more like 7 percent or 8 percent or 9 percent or
10 percent.
So it is not only a question of
principle. This government that
maintains at every opportunity that it needs more government revenue is
actually giving away government revenue.
Tens of millions of dollars is going to be lost through this exercise,
certainly if these boutiques are successful, never mind the lost investment in
establishing the boutiques to begin with.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the experience in other jurisdictions shows us
that.
* (1540)
I emphasize again and for the member for St.
Norbert or the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), the bottom line is
there has been no public clamour for this.
I have never met anyone who said, gosh, I cannot get the kinds of wines
I need; I am so disappointed, or that the people who are serving us currently
in the liquor stores are not able to give us the proper advice. This is a facade. The Conservative government, this government
is introducing the privatization of wine because they have a few friends who
want it to happen, who want to take advantage, who want to have the opportunity
to make money in an area that has been very lucrative for the
I want to finish on that point with respect
to the specialty wine shops. I think the
government is being underhanded. I think
they are being devious. I think that
they lack integrity on this issue, and I am not satisfied that we are doing the
right thing in any event.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a couple of
other concerns that I think also need to be addressed. One of them, and I know the minister and I
have had a chance to talk about this, is the issue of the sale of alcohol on credit. I know, and every member of this Chamber
knows, that for any one of us, if we are over the age of 18 and have access to
a credit card, we can buy alcohol on credit.
You can currently go to a cocktail lounge or a restaurant, virtually
anywhere in the province, and, in effect, buy alcohol on credit.
The provisions in this bill in my reading of
it go one step further. Buying alcohol
on a credit card is a totally different matter than allowing any kind of credit
arrangement, which is what I believe this legislation contemplates. I say that because when a person uses a
credit card, there is an independent third party that arbitrates how much you
spend. Most people have credit cards
that have reasonable limits. In other
words, credit cards that have a $3,000 or $5,000 limit, but if you leave the
issue of credit to individual suppliers, whether they are vendors or licensed
beverage suppliers or any other supplier, and you put no controls on it, there
is inevitably going to be circumstances where individuals who have an addiction
to alcohol consume more than they can afford, and there are no limits. It is conceivable that someone with a
generous heart and a big appetite could end up at $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000
in debt to some supplier because of these provisions.
We will have people running tabs, which is
currently not allowed in hotels and bars across the country. For most people, that is not going to be a
problem, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to put to you a scenario which, I
think, is conceivable: an individual of
modest means with an addiction to alcohol, a person who is an alcoholic,
continues to drink and run up a tab at an establishment in
Madam Deputy Speaker, if this bill is only
talking about the use of credit cards, then that is one issue. If we are talking about allowing individual
suppliers to indeed make up their own credit arrangements, I think we have a
different problem and a problem of a different magnitude. I raise that concern, and I would like the
minister to address that in her closing remarks on second reading as well.
The other issue which has been raised by a
number of people outside of this Chamber is the question of the deregulation of
the provisions which govern licensing of beverage rooms and cocktail lounges
and cabarets. The minister, when she
introduced Bill 42, tabled a long list of deregulation items. Some of them, I think, are of little
consequence, but others, I think, are of some consequence.
I know that issues like the size of glass
that is used are probably of no consequence.
There are many other small amendments that I do not think are going to
receive significant opposition. For
example, the licensees will no longer require written approval to adopt shorter
hours; licensed premises will no longer be required to sell at least one light
beer‑‑all kinds of regulatory changes which, I think, have little
bearing on either the health of individuals or the health of the industry.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is some question
about the decision to remove the provisions governing, I guess, room standards
and the quality of hotel rooms that are attached to beverage rooms. I know the argument is that the buyer beware,
but although it was not normal, liquor inspectors did have the power, if they
were not satisfied with the quality of rooms attached to a beverage room, to
suggest, if not require, that the rooms be upgraded, that the windows at least
be able to be open. They had some control over the quality of
accommodation. I think in the long run,
we may want to watch very carefully how this relaxing of standards affects not
only the establishments themselves but affects the view of the travelling
public and tourists in Manitoba, how it impacts on their perception of the
quality of accommodations in the province.
There are a couple of other issues that have
been raised, for example, by the Manitoba Hotel Association. The Hotel Association is concerned with
subsection 96(1), which deals with gaming in licensed establishments. Particularly, they are concerned about one of
the clauses which talks about the obligation on the part of an owner to ensure
that no game or sport that is played poses a risk of injury to the participant.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are very few games or sports that do not hold
some risk. Even if you are going to
allow darts in a bar, there is the risk of injury. So I think we need to ensure that we place
reasonable limits on that requirement.
How much time do I have left?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Three minutes.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the hotel association
also raised the concern with respect to the obligation of owners to monitor and
be responsible for individuals who leave their premises. Clearly, we want to control violence outside
of these drinking establishments generally, but the hotel association, at least,
is of the opinion that this is an undue onus on them and leaves little
responsibility with others and with the individual drinkers themselves. It also, for example, they believe, would not
allow them to eject someone from a drinking establishment, from the bar, and
remain on the premises. In other words,
they could not be expelled from the bar and go into their hotel room. There is
some belief that it may be interpreted that way.
* (1550)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the other one, and the
other serious one, deals with the decision of the government to eliminate the
requirement that a certain amount of food be served with alcohol or a certain
food with alcohol, the percentage that currently exists and has existed sort of
by mutual agreement for a long time.
This is a serious issue for the hotel association and for a lot of its
members, people who have invested a lot of money in making sure that they had
adequate food available between the required hours. It will make it easier for competition to
undermine their investment, and I think that is a legitimate concern. Certainly, from our point of view, because
these establishments tend to employ large numbers of people, there is a concern
that we are going to lose employment as the end result of all of this.
So those are some of the concerns that we
have with this legislation. As I say, I
know that there are a number of other individuals and groups out there who have
concerns, including the coalition for responsible liquor laws, who believe that
we need to have a longer and more extensive public debate about the issue of
alcohol sales in the province, particularly about the privatization of alcohol
sales and a review of the programs and the supports that are available for
people who ultimately are the victims of the alcohol policies of the
government.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to
again urge the Conservative caucus to consider the issue of placing a warning
label on all alcohol containers, which simply says, drinking alcohol may injure
your child, because the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome is a serious one for
all of us, and this is one way I think we could address it.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(River Heights): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
42 today because, like the member, I have some questions with respect to this
particular piece of legislation, questions I hope that the minister can clarify
to some degree in the committee stage or even hopefully accept some friendly
amendments which would enhance this particular piece of legislation.
Let me begin by thanking the member for Flin
Flon for addressing the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome, which I myself have
spoken to on a number of occasions in this House. I think the recommendation that he has made
and which I concur with, which is that labelling on bottles would go a long way
to identifying this very serious health hazard in our society, would be
extremely useful and cost‑effective and could be done with limited
objections.
I want to spend my time today specifically
addressing Bill 42. There are, I think,
some positive things about this bill. There are some changes with regard to
lifting some of what were pretty odious restrictions on many restaurateurs and
owners of licensed establishments in the
I really do not think, quite frankly, that
it is the business of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission to determine what
kind of knives and forks are used in restaurants. I think that is irrelevant and
unnecessary. That is the kind of
regulation which quite frankly gives government a bad name because people think
that they are constantly dealing with bureaucratese instead of dealing with
true issues.
However, there has been a positive aspect of
the ability of the Liquor Control Commission to examine decor before they
actually issue the licence, and this is an issue that I would like the minister
to seriously consider. I think that when
a restaurateur decides on a decor that is reasonable, then they should have
little or no difficulty having approval given to that decor by the Manitoba
Liquor Control Commission.
However, we are all aware that there are
establishments in our community which, in my opinion, do not place women in a
very high‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I wonder if I might ask those members carrying on private conversation
that they do so either in the loge or outside the Chamber so that I can hear
the comments of the honourable member for
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, there are certainly, within
our province, certain drinking establishments which I think debase women, and I
am concerned that if there is no limit whatsoever on the decor of these
establishments, there may be further debasement of women within those
establishments.
