LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, December 16,
1992
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock). It complies with the privileges
and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning
descends upon the
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children
with Asthma has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning
is not healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate the problems of
asthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble
burning are necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people in
life‑threatening situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission
Report on Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems from
Agriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the
recommendation that a review of the crop residue burning situation be conducted
in five years time, including a re‑examination of the necessity for
legislated regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
* (1335)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton). 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]
The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
implemented the major recommendation of the Kopstein report which was to bring
in no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS over four years ago, the Kopstein
report found that if
WHEREAS over two years ago, a second
government report found that over $63 million could be saved if
WHEREAS the provincial cabinet this year after
being extensively lobbied, rejected a business plan that would have saved
WHEREAS the rates for auto insurance are now
being raised on average by 9.5 percent to 14.5 percent when the inflation is
less than 1.3 percent making this the highest actual increase in the history of
this province; and
WHEREAS one in five car drivers in this
province will now face increases of 13.5 percent; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
implemented other aspects of the implementation of the Kopstein report.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for the Maples (Mr.
Cheema). It complies with the privileges
and the practices of the House, and it complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
The petition of the undersigned residents of
the
WHEREAS the principles of health care, namely
the universality and comprehensiveness, should apply to the Pharmacare program;
and
WHEREAS the Pharmacare program's effectiveness
is being eroded; and
WHEREAS in the most recent round of delisting
of pharmaceuticals, approximately 200 have been delisted by the government of
WHEREAS the strict submission deadline for
Pharmacare receipts does not take into consideration extenuating circumstances
which may have affected some people; and
WHEREAS pharmaceutical refunds often take six
weeks to reach people; and
WHEREAS a health "smart card" would
provide information to reduce the risk of ordering drugs which interact or are
ineffective, could eliminate "double prescribing," and could also be
used to purchase pharmaceuticals on the Pharmacare program, thereby easing the
cash burden on purchasers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning
descends upon the
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children
with Asthma has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning
is not healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate the problems of
asthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble
burning are necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some people in
life‑threatening situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission
Report on Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems from
Agriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the
recommendation that a review of the crop residue burning situation be conducted
in five years' time, including a re‑examination of the necessity for
legislated regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Mr. Speaker: I
am pleased to table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on The Election
Finances Act 1991. Also, I am tabling
the Ombudsman's Annual Report dated 1991.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report for 1991‑92 of the Department of Labour.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
Manitoba Energy Authority Tenth Annual Report for the year ended March 31,
1992, together with the Financial Statements for the 15 months ended June 30,
1992.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Report
on the Administration of the Rent Regulation Program for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1992. As well, I would like to
table the
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, it is
my pleasure to table the Annual Report for 1991 for The Freedom of Information
Act, the Annual Report 1991‑92 for the
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to on this occasion
now table the annual report of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd. Financial Statements
as at March 31, 1992 and 1991, together with the Auditor's Report.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two
reports: first, the Report of the
Agricultural Producers' Organization Certification Agency respecting the
determination of a certified organization; and secondly, a report from the same
agency respecting the maximum membership fee of the certified organization.
* (1340)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report '91‑92 of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the report under the
Financial Administration Act Relating to Supplementary Loan and Guarantee
Authority and the 1991‑92 Annual Report of The
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon 15 visitors from
the Constable Development Program. They are under the direction of Mr. Brian
Norris. They are guests of the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
Also, this afternoon we have 18 adults from
the English Language Program from the
On behalf of all members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Immigrant Investor Fund
Application Approval
Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Yesterday, in answers to questions, and in
past occasions on questions we have posed to the government on the Immigrant
Investor fund, the government has portrayed itself as removed from the process,
distant from the process, kind of a technical bystander to the process, and has
named the federal government and officials in their own department as the key
decision makers in the process.
I would like to ask the Premier directly: Are ministers of his government directly
involved in various projects that are before the federal government for
immigrant investment projects for the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday in some detail, both inside and outside of this House, I
outlined the procedure for the approval of Immigrant Investor Programs, whether
they are a project specific fund or a syndicated fund.