Therefore, although I do not want an
ironfisted, heavily inspected control commission at work, I think that there
may still be within the department a desire to maintain a final say on the
decor approval of a liquor licence in the
This would be just that quick examination
which would ensure, I think, that we have within our community not censorship, but
a recognition that the debasement of women, and the prevention of that
debasement, is not a form of negative censorship.
Some of the other issues, however, which
come up in this particular bill also cause me some concern. I think that at first glance there is some
interest in having wine boutiques, places where individuals can go to purchase
wines that are perhaps not available in liquor outlets.
But what has happened over the last couple
of years is that there is more and more availability of those wine selections
within liquor stores themselves. Perhaps
the wine boutique was more required five years ago than that wine boutique is
required today. Five years ago, it was,
quite frankly, difficult to obtain within communities many wines that one
wanted.
So I wonder why we have chosen this
particular time to move to a wine boutique when we have already made
considerable progress within Manitoba Liquor Control Commissions themselves, in
providing a variety of wines. I also
wonder why we have not questioned or examined these changes with the public.
In the past, whenever a government wanted to
make significant changes to The Liquor Control Act, they have had widespread
public hearings prior to the introduction of a piece of legislation. This has not been the case with respect to
this piece of legislation. So we do not
know, quite frankly, whether there is a desire on the part of Manitobans for a
broadening of the sale and availability of alcohol, and whether or not there is
a desire to have a privatization, at least, of the selling of wines. I think that is something that would be
worthy to know, and to have had some analysis before this legislation was
presented to us.
An additional concern that I have is with
respect to the hours of operation of the wine boutiques. I wonder if this is not going to cause some
conflicts, not just with the Manitoba Liquor Commission outlets themselves, but
for Manitoba Liquor Control Commission outlets that are located in private
establishments.
I think, for example, of the one at the
lake. Are you now going to permit a wine
boutique in the little shopping centre at Traverse Bay, which is going to be
opened on Sunday, but you are going to require that the grocery store, which is
the official outlet for the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission‑‑is
that going to be required to shut down, as it is now on Sunday?
Is that going to put that small grocery
store owner in conflict with the wine boutique in that the hours of one are not
identical to hours of the other? Those
are concerns that have not been addressed in this particular piece of
legislation, and I hope that the minister will address some of those in her
opening remarks to the committee when this bill goes to committee.
I think also that there are some legitimate
questions that should be asked about liberalization of liquor control laws at
all. You know, it is interesting that
most of us in this House would deny being drug abusers. Most of us would say, no, we do not abuse drugs
under any circumstances, and yet I would suspect that the vast majority of us
in the House have, at least on one occasion, abused alcohol.
* (1600)
Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in
The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) talks
about nicotine, and, yes, it is true, it is also a drug. But, in fact, statistics would have us now
understand that there are far fewer people who are smoking than there are
people who are drinking. So, if you are
abusing a drug, the drug of choice in
When we look at liberalization of laws with
respect to the use and therefore the abuse of this particular drug, then I
think there has to be broader consultation with the body politic as to whether
this is in everyone's best interest.
There are some changes, however, which I
find difficult to find any objection to, for example, beer vendors in hotels
would no longer be restricted to selling only domestic beer. I see no reason why they should not be
allowed to sell other beers if that is the wish of the consumers who are
purchasing the product from the vendor.
I also see, quite frankly, no objections to
the use of VISA or Chargex or other forms of plastic. I think that the first step that we took in
that direction was allowing people to cash cheques. Once we have, in essence, allowed them to
cash cheques, I see no difference, quite frankly, between the cashing of a
cheque and the use of a piece of plastic, be it a VISA or a Chargex card or an
American Express or any other form of card that is acceptable to that
particular outlet.
That is a change which some people might
take great offence at but which I think is just a reflection of the society in
which we live, that people are carrying less and less cash in their pocket and
that most of us are carrying probably far too much plastic.
My other concerns with respect to this bill
is with regard to the hours that seem to becoming even more open. I find it somewhat ironic that, on the one
hand, we have a government that appears to be seriously looking at age
restrictions on drivers licences, part of which is caused by the fact that
young people are consuming alcohol and then are driving automobiles. That, I think, is a reasonable examination,
but at the same time we are suggesting that we should make the ability to
purchase that liquor even more and more available to them.
I think that it is an interesting balance
that we seem to be examining here, and I wonder if in fact it is what we truly
want to do, because I think it is perfectly clear that at the present time,
rules in the province of Manitoba do not deny anyone a drink if they truly want
a drink at almost any hour of the day that they want it. One questions why we would think it necessary
to make liquor even more available than it is at the present time.
The Manitoba Government Employees'
An Honourable Member: If.
Mrs. Carstairs: If, and I do say, if it is a valid
survey. I have only seen part of the survey,
but the information that I have been given is that it is a random sample of 400
Manitobans and is accurate within 4.9 percent 19 times out of 20, which makes
it a relatively valid poll. Some polls
go as low as a 3 percent validity rate and they go to a 5 percent, so it is
well within that range.
The survey was apparently completed the
first week of July and it asks the following question: All of the profits from wine and liquor sales
in
The second question they asked, and which I
think is a somewhat loaded question, says:
The last time the provincial government looked at major changes to the
province's liquor laws, they consulted with the public before any changes were
implemented. This time the government‑‑and
this is what I think is somewhat loaded‑‑is rushing to have the
legislation approved without any public discussion, and that is just not
acceptable. Of course, 76 percent agreed with that statement, and 18.8 percent
disagreed. I would have liked to have
seen the question without the "rushing to legislation," and then we
might have had a little bit more valid statement on that.
The question was then asked: I would like to have a wine store in my
neighbourhood which is open long hours, seven days a week. Madam Deputy Speaker, 69.6 percent of the
respondents said no, they did not want a wine store in their local
neighbourhood. However, it might have been more interesting if the question had
been asked, would you like to access a wine store, because what we have found
with regard to many of these things is that everybody wants it in somebody
else's neighbourhood but they all want to use it. We have all had those kinds of experiences.
However, it gave you at least an idea of whether or not people wanted the wine
store in their neighbourhood. I must
say, I think if you had asked all of the people in my neighbourhood if they
would like to have one on
With the proposed changes to the liquor
control laws, the Manitoba Liquor Commission will no longer have the right to
inspect hotel premises to ensure food and accommodation standards are
acceptable. I would be worried hotel
standards will go down if these onsite inspections are eliminated. Madam Deputy Speaker, 75.6 percent of the
respondents said they agreed with that statement. I have some concern about that. I think the inspections did act as a bit of a
deterrent, perhaps not a great deterrent but somewhat of a deterrent if they
knew that the premises were going to be inspected. Now there will still be some health
inspections. There will still be some
inspections with regard to the food quality, but certainly not with respect to
decor.
It would have been interesting, Madam Deputy
Speaker, if we had heard not just from 400 individuals that had been chosen by
a random sample but by a task force which did ask the question in a very public
way as to whether individuals wanted to participate.
The question perhaps that concerns me‑‑because
I know that some of them will say that, well, we have a legislative hearing
process and people can show up to that particular venue and explain to us
whether they did or they did not want these changes‑‑was the
statistic that 68.8 percent of Manitobans had no idea that the government had
such a bill before the House at this particular point in time. That does not surprise me. I know all of us in this House think that the
work we do is terribly important. I have
to suggest to you that I have come to the conclusion, after some many years in
this Chamber, that 95 percent of what we do is totally unnoticed by the public
at large and it is of concern and of intense interest only to the 57 of us
gathered in this particular room.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to this
bill going to committee. I hope there
will be presentations on the bill. I
hope the minister will address some of the concerns that I have raised in her
opening remarks, and I hope she will be open and flexible to positive
amendments and changes to this legislation, which I think will be to the
enhancement of the legislation and to the enhancement of the people of the
Thank you.
* (1610)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be the final
speaker from our side on this particular bill.
Mr. Enns: Pass the bill, Steve.
Mr. Ashton: Indeed, the bill will be voted on, for the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), fairly soon.
As has been the case with a number of bills,
we have significant difficulties with this bill. I know I personally feel that this is the
absolute opposite of what we should be doing with liquor laws. To my mind, the real issue here is not
liberalization‑‑if that is the word that we want to use‑‑of
liquor laws, because this is not a bill that necessarily liberalizes liquor
laws.
It deals with a whole grab bag of issues, a
grab bag of issues that have been put forward by some lobby groups. Probably a number of them have been put
forward by the Liquor Commission itself, and it really is a bill that has no
real focus, no real thrust. It does not
really reflect the wishes of the public of
We have a bill that is the result of this
lobbying both internally from the Liquor Commission and by particular lobby
groups. Now, we are going to have this
matter dealt with today on second reading.
We are going to have committee hearings on Monday on this particular
bill. What is going to happen on Monday
is that there will be some input. There
will be some input. But, Madam Deputy
Speaker, what is wrong is the fact that once again in this House on a matter
that really crosses any political boundaries, that instead of going to the
public first, we are going to have a bill brought in, in this session, public
hearings and that legislation put in place because of the majority of this
government.
I have said this on the Sunday shopping
issue and at that time I said in terms of liquor legislation that we should do
the same thing. We should have a legislative
committee deal with this with nothing on the table, no bill, no proposals
necessarily, that would go to the members of the public throughout this
province and ask them, what do you think about liquor legislation in this
province?
I will tell you what most people tell me in
terms of liquor laws. I think most
people say that a lot of our current legislation is antiquated, that it needs
looking at. It needs restructuring. We need reform. But it is not strictly a question of
liberalizing or increasing accessibility or changing any specific
regulations. Different people have a
different approach on liquor laws. There
are differing opinions. But I think
there is a feeling, in fact, in recent years we have not had a comprehensive
review of our liquor laws in this province. In many ways, we have aspects that
are outdated, but we also have other aspects that are contradictory, Madam
Deputy Speaker, and this bill does not deal with any of that. The bottom line here, to my mind, is why do
we not go to the members of the public and ask them?
I will tell you what I find is an
interesting paradox, for example, in terms of dealing with liquor laws is I
think the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) pointed out some of the
social problems from alcohol abuse.
Indeed, alcohol abuse is one of the leading substance abuses. It is really the leading area of substance
abuse in this province. I have seen
countries where there are virtually no restrictions on liquor laws, yet there
is far less abuse of alcohol than there is currently.
Mr. Enns: You are missing the point, Steven.
Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) says I am missing the point. The
point for the minister is that there is not a direct correlation between
restrictions and legislation related to liquor and low levels of alcohol abuse.
The facts are quite the opposite. I
would suggest what we really fundamentally have to be doing is changing
societal attitudes towards alcohol and particularly amongst young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I graduated from high
school in Thompson. I remember my high
school years in Thompson. Let us put it
this way, I did graduate at a time in which the drinking age was 18. Needless to say, most people I went to school
with did not wait until they were 18 to start consuming alcohol‑‑
An Honourable Member: It was 21 when you were in high school.
Mr. Ashton: No, it was 18, for the member. When I graduated from high school, and I
graduated from high school in 1972, the drinking age was 18. For the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister),
being 37 years old, if you want to get into the timing, I believe the change in
the liquor laws were made public or came through in 1970. (interjection) I was
16 in 1972.
Madam Deputy Speaker, now we are going down
memory lane here. (interjection) When did I become a socialist, says the
minister. I joined the NDP when I was 17 years old and worked on my first
election in 1973.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as much as we could
trade this back and forth, and I look forward to the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us put it this
way, I do not think more than a small minority of kids that I went to school
with did not consume alcohol well in advance of the drinking age, which
originally was 21 when I was in the earlier grades, or else 18. In fact, many
people were regularly going to bars at the age 15 or 16 when I was in high
school. That has not changed. I think that is something that has be
recognized in terms of it. What I am
saying is though, let us deal with the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Raise the drinking age.
Mr. Ashton: The member for
I know the member for
What I am suggesting to the member for
I think we have to look at some societal
changes, Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of that. Most definitely, changing the drinking age
would, I believe, be absolutely counterproductive, because that is not the
problem. The problem is the attitudes.
There are a whole series of other issues,
and that is dealing with the question of the drinking age. In terms of accessibility of alcohol and in
terms of liquor laws, we are accessible at certain times, we are not accessible
at other times. We have lounges open on
Sundays, but not bars. We stay open
until two, Madam Deputy Speaker; we are now talking about opening cabarets at
four. I mean we have a whole series of
ad hoc changes that have taken place over the years in response to concerns
expressed most directly by people in the industry. I say, why do we not ask people? Why do we not ask the members of the public
what they think about our liquor laws?
I want to go further in terms of some of the
other issues touched upon by this legislation‑‑the opening of the
wine boutiques. Why should we now, on
the guise of saying that we do not have proper selection and we are serving the
public, open up the eventual privatization part of our liquor system
distribution in this province?
* (1620)
Madam Deputy Speaker, as the member for
I ask the question rhetorically to the
minister, at what point do we draw the line?
We have specialty wine stores.
Are we then going to have specialty beer stores? Are we going to have liquor available? Are we then going to restrict it only to
boutiques, stock the upper end? Are we then
going to have corner stores providing wine sales and beer sales as do some
provinces such as Quebec and, I know, in Alberta?
Madam Deputy Speaker, where do we draw the
line? Are we going to have another bill
next year expanding it, and another bill the period after that? I think this is very fundamentally something
we have to put to the public. Why do we
not ask the public what they think? We
do not have to run polls. We can have a
committee of this Legislature set up on a nonpartisan basis, because I do not
believe this is a partisan issue, and we can go to various different areas of
the province, to northern
There are other areas too. The liquor bill, as it is currently
constructed, has a whole series of regulations in terms of quality of the
establishments, requirements of hotels, et cetera. We have had many hotels in this province that
have been following those regulations faithfully for years. What are we going to do now? Deregulate it to the point where other people
come in and not live up to the same requirements that existing hotels have
lived up to for that period of time. Do
we really want to take out some of the standards in terms of rooms and in terms
of the licensed premises? Is that really
in the best interest of the public?
One thing I will say about our system of
liquor laws in the province is that we do have standards, and if one compares
to other jurisdictions, I think that is something I would be very concerned
about, if we lost those particular assurances to members of the public. We do not have the same sort of premises that
exist in other areas. We do not have a
reputation for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That is another issue that should be dealt with by the public.
I want to deal with the whole area of
consultation in a more general sense, not just in terms of the commission. We have outlined earlier‑‑I know
the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) talked about the Assembly of Manitoba
Chiefs, their concerns expressed by Grand Chief Phil Fontaine in terms of the
lack of consultation. First Nations have
a very ongoing debate on this particular issue.
One looks at the experience in terms of dry reserves in particular,
issues of bootlegging in terms of those communities. I know in my own area there are many
different approaches to alcohol. We
could learn a lot from the experience of aboriginal people on this issue. I know they are very concerned about their
words. In fact, I know the Minister of
Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) can talk from his area of the
province to the differing philosophies in terms of availability of liquor,
particularly in a number of communities that have historically been dry
communities, Madam Deputy Speaker.
An Honourable Member: Does Steinbach have a bar?
Mr. Ashton: Steinbach‑‑well, there is some
discussion on Steinbach, whether it has a bar.
I do not believe there is one in Steinbach to this day because of the
different view of people in that community.
We have to respect that, Madam Deputy Speaker, the diversity of this
province. But the way to come to a more
rational system is not for the minister to sit down with various lobby groups
and come up with a list of changes, and sit down with the Liquor Commission and
ask what they want. I have got no doubt
the Liquor Commission would love not to be dealing with a number of these
areas, but that is what the minister has done.
Let us look at the credit card issue, Madam
Deputy Speaker. To my mind, there is only one reason for having the credit
cards available. It is, yes,
convenience, but it is also to expand sales.