As I outlined yesterday, the fund request
originally came in to the provincial government. All of the necessary information is attached,
draft prospectuses, financial information, business plans and so on. Our administration reviews that. If they make a positive recommendation, that
then goes forward to the federal government, then they do their analysis and
they have the final authority to decide whether or not a fund is in fact
approved or not approved. They can
either accept the recommendation and approve it or they have the authority to
reject it, because they have all of the ultimate clout in terms of the issuing
of the visas and the necessary regulations and control on the ultimate plan.
So we make a recommendation; if it is positive
that is the process. If it is negative, it
goes back into the system and the people making the application deal with any
concerns. If they can address them, they
can bring it forward again.
Mr. Doer:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister and the Premier did not answer the question again, as
they did not answer on six occasions yesterday.
Immigrant Investor Fund
Application Approval
Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the letter from
one Mr. Ernst, the minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism, to one
Honourable Barbara McDougall, on February 6, 1991, wherein the minister asks
the federal government, and I would quote, the
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Premier: What is the involvement of his
cabinet ministers in the Immigrant Investor fund. He is carbon copied on this letter. This letter was written and carbon copied to
the Premier before he answered questions in the House in his own Estimates
saying, oh, we are not involved in this, the cabinet is not involved.
I would like to know the direct political
involvement of the Conservative government.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems not to
want to understand or listen to the response of the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson). He said
precisely that. He said it is reviewed
by the department as to the job creation benefits for the
Immigrant Investor Fund
Review
Terms of Reference
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a final question to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the government has had two
different reviews that they have announced publicly and now they are on their
third review, a so‑called internal audit, that they have commissioned under
the Immigrant Investor fund. We would
like those terms of reference tabled.
Do the terms of reference include the
political decision making in the Filmon government at the deputy minister level
and the ministerial level? Has that
audit been completed yet? Has it been
forwarded to the Attorney General's department yet, and will we see an expanded
terms of reference dealing with the political involvement of the Filmon
government in this process?
* (1345)
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I outlined yesterday in this House, the current audit that is in
process by an independent public accounting firm, a reputable firm here in
But I do take exception, Mr. Speaker, to once
again the approach and style of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the
kinds of innuendoes and suggestions he makes about political interference in a
program that we have put in place regulations and guidelines to address when it
was introduced in 1986 when the Leader of the Opposition was part of a
government when it was introduced. They
did not bring in any rules and regulations to deal with it. They did not show any concern about this
particular program. We put in the
regulations to address potential problems.
Health Care System
Reform
Dr. Connie Curran
Contract
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, according to December 7
documents entitled Health Reform Update in which very specific details are
enclosed about this Minister of Health's contract and contractual arrangements
with one person by the name of Connie Curran with a firm called APM
Consultants, according to documents provided by this own minister, the goal of
APM associates is to help clients create the best market positions and
defensible competitive advantages for their clients and later on in the
document says, we will do whatever it takes for our clients.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Health: What is the value of the
contract with Connie Curran and APM Consultants? Will he table the contract
with this firm and tell us why a Manitoban or Canadian organization was not
qualified to assist this government on health care reform issues?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased my honourable
friend is posing this question. The
individual who is referenced in my honourable friend's question is Dr. Connie
Curran who by all reports is probably the pre‑eminent nursing specialist
in
Now, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell my
honourable friend how the province first came to know of Dr. Curran and her
credibility in the nursing profession in the
It is nurses in
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of
Health why he has employed an American firm located in
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1350)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I will provide my honourable friend
with those details when they are concluded because that is exactly the nature
of Dr. Curran's presence in
I sense from my honourable friend's question
(a) that there is something the matter with Dr. Curran, not because of the
knowledge she can bring, but by the fact that she is American, and I find that
offensive.
I further find it offensive that my honourable
friend the New Democratic Health care critic would find fault with a
recommendation and with an endorsement by nurses in
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: My question, Mr. Speaker, is why this
government has chosen to work very closely with a firm whose bottom line is to
create competitive advantage to turn our hospital system into a market‑driven
system. It is the Americanization of our
system, and I want to ask the Minister of Health why he has chosen to do this
major consulting work with an American firm when in fact the
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Orchard:
Sir, for the third time, I want to indicate to my honourable friend that
despite the fact that the member for St. Johns, as the New Democratic Party
Health critic, does not believe Dr. Curran has the credentials to provide
advice, to provide us with information on how nursing's role can be enhanced in
the Canadian health care system, in the
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Education System Reform
Advisory Board
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, teachers, students, parents and
school trustees are anxious that there be educational reform in
Can the minister tell this House why the
advisory board has not met since 1989, and why is the law being ignored?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, yes, there is an advisory board
which may be active for the minister. However,
I think the important point for me to make to my honourable friend and to
Manitobans is that a wide variety of Manitobans have wanted to be involved in
the educational reform process and in particular, parents have asked to be a
part of that process as well as educational stakeholders, business, industry
and labour, and so our reform process will make sure and include all Manitobans
who have expressed this interest.