Any operator in this province that has credit cards has to pay
commission, including the Liquor Commission, to Visa, MasterCard or whatever
particular company we are dealing with, and I ask the question: Is anyone going to say they want to take the
existing revenues minus whatever the commission they are going to pay for the
use of the cards, or are they going to, on the assumption that that credit is
going to expand sales, say it is worth the trade‑off? I believe that is the rationale for credit
cards. There will be an increase in the
volumes that will outweigh the added expenditure to the Liquor Commission or
any licenced operation that is able to use credit cards. That is the bottom‑line analysis.
Now whether it is right or wrong is another
question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think
there are many who would consider that to be the wrong kind of move. Others might argue that in a society where
one is increasingly able to go to a corner store and have cash advances from
bank machines, it really is just moving that process into the Liquor Commission
and their licensed premises. But no one
is going to convince me or anyone that is looking at the economics of it that
the real reason is not because by having credit available you will expand
sales. Any private business operator
that has credit cards available does not just have them there out of the
goodness of their heart.
I do not know many private business
operators who like credit cards when it comes to paying the commissions on a
monthly basis, and I know there are a number of people who operate small
businesses in this Legislature. I am
sure they do not like paying those commissions.
They do it because they make the decision that by having availability of
credit cards, they are providing a service to their customers that is going to
increase sales. It is as simple as
that. No one out of the goodness of
their hearts asks Visa, MasterCard to come in and start charging them
commissions.
That, I think, is one of the problems with
this entire bill. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not a bill that can be
described as a bad bill on each and every one of its sections. There are some
sections I could probably agree with, and I know many of our caucus members
could agree with, but there are some sections I have got to ask: Why are they here? Why?
You know, why the change in cabaret hours to four o'clock? Would that be perhaps because the cabarets lobbied
for it? Would that be it? Are people on
the street saying, yes, we want cabarets open for a longer period of time. It certainly is not something, I know, the
hotel association has been lobbying for, because they have to provide services
that are not provided by cabarets and have to live up to licence restrictions
that cabarets do not have to live up to, such as food ratios and the number of
hotel rooms.
But, you know, I think what happened here is
the minister decided, let us reform, and I use that in quotation marks, our
liquor laws. Reform is not sitting down
with five groups who give you a list and saying, well, I am going to give you
one out two things that you have suggested.
Real reform, Madam Deputy Speaker, will come from talking to members of
the public, including the stakeholders in the industry. They have got to be included, but everybody
has got to be included.
It has got to look at the public interest,
and you know, this bill does not liberalize our laws, per se, in my mind. It does not update the laws. It does not reform the laws. It just changes them and, I would say,
changes them arbitrarily, and it changes them in a way that I think will lead
to a lost opportunity, because I think there is a real opportunity in this province
to have a nonpartisan review of our liquor laws. I mentioned about having a legislative
committee; I will go one step further.
What if we were to appoint a committee that would include not just
members of the Legislature but perhaps outside members of society, social
groups who are concerned, health professionals, people who are involved in the
industry, citizens? It is not a new
idea. We could appoint this commission. I do not think it should have an extensive
budget and cost taxpayers a lot of money.
What if we had an independent body to deal
with it? We do it with our salaries now,
why not with liquor laws? It is not a
partisan issue. There is no NDP position
on liquor, Conservative position on liquor or a Liberal position on liquor. I bet you within each caucus there are wide
differences of opinion that result in consensus positions. (interjection)
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
talks about members of our caucus and their position on liquor, but you know, I
think this is where I want to go a step further than saying that the process is
wrong here. I would say not only that,
the time is right to change the way we deal with these kind of bills. There has been a lot of talk about
parliamentary reform, reform of our political process, and I think what we are
doing, as I said, in terms of MLAs' pay, et cetera, we are dealing with that,
in that context is a reform, a major reform.
There was a group that just came out
recently of labour leaders and business leaders who suggested that we change
the way that we deal with bills, that we do send out committees before we make
the final decision. I realize it is
difficult on some bills to do this. I
realize that there are major political differences and our process works well,
the parliamentary system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to the Minister of
Agriculture, I am sure we would agree on one thing in this particular case,
that if one has issues such as, say, labour law or other issues where there are
some clear differences between the parties, ideological differences, that the
electoral process works better or worse at times in the sense that when people
make a decision, when they are voting for the Minister of Agriculture or they
are voting for myself, they have some idea of what I stand for, what the party
I am running for stands for when governments are elected. Conservative
governments roll back labour legislation, they expect that, or when the NDP
governments are in and they move changes to the labour legislation, they expect
it.
That is where there are clear
differences. I am not saying that you
can necessarily go and have public consultation in a nonpartisan way on those
issues. I think that is unrealistic.
* (1630)
But the Minister of Agriculture, when he ran
in the election, last one, I am sure he did not have to deal with questions in
terms of liquor laws‑‑I did not.
Never was it questioned because most people assume it is not something
that is a partisan‑political issue, but that does not mean his constituents
do not have opinions on liquor laws.
I know my constituents do. A pretty wide diversity between‑‑I
have people in dry communities, for example, dry reserves who are very opposed
to access to liquor, others who think we should liberalize, we should open on
Sundays, we should have corner grocery store access. I mean it crosses the entire diversity. That is why I am saying, here is a good
opportunity for a bill that, if we just put it aside for a while, could be used
as an opportunity here to have that kind of input.
But what I am saying is that by having this
bill we will lose it. Already the
minister responsible for this bill is saying, that is the public hearings. Why not have public hearings without a bill
and spend the time‑‑we are going to be out of session eventually in
this Legislature and whenever we are called back, we are going to have a period
where we are out of session. Why not use that time for public hearings and
consultation?
I think that is something that we can learn
from in this particular bill. Look at
the report from
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the
reasons the respect for our political system is declining, I think, is because
the partisan political system and party discipline works well for many
items. Ideological differences, setting
budget policy, most of the issues we deal with, I would argue the parliamentary
system work well, but it does not work as well in the nonpolitical, nonpartisan
issues, because what happens is we create a whole series of issues and we make
them into partisan issues that they really should not be.
We are going to have a vote on this bill
very shortly and whether it is a recorded vote or a voice vote, we are going to
have a vote. It is not going to be a
free vote and it is going to be defined by the political structures. Obviously, the government members are going
to feel obliged to support their colleague, and I do not fault them for
that. I mean, this is a government bill,
but you know, should it be that way?
Should it have to be that way?
Would it be that way if we had an independent group, either of this Legislature
or an independent commission that made a report and that we had legislated
changes that resulted from that? Would
it have to then be subjected to a party vote?
Could we not have a free vote?
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, you would
probably find that if we had a process like that, we would probably have a fair
amount of consensus, but we would also have differences between the
parties. I bet you that if we had a free
vote on a series of liquor law changes that were part of that process, you
would get members in each party that would vote one way or the other. In fact, I will go one step further, and I
have got evidence of that because there used to be a time that whenever there
was a liquor law introduced in this Legislature, no matter whether it was
supported by all the caucuses, you would have members, particularly from
Steinbach. Whoever represented Steinbach
in those days, on an obligatory basis, had to get up and speak against whatever
changes there were in terms of liquor laws.
I realize there have been changes of attitudes even within some of the
communities that have been opposed to greater access.
So I just want to complete my remarks on
that basis. I will be voting against
this bill and our caucus will be voting against this bill, but I feel sad in a
way that we even have to get to this stage.
If we had done it right, we could have public hearings without the
pressure of the bill, without the pressure of time. We could have had a nonpartisan
approach. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker,
we probably would end up with a far better series, not only of liquor laws, but
an understanding of the reality of the whole series of issues dealing with
liquor, because without that I think we will never get the societal changes.
I go back to the debate that the member for
That is not a political goal. We can all share that. That is why I am voting against Bill 42 in
the hope that by killing this bill right now, out of its ashes can come a
better approach to liquor laws and parliamentary process in this House dealing
with the many issues that should not be political. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 42, The Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la reglementation des alcools et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Agreed.
Bill 48‑The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 48,
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
(Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans).
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on an
extremely important bill that is before this Legislature at this time, one that
is affecting thousands upon thousands of Manitobans, virtually involving all
Manitobans, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have before us a bill that, as
usual, is a mixed bag as these statute law amendments pertaining to taxation
tend to be.