Framework Tabling
Request
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, can the minister then table a
document which will outline the framework as to what this educational reform
will consist of, and will she be using such established groups as the advisory
boards?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, our process of reform is one in
which some very central ideas have been put forward in the throne speech. However, one thing that Manitobans and
particularly stakeholders in education including business, industry, labour and
parents have asked is that they be in on the details of the process and that a
process not then be imposed upon them, a fully developed process then given to
Manitobans. Instead they have asked to
be a part of the process.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, members of The Manitoba Teachers'
Society, school trustees, and other organizations do not feel that the throne
speech, that document, gives them enough information on educational reform.
Is the Minister today prepared to table a
document which will outline to these groups what her framework is, the reform,
how it will take place, so that in fact these people can then give their ideas
to the minister so that the process will be a success, which is the goal for
all‑‑
* (1355)
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, of course, a meeting has already taken place. A meeting took place the day after the throne
speech with representative members of all of those organizations to make sure
that those organizations had a chance to begin an exchange of ideas and a flow
of ideas to begin to answer questions, put questions on the table as they
arose.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important
for the member to know that process of consultation has already begun and began
immediately following the throne speech.
Labour Force Development
Minister's Comments
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of
Education why she misled the House on December 3, when she explicitly denied,
following the
I want to table, Mr. Speaker, a memo of
October 30 where the Deputy Minister of Education and Training committed to
make an interim agreement with
Mr. Speaker, whom do we believe, the minister
in the House or her deputy minister acting with
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, an important feature that
Government Commitment
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister now, in the
midst of the worst recession since the 1930s, make a commitment to developing a
labour force development agreement with
It has been three years, Mr. Speaker, that
this government has given lost years to Manitobans.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that, very
personally as minister, I have been working very hard over this past week to
bring some closure to the signing of that document. I look forward to be able to sign it in the
near future. Within that document, I
look for representation of Manitobans on the board, but the member seems to
have not completely understood that the signing of the document is one part and
the setting up of the board is done in co‑ordination with the Canada
Labour Force Development Board. That is somewhat different.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
No-Fault Insurance
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
minister responsible for increasing Autopac rates in
Mr. Speaker, the past year, MPIC lost over $25
million, largely as a result of increases in bodily injury claims of
approximately $33 million. Before we sit
again next year, there will be thousands of very unhappy Manitobans facing
heavy increases in their Autopac premiums.
Will this minister finally change his position
and take steps now to implement the no fault system strongly recommended by
Judge Kopstein, which offers MPIC the greatest opportunity to reduce costs and
also increase benefits?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the
administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, let the member not leave the
impression on the record that he did not involve politically the setting of the
rates back four years ago. That has now
been turned over to the Public Utilities Board, so it is done in a public
fashion. The losses occurred as a result
of bodily injury claims and a rather dramatic increase in hailstorm and
accidents as a result of very treacherous driving conditions, but the major
portion of that loss is driven by increased bodily injury claims.
I suggest that the member also might wonder
how happy those people who received those settlements would be if they were
unavailable.
* (1400)
Agents' Fees
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, regrettably, the minister did
not address the question. The Kopstein
report recommendation has to be implemented.
When are we going to get some action from this
minister? Let me ask him though
specifically‑‑one small step:
Will this minister reconsider and now allow MPIC to cap insurance
brokers' fees at 3 percent and save at least a million dollars in Autopac
hikes? How about some tangible‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the
administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): The second bench is going to applaud that.
Mr. Speaker, the corporation is actively
pursuing all avenues of containing its costs.
When we compare the costs across the country and the motorists of this
province look at the relationship between Autopac insurance and the cost of
insurance in many of the other jurisdictions, we are still within a reasonably
competitive range, but the fact is, the corporation is moving into the rate‑setting
period for the coming year, and they will be taking measures to contain their
costs.
Sex Offender Program
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, approximately three weeks ago,
the Department of Justice effectively cancelled the sex offender program at
Agassiz Youth Centre in
Mr. Speaker, my question: Given that the only other sex offender
program is at Manitoba Youth Centre, which is presently overcapacitated and has
too many to handle in that program, where are the 24 young offenders, who have
already been assessed as requiring that therapy, going to get the therapy now
that the program has been cancelled at Agassiz Youth Centre in
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): As usual, Mr. Speaker, with a question of
this nature and coming from where it is, I shall ascertain the veracity of the
preamble to the honourable member's question.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of
In any event, let me ask the minister if he
has received any assurance or opinion from the federal Solicitor General
responsible for the Young Offenders Act as to whether or not he is even legally
allowed to have both open and secure custody offenders in the same cottage now
that that program has been cancelled, because the only way that they were
allowed to do that previously was because they had the program. Now that there is no program, there is no
distinction in how those offenders are being treated in that cottage. Yet, the judge has‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Mr. McCrae: It
is completely understandable that the honourable member would like to have an
answer to a question in this regard, because the issue of violent offenders is
one that this government views very seriously.
The honourable member knows that the federal
corrections people, supported by myself, have taken a position that violent
offenders ought to be treated somewhat differently from the other kind of
offenders, the property offenders. So I
think it is quite consistent with this government's program respecting zero
tolerance, not only in relation to violence generally, but sexual violence as
well.
So the honourable member's question may indeed
have some elements of truth in it, and if it does, then I will be pleased to
ascertain that and answer the honourable member's question.
Mr. Edwards:
My final question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. Prior to cancelling the
program at
Mr. McCrae:
This question will also be answered when I answer the other ones, Mr.
Speaker.
Indigenous Women's
Collective
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
for Native Affairs.
On August 27 of 1991, the minister announced
that his government was going to be providing $70,000 in funding to the
Indigenous Women's Collective. The
minister stated his government's commitment that quote, native people and
native women especially should have an organization that serves as an effective
unifying force within the community.
Is this government still committed to this
objective of providing
Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for
Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, unlike the New Democratic Party
that preceded us, where they got absolutely nothing, we, in the budgetary
process, will give fair consideration to all groups.
Mr. Hickes:
Mr. Speaker, that fair consideration that the minister is stating, I
will table a letter that he has written to the organization which clearly shows
that their funding is in jeopardy.
Mr. Speaker, when you announce a program
speaking to the future on one hand and then on the other hand start cutting off
the funding‑‑so could the Minister of Native Affairs confirm to the
House that the full funding will be there for the organization?
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would appreciate there is a process
that has to be gone through as it relates to the development of budgets for
next year's expenditures, and details of those decisions will be answered when
it comes to the Estimates process of next year.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair that this
government approached it in an open and honest way, that we have got a
situation where our revenues basically have not increased for the
Gross Revenue Insurance
Plan
Interest Charges
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of this
year, farmers continue to be in difficult financial straits in this province,
yet this Minister of Agriculture is still charging farmers over 8 percent on
unpaid premiums on GRIP and crop insurance even while this minister continues
to owe those same farmers millions of dollars in initial GRIP payments, and he
is not paying interest on those unpaid GRIP payments that are coming to the
farmer.
I want to ask the Minister of
Agriculture: Will he now do the right thing,
stop this insensitivity and unfairness by this minister and immediately stop
charging interest to these farmers while he continues to owe them millions of
dollars in GRIP payments?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, that member fails to realize we
are talking about a joint federal‑provincial program. Two or three months ago, I wrote the federal
minister if we could have a consideration for not charging interest during this
period of time. He reported back, said
no.
Mr. Plohman:
This minister cannot get any results with the federal government and for
himself.
I want to ask this minister: Will he now ensure that this GRIP payment is
made immediately so that this interest charge that he is making on farmers
right now will not eat away as it is doing right now on these GRIP payments
that are coming to farmers.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting.
This member spoke against GRIP; he hated GRIP. He said it is no good, the farmers of
The cheques have started to go into the mail
early this week if not late last week.
Those cheques, those interim cheques are on the way, and they will be
receiving many of them before the end of this year.