There are some elements of the bill that we
can agree with. There are some elements that affect economic development,
encourage economic development; we can agree with those. There are some that affect the environment
that we can agree with, but there are many, many that affect the poor, the
seniors, children, that impose a serious tax burden on those who have least
resources and we definitely object to that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, just to speak briefly
on some elements of the bill, I think that, as I said, reducing the taxes on
railway diesel and aviation fuel is probably a good move. It does encourage economic growth, economic
development.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
We can agree with the elimination of
aviation fuel tax for cargo flights from or to overseas destinations. That certainly does encourage international
aviation in and out of
Also I note that it extends the 10 percent
manufacturing investment tax credit for another year, and that is fine,
although I am not sure that it is helping very much, Mr. Acting Speaker. I do not know whether it is really helping,
because if we look at what is happening to manufacturing in
I think back of some specific examples when
I talk about erosion of manufacturing, erosion of our industrial base. There are many specific examples that we
could look at, one in my own constituency, Marr's Leisure Products, that used
to manufacture fibreglass boats that disappeared after free trade was
introduced. This tax credit would have
no bearing whatsoever on that type of an industry. It just was attracted out of the province
because of the free trade deal, but there are others closer in to
But having said that, we are not opposed to
that 10 percent investment tax credit.
At least it is a fairly minor item, and I note that it does not do much
by way of taxes. What it involves for a
year, it is roughly, I understand, something in the order of $1.7 million to
extend that. So that is not a very
significant item.
* (1640)
There are other parts of the bill that we
can agree with too, that which is affecting the environment, a new
environmental tax preference of five cents per litre for recycling used oil
into diesel fuel. We think that is a
good move. I am not an expert on
environmental matters, but it seems to me, at least at first glance, that this
is a step in the right direction.
It also allows newspapers to apply levies
under The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act against the retail sales tax
liabilities, and this, technical as it may sound, Mr. Acting Speaker, is a
measure that should promote some additional recycling. This is true also of the application of the
$3 per tire tax for another year, and this again provides funding for
recycling. So those are acceptable
measures by and large.
We have some problem, however, when we look
at some of the other taxes that are being introduced by the minister, by this
government. We mentioned earlier on in
this Legislature, in fact when the minister first introduced this bill, I
questioned the whole matter of fairness on taxing of raw leaf tobacco. The minister assured me that this was still a
lower rate than that applied to dry cut tobacco.
We have had some conversations with the
retailers of raw leaf tobacco. They
maintain that this differential is still not good enough and it will virtually
drive them out of business. That is a sad
state of affairs, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Although I do not smoke and never have smoked in my life and I believe
it is hazardous to health, nevertheless, people are smoking, and it seems to me
that what we are doing here is penalizing those on lower incomes who are
inclined to use the raw leaf tobacco because it is considered to be cheaper.
Well, there are some other details as
well. In fact, there are many, many
details in this rather voluminous, rather lengthy bill, as a matter of fact,
Mr. Acting Speaker. There are over 60
pages, and there are dozens upon dozens‑‑well, hundreds virtually,
hundreds of detailed tax changes; so detailed, of course, that the minister
normally provides reading notes for members of the Legislature so we can
understand what these various sundry miscellaneous adjustments are all about.
There is something that really hits you
between the eyes, and that is two major tax grabs, if you will, or two major
initiatives that increase the tax burden on Manitobans.
The one major initiative is the extension of
the retail sales tax base. What this bill
does is broaden the retail sales tax base to include all kinds of items that
were previously exempted from the provincial sales tax. What we are doing is hitting people in lower
income categories; we are hitting the seniors; we are hitting children; we are
hitting people who like to read.
The reason I say that is that what we are
doing now is levying the provincial sales tax to restaurant meals under $6. Now
there was a reason for cutting it off.
Part of it was administrative, but it also was considering people that
did not have much money would go out the odd time to Robin's Donuts or the
Salisbury House to get a nip or a hamburger or whatever and they would not have
to pay the tax. If you were into a more
elaborate dining room setting, of course, and you paid more than $6, well so be
it, then you paid the tax. Now that is
eliminated.
Everyone now‑‑any kid who goes
to McDonald's now and wants a hamburger or shake or a Big Mac or whatever is
subject to paying a tax. So we are
putting taxes on food items in restaurants and takeout stores that kids would
not normally have had to pay a tax on.
We are also putting in a tax, Mr. Acting
Speaker, on nonprescription drugs. I
think that is a step backwards too, because many of the nonprescription drugs
are required for the health of people, particularly for handicapped people,
particularly for senior citizens who tend to use more drugs than people who are
younger or people who are not handicapped in any way. So here we are, imposing a levy on an area of
consumption that is, I believe, slanted towards hitting people who are aged and
people who are handicapped, people generally who tend to use more drugs, more
medicines.
Also, I really regret that this tax, the
sales tax, is now applicable to newspapers and magazines. I really believe that that is a backward step
because what it does, of course, is discourage reading of the newspapers,
reading of magazines, reading of this printed word, so to speak. Therefore, I think in terms of having an
informed public, we are moving backwards.
I am sure I have the support of the newspapers and the magazine industry
when I say that this is a very, very bad tax in that respect.
There is another area that is now being
taxed, and that is personal hygiene supplies.
That, again, is related to a medical or quasi‑medical situation,
and it is regrettable that this government is now seeing its way to taxing
personal hygiene supplies.
There is a tax now, Mr. Acting Speaker, on
safety equipment. I think that is horrendous.
Why should we discourage people from buying safety equipment? Yet that is what a sales tax of this nature,
will do.
We are now taxing school children. We are taxing school supplies. Mr. Acting Speaker, how backward can we get
in this respect? Why on earth should we
be taxing school supplies?
We are taxing babies. This bill is taxing babies now. Baby supplies are no longer exempt under
provincial sales tax. It has been for
all these years, for decades virtually.
Now, all of a sudden, because this government thinks it needs the money,
we are going to tax baby supplies.
Certainly we should not do anything to discourage population expansion
in this province because our population growth certainly is not there. Certainly the last thing you want to do is
tax baby supplies.
We are even taxing sewing patterns. We are taxing children's clothing items that
cost more than $100. In this day and age
of high cost of clothing, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not unusual for a person to
pay more than $100 for a children's clothing item, perhaps a snow parka or
whatever.
So I believe that this broadening of the
retail tax base is a regressive move. It
is unfortunate. It is hitting, as I said
earlier, aged people, senior people. It
is hurting children, on the other hand, and it is hurting people who are
inclined to use additional drugs to maintain themselves or to buy personal
hygiene supplies. So that, to me, Mr.
Acting Speaker, is very regrettable that we have gone backwards. Usually we try through exemptions in retail
sales taxes to alleviate the burden on certain groups in society, but we are
going backwards. We are taking away
these exemptions.
In effect, in total, what this Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) is taking from the people of
There is another area of the bill that
increases taxes or the tax burden virtually, but it increases it by reducing
the property tax credits and some of the other tax credits that have been
scaled down. For instance, the minimum
property tax credit is reduced from $325 to $250, so virtually everyone loses
$75 in tax credit, which translates to an increase in property taxes for the
typical ratepayer in the majority of
All property tax claimants will be required
to make a minimum contribution of $250 towards their local property taxes
directly as homeowners or through their rent as tenants before they are
eligible for provincial tax credits.
This again, Mr. Acting Speaker, is regrettable. The argument is, well, everybody should pay
some property tax, and I have heard that argument many a time, but if you
accept that logic, then you should accept the logic that no one, but no one,
should be able to get away without paying some income tax, but there are many
people who pay no income tax, not only wealthy people who can manage to,
through various tax loopholes, get away from paying taxes, but also a lot of
poor people who just do not have the income and their exemptions put them in a
position of not paying any taxes.
* (1650)
So the fact is there are income taxes that
are not paid by some sectors of society, and there is nothing wrong with people
not paying any property taxes if they happen to own, as would be the case in
most of these instances, very poor property that did not get very much tax,
particularly in rural
Another area of concern is the Pensioners
School Tax Assistance Program, $175.
This is to be income tested now for all recipients, so pensioned
homeowners with incomes under $23,800 will have to wait. They will have to apply for benefits under
their income tax return next spring, and I guess this has got some people
concerned, but regardless, there is a great deal of money being taken away from
pensioners because of the changes to the Pensioners School Tax Assistance
Program and because of the reduction of property taxes. To use the Minister of Finance's own
estimates, which are included in the budget documents, what this amounts to is
$53.4 million. So we are imposing, in
effect, by reducing these credits, an additional burden of $53.4 million on the
people of
If you add that to the $48 million in sales
tax increases, what we have done is increase the tax burden on Manitobans by
$101.4 million. That is significant, so
let us not say that this is a government that does not increase taxes. They have increased the tax burden on
Manitobans by $101.4 million. This is
the estimate provided by the Minister of Finance right‑‑and if you
want to read it yourself, it is under Budget Paper C Taxation Adjustments. It is on page 1, and there it is: Summary of 1993 Tax and Tax Credit
Changes. There it is, $48 million more
sales tax, and $53‑million burden because of the reduction of provincial
tax credits.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is no question
that this budget is a big tax grab on the people of Manitoba, and it is imposed
in such a way that it is hitting the children.
It is hitting the kids that like to go to McDonalds to get a Big
Mac. It is hitting women who are trying
to raise a family, because you are hitting baby supplies. It is hitting people who like to read
newspapers and magazines because, for the first time now, you are taxing
them. You are hitting seniors and people
who are disabled people who have to get nonprescription drugs and, all in all,
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a backward, regressive type of tax increase. Therefore, for these reasons, there is no way
that members in the opposition can support Bill 48.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I mentioned earlier there are some features
we could support. There are a couple of
items affecting the environment, a couple of items that encourage economic
growth. Fine. We do not oppose those, we are agreeable, but
this is one bill and in this bill you have‑‑oh, I am sorry.
House
Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we are
approaching the hour of 5 p.m., and I wonder if you would canvass the House and
see if there is a willingness to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? Yes, it is agreed.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Sorry for the interruption, to the member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, so as I was saying, what we have
got here, it looks rather innocent. The
bill is sort of neutral, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, but this is
the bill that hits the people of
Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are features
of the bill that have an impact on the economy, and I must take this
opportunity to note that the economy needs every bit of support and
encouragement that it can possibly get because this economy in Manitoba,
unfortunately, has ground to a halt. In
fact, the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) continues to have big
deficits is essentially a reflection not on outlandish expenditure increases,
because that is not occurring, they are holding the line on expenditures.
The problem the Minister of Finance has, and
this government has, is that the revenues are not coming in. The revenues are not coming in because the
economy is not growing. There is no
expansion in the economy. So the retail
sales are languishing and, therefore, retail sales tax revenues are not
expanding. In fact, there are instances
where they are diminishing. Similarly
with income tax, you do not get income tax out of the unemployed.
So there is an impact of the economy on the
tax revenue of this government, and because of the poor growth in the economy,
the inadequate growth, in fact no growth in revenues, you have got these
continuing large deficits continuing to the point that
If you look at some of the figures, when I
say slow economic growth, I am not talking idly. I am not imagining this because we get
figures monthly from Statistics Canada indicating what is happening to the
Canadian economy, including the
This is the performance of the
I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and others on that side like to brag, well,
When we look at that, we have to keep in
mind that that calculation of unemployment relates to the size of the labour
force. Our labour force is either not
growing or it is growing very slowly and therefore it is easier to keep the
unemployment rates down on that account, say, compared to the Atlantic region
where you do not have the same mobility of people.
What happens in
* (1700)
Having said that, there was bad news in this
last report for the month of June. We
are the worst in western
I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
from time to time likes to boast about, well, we have increased a few jobs this
month. This past month there has been an
increase in jobs. Very good, we like to see that, but the reality is that the
level of employment in this province today is lower than it was when this
government took office in 1988. If you
look at the figures, in 1988, we had on average for that year 494,000
working. Our employed labour force
amounted to 494,000 people.
If you take the first six months of 1993,
and we have the first six months now from Statistics Canada, the average is
486,500 people. So, Mr. Speaker, we have
fewer people, thousands of people less than we had in 1988 when the government
took office. So I cannot in any way,
shape or form say yes, we have grown.
Our economy has expanded. Our
economy has not expanded. It has shrunk and that is sad.
There are different reasons for it. Some are beyond the administration of this
government. I admit that. I only wish members opposite would have
agreed to that when they were on this side because‑‑
An Honourable Member: I think you should speak about the positive
initiatives like Ayerst . . . .
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, Ayerst was here a long time ago.
An Honourable Member: But is that not a great proposition?
Mr. Leonard Evans: Yes, yes.
So, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we just do
not have enough jobs for our people. If
you look particularly at manufacturing it is really sad that we have fewer people
working in manufacturing industries today than we had five or six years ago.
In 1988, we had an average of 63,000 people
working in manufacturing. Today we are
around‑‑I do not have the number right in front of me but I think
it is around 50,000. It is certainly
less than it was when this government took office. So we have had an erosion of manufacturing in
this province.
I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
keeps on telling us, well, he is keeping spending down, we are trying to keep
taxes down and, therefore, we are attracting business, we are attracting
industries. Well, it sure has not been
reflected in the manufacturing industry.
We do not have the growth there that we need to have to provide jobs for
our people.
If you look at the level of shipments and
the figures I have for last year, for the full year of 1992, we had $6.2
billion in manufacturing shipments compared to $6.7 billion in 1988. When you consider there is some inflation
there, we are putting out less manufacturing
output than we did when this government took office. So there is certainly no growth. In fact, as I said, the reverse, we have
reduction in our manufacturing industries.
We can look at other factors in the
economy. One that is very concerning,
too, is what is happening to the average weekly earnings in the province. If you look at the industrial aggregate we
tend to be very much on the low end of the scale. The growth of wages in this
province is the second worst in the country.
We are nine out of 10. We have
been that this year, and we were in that situation last year as well. I think what that means is that the average
worker in this province is not able to maintain a growth in wages comparable to
the growth in wages and earnings that is occurring in the other provinces. We are slipping behind as time goes along.
There are all kinds of other statistics we
could look at. I am not going to take
the time to go into all the details except to mention one other area here and
that is in housing, and that to me is just very, very startling. The figures are such that it is almost
unbelievable.
When this government took office, the
average‑‑this is housing starts in urban areas‑‑amounted
to 4,448 units. Now this is calculated by
CMHC. This is where the figures come
from, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1988, 4,448 units. If it was an apartment with 10 suites, that
would be 10 units, a single‑family house is one unit.
At any rate, almost every year it has come down. In 1989, we slipped down to 3,147; 1990, we
slipped down to 2,274; 1991, it went down to 1,438; 1992, it went up slightly
to 1,821.
An Honourable Member: It went up?
What year was that?
Mr. Leonard Evans: It went up in 1992. It went up by a little less than 400 units to
1,821, but compare that to 4,448 units in 1988.
This is urban starts, but that constitutes about 90 percent.
(interjection) That includes the suburbs.
That is the entire metro
I can get all the areas and I would show you
the same pattern‑‑very serious.
Why is that?
It is because we do not have the population growth, we do not have the
net family formation, and that reflects the lack of economic opportunity
here. People are leaving, and even
people who are here are worried about losing their jobs. They are not necessarily going out buying new
houses or building new houses.
This is very dramatic, Mr. Speaker. You can see that reflected in the value of
building permits, the same pattern. I
will not read all these figures‑‑same pattern, a steady decline. It
is only a fraction. The value of
building permits in '92 was only a fraction of what they were in 1988, likewise
with construction work performed.
Generally, these figures reflect an economy,
regrettably‑‑I say regrettably very sincerely‑‑that is
stagnating, that does not provide the job opportunities for our people, that
see our youngest and our best, our young people, our maybe not so young people,
but among our best trained, best educated leaving to go to Ontario, to Alberta
and to British Columbia, because that is generally where people go.