Sunday Shopping
Public Hearings
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the minister responsible: Are we going to have a vote on this bill
today? Is this government going to
proceed to public hearings across rural
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1410)
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the question is out of
order. The question is a matter of House
business; it will be dealt with by House leaders later today.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): If the minister is raising this as a point of
order, Mr. Speaker, the minister should be aware that it is quite common to ask
questions. In fact, we have been asking,
since this bill was tabled, whether this government would have the courage to
take this bill to public hearings throughout the
Mr. Speaker:
We have consistently said that matters dealing with House business
should be dealt with by House leaders, so I would ask the honourable member for
* * *
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the
legislation on Sunday shopping whether or not we are going to have public
hearings in rural
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): In
response to the question, Mr. Speaker, that bill will be called later today, I
understand. We have a process here, as
part of our parliamentary process, in terms of committees which we have,
amongst the most open process in all of
Unemployed Help Centre
Funding
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, in the throne speech only a few
short weeks ago, the government made no recognition of the serious situation in
terms of jobs in this province. Since
that time, we have had the action of the federal government on unemployment
insurance, which according to statistics we have obtained, will result in 183
I would like to ask the First Minister whether
he has raised this matter with the federal government in this horrendous attack
on working people, more specifically, whether he will now reinstate, as both
opposition parties have been saying repeatedly for the last three years, the
funding for the unemployed help centres, to at least have someone in there
fighting on behalf of working Manitobans.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Even since the throne speech, there have been
a number of announcements that have been positive announcements with respect to
job creation in
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I realize that the government is
allowed to filibuster its own bills, but it is not allowed to filibuster
Question Period. I asked a specific
question about unemployment insurance and about the government reinstating
unemployed help centre funding. I would
appreciate it if the Premier would answer the question.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the
First Minister was endeavouring to provide the information which the member for
Thompson appeared to have wanted and certainly should have the opportunity to
provide a full response to the question.
One should practice what they preach, and members opposite are known for
extremely lengthy preambles even on second and third questions.
Mr. Speaker: On
the point of order raised, Beauchesne's 416(1): "A Member may put a
question but has no right to insist upon an answer."
The honourable First Minister, to finish with
his response.
* * *
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to the suggestion of the member
opposite that there was nothing in the throne speech or since on jobs, that in
fact the throne speech talks about the increase in exports from
All of those exports represent jobs and
opportunities for Manitobans. In
addition to all of that, of course, the throne speech talks about the fact that
this province is expected to have the second highest overall increase of any
province in the country in capital investment, the highest increase in private
capital investment, the highest increase in manufacturing capital investment,
Mr. Speaker.
All of those represent investments and job‑creating
activities in our province.
Ku Klux Klan Trial
Public Inquiry
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, on June 22, 1992, for the first
time in
My question to the Minister of Justice
is: Why is this government downplaying
and ignoring this issue and what public inquiry are they preparing on the
failed trial from September regarding the klan in
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): This
government has done anything but downplay the issue of the dissemination of
hatred in our province and in our jurisdiction. While we regret the events
which led to the failure of the criminal prosecution, we look with interest at
what is going on at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Indeed, I await a report from the City of
As far as a public inquiry, which is part of
the honourable member's question, that is the second time today I have heard
the call from the benches opposite for a public inquiry. Public inquiries, by their nature, tend to
stretch out very often the issue, as opposed to allowing us to get on with
actually doing something. The honourable
member suggests a public inquiry, and I might ask her what it is she hopes to
achieve. Are we going to learn that
there is the dissemination of hatred?
Well, we do not need to learn that, we already know that.
Antiracism
Recommendations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, to have some action, I would ask this
government, any of the ministers who received letters from the Manitoba
Intercultural Council on the implementation of the recommendations to deal with
racism in this province, why have none of the departments, except the
Department of Education, responded to the letters that were sent on dealing
with racism by the Manitoba Intercultural Council?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I think our record on dealing
with multiculturalism and antiracism initiative speaks for itself.
Mr. Speaker, like the first multiculturalism
act for the
Minister of
Multiculturalism
Antiracism Statement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Minister responsible
for Multiculturalism why she has made no public statements opposing the
proliferation of white supremacy and organized racist activity and organized
racist organizations in this province.
Why has she made no public‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question.
* (1420)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely offended with
the comments that that member has made in the House about this side of the
House and other members. Those are
racist comments. She should be ashamed of herself for even asking that kind of
a question when this government and all ministers on this side of the House are
out speaking publicly‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, for the minister, in her
nonresponse to the question placed by the member, a member who has been
targeted by the KKK hotline, for that minister to accuse this member of being
racist as an excuse for that government's inaction on racism is unacceptable,
and I would ask you to have the minister withdraw those comments immediately.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would submit that the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has not raised a point of order.
The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) asked a
question of the minister. The minister
was providing a response. If in that
response she expressed surprise, given the remarks of the member in this House
in the debate with respect to the throne speech‑‑those remarks are
in Hansard for her own colleagues to read‑‑I would submit that
there was nothing, no breach from any rules of this House in the minister's
response.
Mr. Speaker:
On the point of order raised by the honourable opposition House leader,
I heard the remark "racist" coming from the honourable minister, but
I do not know in what context. The table
officers are not sure in which context it was said. Therefore, I will take this
matter under advisement. When I get a
copy of Hansard and a chance to peruse it, then I will come back to the House
with a ruling on that matter.
* * *
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate some of the
comments that were made by the member for Radisson in this House, when the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) was responding to the throne speech, did not show up in
Hansard, because members of the Liberal opposition and members on this side of
the House clearly heard them and were absolutely offended with those comments.
Workers Compensation
Penalties
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I have a quote and a question
for the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board: For a family on one income to lose 10 percent
of his wage puts undue stress on himself and his family. Then to withhold
another 6.8 percent of his earnings until income tax refund time takes food and
clothing away from the family.
A further quote, Mr. Speaker: I have lost approximately $150 a week and had
to completely liquidate my assets, putting stress on my family and taking food
away from my family's table.
My question to the Minister responsible for
the Workers Compensation Board is: How
does penalizing the injured workers of
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for
and charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific
matter that the member for Transcona has raised, one would obviously have to
look at the facts involved in terms of the income amounts to be able to comment
on it. I would remind members opposite
that when The Workers Compensation Act was reformed, their party took a
position that the status quo should remain, which paid on the basis of gross
salary. So those income earners who are
in the lower part of the scale received significantly less than they do under
the new system. Members opposite had no
sympathy at all for them at the time.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I
have a ruling for the House.
During Question Period on December 10, 1992,
the honourable member for
The government House leader (Mr. Manness), in
providing advice to the Chair, argued, it is out of order to raise a matter of
privilege during Question Period, citing Beauchesne's Citation 415. While it is not usual to raise matters of
privilege in the House of Commons during Oral Questions, we in
The government House leader did correctly
note, though, based on Beauchesne's Citation 416, that a matter of a minister
not answering a question cannot be raised as a matter of privilege. Further,
Beauchesne's Citations 31(2) and (3) state that, and I quote: "The failure of a Minister to answer a
question may not be raised as a question of privilege."
"Statements made outside the House by a
Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."
As well, 31(10) states that, and I quote: '"The question has often been raised
whether parliamentary privilege imposes on ministers an obligation to deliver
ministerial statements and to make announcements and communications to the
public through the House . . . or to make these announcements or statements in
the House rather than outside the chamber.
The question has been asked whether honourable
members are entitled, as part of their parliamentary privilege, to receive such
information ahead of the general public.
I can find no precedent to justify this suggestion."' Citation 352 reads: "The option of a
Minister to make a statement either in the House or outside it may be the
subject of comment, but it is not the subject of a question of privilege."
Further, the honourable member for
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, if you are all finished, I would ask if there would be agreement for
us to revert to tabling for one moment while I table some documents. [agreed]
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the Annual
Report of the Department of Justice for 1991‑92, and I am pleased to
table pursuant to The Regulations Act, a copy of each regulation registered
with the Registrar of Regulations since the regulations were tabled in this
House in December of last year.
* (1430)
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I wonder if I might have leave for a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Speaker, given that today is the last day of
the sitting of the House, on behalf of all members I am sure in this
Legislature, I would like to extend best wishes for the forthcoming holiday
season.
We have a number of different important
religious celebrations taking place during the time that we are having our
break for the holiday season, particularly, of course, the celebration of
Christmas and the celebration of Hanukkah.
On behalf of all members, I want to extend
best wishes for seasons filled with health and happiness to all Manitobans, of
whatever faith they are and whatever celebrations they participate during this
holiday season, and certainly, on behalf again of all members, to all
Manitobans our very best wishes for peace, health and prosperity in the new
year of 1993.