All in all, since this government has taken
office, we have had a net loss of well over 40,000 people. That is a net loss equivalent to the entire
size of the city of
This government has been in office now for
five years. We have had six budgets, I
guess, and we are always told: these
policies are going to stimulate economic growth; we are going to‑‑next
year, do not worry, it may not be so good now, but next year it is going to be
better. Well, I guess you would call
this next‑year country, because the performance has not been there. The
economic policies reflected in the budgets of this government have not translated
into economic growth, have not translated into a rise of the standard of living
of the people of
Mr. Speaker, having said all that, we can
look at the finances of the province and see that, in spite of the restrictions
on spending by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and by this government,
we still have continuing deficits.
* (1710)
When you get figures from the different
lending agencies, the investment agencies and so on, Wood Gundy or whatever,
you can make the comparisons. The Royal
Bank has figures tallied as well. They
compare the provincial budgets. I think
When I say the lack of revenue growth, I am
again basing it on the data, of course, provided by the Minister of Finance in
the budget document. The fact is that
'92‑93 revenue declined by 5.3 percent‑‑or
The fact is that we have continuing
deficits. So we have a government that
keeps on preaching fiscal restraint and yet when we get to the bottom line, we
find that it continues to have deficits.
Every year it has had a deficit, so as a result, we have increased the
public debt in
This government has the honour of having a
total net debt per capita of $11,923.
That is well above anything experienced before this government took
office. As a matter of fact, the year
before this government took office, the debt per capita was considerably
lower. It was $2,000 less. In 1987‑88, the year before this
government took office, the net debt per capita was $9,559. Today it is $11,923. In other words, it is about $2,500, roughly
speaking, higher per person than it was before the Filmon government took
office.
Let us not pretend that this government is
containing the public debt. The public
debt has grown, and it could have reduced the public debt in the first year it
took office, though. It could have done
that, because what happened, it was left with some surplus funds from the
previous government and also it was blessed with some federal transfers.
All in all, when we look at these numbers,
we see that in 1988‑89, the first fiscal year of this government, they
could have had a surplus of $58.7 million, but instead, the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) chose to create a new fund called the Fiscal Stabilization
Fund. In
Mr. Speaker, that was the one year we could
have had a surplus. At any rate, we have
not had surpluses at all. We have had
deficits year after year and, of course, now and taking last year, we would
have had, using these figures, a deficit of $730.5 million if it were not for
the fact that the Minister of Finance took $200 million from the Fiscal Stabilization
Fund. That is the same figure he put in
five years ago and included it as revenue.
Here is a copy of the O/C which authorizes a transfer of $200 million
from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund to general revenue to help pay the
bills. Without this, as I said, the
deficit in Manitoba would have been $762 million, so even on their own score,
their own objective of trying to eliminate deficits, trying to keep the debt
down, this government has failed. Its
failures would have shown up even more so if we did not have this bit of a
shell game going on. I do not know what
is going to happen next year, because the minister has pretty well blown all
the money. He has a few dollars there. I am not sure where he is getting it from,
but it looks as though most of that fund is blown. Of course, included in there are some
preferred shares of Repap, but as the Auditor herself has said, these things
are almost worthless at this point in time at least.
So, Mr. Speaker, I say therefore that this
government has failed on all accounts.
It has failed in terms of imposing a tax burden in a very inequitable
way on the people of
My time is up, Mr. Speaker, so I conclude by
saying that we will vote against this bill because it is inequitable, because
we do not believe in taxing a hundred million dollars‑‑putting
another hundred million dollars tax burden on the people of
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I welcome‑‑(interjection)
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): On House
business if I may, Mr. Speaker, before the member for Kildonan has the floor.
I would like to announce that the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will sit tomorrow,
Thursday, at 9 a.m. and again at 7 p.m. to continue considering presentations
on Bill 41, if necessary.
I would also like to announce that the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit tomorrow at 9 a.m. and again at 7
p.m., if necessary, to consider Bills 35, 47, 49, 52 and, should some
additional time be required, for Bill 24.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy
government House leader for that information.
* * *
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
speak in opposition to this statute law am
endment.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): You mean you are against something more?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there are two myths; there are
two prevailing myths. The member for
Pembina (Mr. Orchard) will have his opportunity to speak. There are two myths in our province. The
first myth we hear is that the Tories believe in tax reform. The second myth is
the Tories of course believe in health reform.
Actually, there are three myths.
The third myth is that this Conservative government does not tax. This has been one of the most tax‑ridden‑‑I
hesitate to use the word "deceitful"‑‑I will say subtle,
I will say subtle tax regimes in the history of the
Mr. Speaker, part of the taxing regime of
this government is directly as a result of actions of the member for Pembina
who this year is taxing seniors for their home care equipment, who this year is
taxing the sick, the 1,200 Manitobans who require, for medical reasons, ostomy
supplies. This minister has imposed a
tax on the sick, on these people of $300 a person.
You know, Mr. Speaker, often we do not get
the impression in this House about the effects of these taxes on individual
citizens. At the rally this afternoon I
indicated for the member for Pembina‑‑and I have written a member‑‑that
I went to the home of a constituent last week who started crying on the
doorstep because she is a colostomy patient, because she has been taxed to the
hilt on the property tax by this government, had her property tax credit
decreased this year by the government, had her senior citizens tax credit
decreased in this bill by this government and had the minister impose a $300
per year tax on her colostomy equipment.
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker, the minister accuses us of
fearmongering. He never leaves this
Chamber to go out and talk to people like that.
As he taxes the sick, and this government in general, with their taxes
on senior citizens, should be ashamed of what they have done in this
budget. Anyone that would support this
budget should be shamed to support this particular tax measure.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, as I began my comments,
I said the biggest myth in this
It is unbelievable what they get away
with. Now they are asking for more, but
they are doing it in subtle ways. They
are reducing the property tax credit and saying: We do not tax, we are just taking 75 bucks
out of each homeowner's pocket; we do not tax, we are just taking $125, in
addition, out of each senior citizen's pocket.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the way this government,
in underhanded fashion, has imposed taxes on the citizens of Manitoba is
nothing short of disgusting, unfair, unequal, and they should be taken to task
for this. In addition, there is a
fashion and a manner in which this government imposes these taxes.
This government has a penchant for
retroactivity. They retroactively have
introduced taxes. Before the bill is
even passed, they are collecting taxes at the border. They are not enforcing the Sunday shopping
law before it has even been passed.
This government has contempt for this
process. They have contempt for the
Legislature. They are imposing
taxes. They are requiring and demanding
of people that they pay these taxes, and the bill is not even through this
Chamber. After five years and six
budgets, this tired government, this government is completely out of touch with
the population of
Mr. Acting Speaker, I have said on many
occasions that I will give this government credit during the minority period,
because my constituents said: You know,
the minority Filmon government was not bad; it kind of reminded us of the old
Schreyer government, and my heart goes up.
But this government that was elected in 1990
is a horse of a completely different colour, and its bills and its statute law
amendments of this kind‑‑they are not forthright. They do not go to the public and say: Look, we are increasing your taxes for X, Y
and Z reasons. No, they slide it
in. They slide it in in a budget. Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
stands up and cannot give us statistics as to how many people, how many seniors
are affected by it. Oh, they have the
statistics, Mr. Acting Speaker, but they are not revealing them, any more than
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is prepared to tell us how many thousands
of Manitobans he is cutting off of the Home Care maintenance program or how
many thousands of Manitobans he is taxing on his sick taxes that he is putting
on, taxes on the sick for the Home Care equipment program. They have the statistics. They better have the
statistics if they are imposing these taxes, but they do not tell us.
The Minister of Finance, Question Period
after Question Period, could not give us the information as to the effect that
some of these tax measures will have on Manitobans. I do not believe that the Minister of Finance
did not have that information. I believe
that they did not want to tell the public the draconian and dramatic effects
that their tax regime and their tax legislation would have on the average
Manitoban.
Now I know where this is all leading. It is all leading to an election probably
next year where the government will say, we do not tax. We do not tax. They are going to put on their pamphlets how
they have not taxed, except the $70 million tax grab on property tax owners,
whoops, and then the expanded PST, whoops, and then the tax on the sick that
the Minister of Health has imposed in the form of $300 per person on
colostomies, whoops, and on ostomy supplies, whoops, and then the tax on the
sick in the form of a user fee on home care equipment.