I might also extend on my behalf, and indeed
on behalf of my caucus, our very best wishes to all the members of the
Legislature on the opposition side, our hope that they and their families will
enjoy the holiday season‑‑an opportunity to renew their spirits, as
well as their strengths, for the forthcoming resumption of the session in the
new year.
We hope that you all enjoy your holidays and
have a very happy holiday season, and the very best for the new year of 1993.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Deputy Opposition House
Leader): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
I would like to join with the Premier in this
moment without rancor, out of confrontation and heated moments of Question
Period and the usual flavour and temperament in this Chamber, and to join with
everyone in extending the very best wishes to everyone in Manitoba throughout
this holiday season, and to specifically wish those who celebrate Christmas the
most Merry Christmas, and to other members in our community Happy Hanukkah and
seasons greetings in whatever religion, culture they celebrate at this period
in our time.
I want to also add, as the Premier has
indicated, that we, too, wish for health and happiness for all members, all
families in our communities right across the province of Manitoba in the new
year, and add to that our wish that the future will bring greater peace,
understanding and tolerance and that will be our guiding light for the future
and the foundation for our society. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you could please
call Bill 4.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 4‑The Retail
Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act
Mr. Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson), Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary
Amendments) Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs,
who has 21 minutes remaining.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Question on the motion.
Mr. Speaker: Is
the House ready for the question? The
question before the House is second reading of Bill 4, The Retail Businesses
Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments) Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces
de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications temporaires. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
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): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A
recorded vote having been requested, I would ask the Deputy Sergeant‑at‑Arms
to turn on the bells.
Call in the members.
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 4, The Retail Businesses Sunday Shopping (Temporary Amendments)
Act; Loi sur l'ouverture des commerces de detail les jours feries‑‑modifications
temporaires.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer,
Gray, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson,
Orchard, Pallister, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett,
Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Friesen,
Hickes, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 28; Nays 20.
Mr. Speaker: I
declare the motion accordingly carried.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness).
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, on Orders of the Day, I would ask
if you could please call for second reading, Bill 13, and for debate on second
reading, I would ask if you could please call Bill 7.
* (1510)
SECOND
Bill 13‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that
Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; (Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le fonds de participation des
travailleurs du Manitoba), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few brief
remarks on the record as it relates to this bill that is doing some basic
housekeeping to this particular legislation.
The amendment to The Manitoba Employee
Ownership Fund Corporation Act has been introduced to specifically address two
important issues respecting the Crocus investment fund. The first one is that during the initial five
years, the
The contemplated subordination will assist in
maintaining the value of the Class A common shares that will be sold to individual
Manitobans, but I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that after this five‑year
period, the government's position is restored to its original basis of $2
million of Class G special shares having priority then over the Class A common
share capital. In addition, the Crocus
investment fund should have generated an adequate capital base to absorb the
start‑up costs over the five‑year period.
So the first change, Mr. Speaker, is for five
years from the government of Manitoba Class G special shares. The start‑up costs will be in effect
paid for, but the value of our Class G shares will revert back to their
original face value at the end of five years, so we are merely, during that
period of time, providing the financing to cover those start‑up
costs. We are not, I want to point out,
underwriting any investment losses. We
are only covering the start‑up costs during that five‑year time
frame.
The second issue, Mr. Speaker, the second
priority, is to prevent and deal with some weaknesses of the tax credits that
are associated with the labour‑sponsored Venture Capital funds. There
appears to be some deficiencies that could have provided short‑term
advantage to investors with unintended financial returns. This would clearly detract from the objective
of creating long‑term capital for the Crocus investment fund to invest in
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, what is meant by
that is a couple of issues. Firstly, the
discouragement of any quick flipping or any adjustments is accomplished by
requiring any holder of Class A common shares to be subjected to a minimum four‑year
holding period, rather than the one‑year notice period currently
provided, before a repurchase of such shares by the Crocus investment fund
would be permissible.
As well, Mr. Speaker, another subsection 6(6)
is designed to ensure that once a holder of Class A common shares gives notice
of his or her desire to redeem, pursuant to subsection 6(1)(a), any subsequent
purchases by such Class A common shareholder are subject to the standard seven‑year
hold period rather than the four‑year hold period which may be
permissible under another section.