They were not even forthright in the
admission of that, because we found out in Estimates that it is not just a one‑shot
$50 fee. It is $50 on every single piece
of equipment. So my constituent who I
visited last week, Mr. Acting Speaker, will have to pay for the gloves for the
procedure. He will have to pay for the
incontinent pads. He will have to pay
for the catheter equipment he needs, all of which because it falls under $50.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that members
opposite are trying very desperately to deflect attention away from their
taxing regimes. They are trying so
desperately hard to stop the public of
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
says spend. Let me give members opposite
a lesson in spending. Which government
has recklessly signed the largest consulting contract in provincial history,
Mr. Acting Speaker? We would have
millions of dollars in our health care budget.
We would not have had to increase taxes as draconianly and as
dramatically as the Minister of Finance had if the Minister of Health had not
entered into the Connie Curran gravy train, the Connie Curran gravy train that
sees millions and millions of
Right there‑‑the Minister of
Agriculture should not laugh, because I think his constituents will say the
same thing to him that my constituents are saying to me: get rid of that American consultant. We can do our own health care reform. We would have $6 million in addition, at
least, if they had not entered into that contract. We would not have need for a lot of these
measures.
Mr. Acting Speaker, another occasion last
week when I was door knocking, a constituent coming to the door and saying how
disgusted she was that she was forced to pay PST at the border when the bill
was not passed. She said, is that bill
passed? I said, no it is not passed, in
fact, we are debating this bill right now.
She was disgusted that she had to pay a tax that had not even been
passed by duly elected legislators.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) calls us "airheads," the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) says that we are against taxation. We are against gravy trains, we are against
giving free rides to your friend, we are against the American consultant and
the cozy Connie Curran gravy train that that Minister has entered into. So let not that minister lecture us, because
he has much accounting to do in terms of the public.
Mr. Acting Speaker, when I look at this tax
bill, I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) ought to go back to
the drawing board. He ought to go back
and look at what his priorities were, and he ought to go back and look at some
of the decisions that had been made.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the member for Brandon‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
When the House is ready, the honourable
member will commence. Thank you.
Mr. Chomiak: The member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) has one
consistent quality: an inability to
listen to anybody, be it the Speaker, the Acting Speaker, or members of the
house, and, more importantly, an inability to listen to the public of Manitoba
who have come to him in droves, who came in the hundreds this afternoon to
complain about Home Care.
* (1730)
Mr. Acting Speaker, what could he do? He blamed everybody under the sun. He blamed NDP candidates; he blamed Howard
Pawley; he blamed the 1985 NDP government.
The one thing that this government and this minister is incapable of is
taking responsibility for their actions.
That is evident in this bill, because it
slip‑slides in. You know their tax
increases are slip‑slid in‑‑slithering into the Legislature
in the form of a bill. They slipped
these tax increases in, they slipped it through the budget.
You know, Mr. Acting Speaker, maybe‑‑I
do not know the strategy‑‑but maybe one of the reasons for the
Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) hardhearted cuts to the Home Care Equipment
program, to the colostomy program, and to the Home Care maintenance program
were because they were trying to cover up their tax increases. Perhaps that is the strategy. If you beat on everyone in the province and
get them worried about their home care and their health care, maybe they will
not notice the tax increases that they are bringing in.
You know, Mr. Acting Speaker, how ironic
that a government that increases property taxes as much as they did would bring
in legislation to freeze the ability of local school divisions to deal with
these taxes, after they have brought in probably the biggest property tax grab
in the province's history. Then they
have the audacity to bring in the bill and to blame it on the school
divisions. Only this government, that
does not have the political integrity to come forward and debate a bill and
then pass tax legislation, that does not have the integrity to admit what they
are doing, could do that.
Mr. Acting Speaker, when we talk about the
effects of these tax increases, we should talk about average hard‑working
Manitobans who have seen their taxes increased because of the removal of $75 in
the property tax credit, or the seniors who have an additional $125
removed. That is having an effect on the
average Manitoban. That is a real tax
increase, a direct tax increase, an unfair tax increase.
Our Leader, on many occasions, pointed out
what the effect of that is in north
If you talk about my constituent whom the
minister, by taxing on the sick, is charging an additional $300 for her
colostomy and who is taxing her home care supplies, that is a serious effect on
Manitobans. Not the worst, but one of
the saddest things about this is it is done subtly. It is done slyly. It is done in a slithery way the way this was
brought in.
An Honourable Member: Slimy.
Mr. Chomiak: I will almost go that far.
I feel strongly about this, Mr. Acting
Speaker, because I think part of the problem, the perception of government, is
that government is not forthright. We
see that daily from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) in his pronouncement
on health care. The government does not
come forward, make its pronouncements and debate them. They bring in a bill that is
retroactive. They try to hide it and
slide it and cover up. This is a massive tax increase, $1.4‑billion tax
increase‑‑(interjection) One hundred, I stand corrected. I will admit, it is only $101 million. I apologize to members of the House. The tax increase is only $100 million; a
hundred million dollars is all that this‑‑
An Honourable Member: What is a hundred million?
Mr. Chomiak: What is a hundred million dollars here and
there, Mr. Acting Speaker, particularly when a lot of their friends are getting
off pretty well. That is what I
resent. I resent a government standing
up and saying, we do not increase taxes. Whoops, just a hundred million dollars
here and maybe another hundred million dollars there. That is after the $70‑million tax grab
that was made on property taxes the last several years. That is after
offloading onto property taxpayers, and that is education property tax alone,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Acting Speaker, members on that side of
the House somehow have the audacity to suggest that they are good managers and
that they somehow are decreasing the deficit after having increased the deficit
to $862 million, the highest in provincial history.
I cannot reiterate and I cannot emphasize
enough that these are all in addition to the taxes on the sick that have been
imposed in this budget by this Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), all of these
increases. (interjection) The member for
The member for
All of those taxes are in addition to the
hundred‑million‑plus increases that we are seeing in the statute
bill. At least members opposite would
have the intellectual honesty, if not the political honesty, to admit
that. You would think they would have at
least the intellectual honesty to admit that, but they do not. The Minister of Health says, this is a
contribution. Is the hundred million
dollars‑‑is this a contribution?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
What is this, the
Mr. Chomiak: The member for Thompson says, is this the
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Chomiak: Not all the citizens, the member for
I note that having basically covered most of
my points and knowing there is other urgent House business to be dealt with,
knowing that I think I have probably made my point, at this point I will
adjourn debate, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): I am wondering if
there might be leave to have this matter remain standing in the member's
name. I believe the acting government
House leader may wish to move to other business including Report Stage.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave for this matter to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)?
(agreed)
House
Business
Mr. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would like to ask for the leave of the House to have Bills 35
and 47‑‑I believe we require unanimous consent to have them shifted
from the committee to which they were sent into the Law Amendments committee
for tomorrow. I believe if you canvass
the House you will probably find unanimous consent for that change.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable deputy government House
leader have leave to change‑‑I believe there are two bills, 35 and
47. Is there leave to change those from one committee to the next? Yes.
(agreed)
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you could please
call at Report Stage the bills as listed on the Order Paper.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: When Bill 48 is again before the House, the
honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) will have 20 minutes remaining.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources for the 9 a.m. Thursday session be
amended as follows: the member for
Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) for the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
REPORT
STAGE
Bill 27‑The
Environment Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that The Environment
Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement), as amended
and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* (1740)
Bill 36‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that
Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant le Code de la route), as reported from the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No? The
question before the House is that Bill 36, The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, reported from the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Bill 40‑The
Legal Aid Services Society of
and Crown
Attorneys Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh),
that Bill 40, The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendment and Crown
Attorneys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
Societe d'aide juridique du Manitoba et la Loi sur les procureurs de la
Couronne), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 44‑The
Alcoholism Foundation Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 44, The
Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre
l'alcoolisme et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi),
reported from the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? (agreed)
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).