As well, Mr. Speaker, subsection 6(8) is added
to ensure that if any holder of Class A common shares gives notice to redeem on
such shares, thereafter he or she is prevented from purchasing Class A common
shares again for a period of 24 months.
Thus a purchaser giving notice to redeem would thereby prevent himself
or herself from acquiring further Class A common shares with the corresponding
tax credits in the same year and for a period thereafter of 24 months from the
original notice of redemption.
Those are the highlights of the changes, Mr.
Speaker. It is really, as I have
indicated, doing some housekeeping to a very important bill that I believe
received the support of all members of this Legislature when it was introduced,
a bill we are anxious to see put into action in
We are certainly very excited about the
prospects that this fund holds for Manitobans in the preservation of jobs and
economic activity here in our province, working in conjunction with the
Manitoba Federation of Labour. So, Mr.
Speaker, I certainly encourage all members of this House to support these
amendments that are before us here today.
Thank you.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 7‑The
Builders' Liens Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 7,
The Builders' Liens Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le privilege du
constructeur, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this
bill, but instead I am going to defer to my colleague from Kildonan and let him
speak next.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to follow up
on those words of the member for Burrows, perhaps by prefacing my comments with
the statement that I will be short and to the point.
I want at the onset to thank the minister for
providing me with copies of his comments with relation to the bill prior to the
actual debate. I think that is a good
practice and allows members on all sides of the House to be informed of the
issues. We appreciate spreadsheets on technical matters and on most bills, and
I appreciate the fact that the minister provided comments on this particular
amendment to us prior to my having occasion to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I can indicate at the onset that
we will not be opposed to this matter, passing it through the House today and
going on to committee in order to facilitate the requirement as indicated by
the minister for the amendment to The Builders' Liens Act.
Mr. Speaker, I will not go into a long
technical discussion concerning The Builders' Liens Amendment Act. Certainly the act itself is of extreme
significance to all involved in the construction trades and consumer industry
in fact in the
Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, this bill is
required because of a ruling of the Manitoba Court of Appeal that ruled that
registration was not required for enforcement under The Builders' Liens
Act. I did not have the opportunity to
review the jurisprudence in this matter.
I presume that decision was made based on common‑law lien
requirements and common law as it relates to liens of which there is
considerable jurisprudence.
However, we have no difficulty in supporting
this amendment on principle, Mr. Speaker, because of the fact that we have a
* (1520)
There should be no difficulty with maintaining
this principle, Mr. Speaker, and continuing this principle in our system, since
it is a registration system, and since it is a system where first‑come,
first‑served essentially is preserved on the land title. You maintain your interest and priority on
the basis of registration, consistent with that, of course, therefore, this
amendment is requiring that a builders' lien must be registered.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the
actual wording must be placed into the act in order to do that. I understand the requirement for statutory
purposes.
When I did review the act itself, that is The
Builders' Lien Act, the one that is now being amended, I noted that there was
no actual recognition of the requirement for registration in order for
enforcement to take place. This
oversight generally is the main reason that we are putting this amendment
through the House.
Generally, I do not think we have a problem
with it. I look forward to committee
hearings in order to allow for members of the public, and any individuals who
might have a specific reason for not putting this amendment through, to hear
their viewpoints, although in principle, as I indicated earlier in my comments,
I do not see any reason why this amendment should not go through, based on the
existence in this province of the Torrens land system and a registry, which requires
registration, which requires enforcement and prioritization based on that.
Otherwise, there are a number of amendments
dealing with, I presume, changes to the rules of the court and the reference to
lis pendens. That is an amendment which is of no consequence other than
cleaning up the act.
My only query actually in the act, and I would
at some point like to ask the minister why this was missed when we last did
statute law amendments and/or when we last did an amendment to The Builders'
Lien Act, because I was checking through my files, I was trying to reference
the last amendments of The Builders' Lien Act, but as I recall I thought last
session we had done that, and I am curious as to why that amendment did not
come through at that time. Perhaps I
will use the opportunity when we go to committee to query that.
Those are my brief comments, and with those
comments, I can indicate there will be no more speakers from this side of the
House, and we are prepared to see this matter go through to committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my friend indicated he was going
to be short and to the point. I am going
to be short and to the point. The
Liberal Party is prepared to have this bill pass to committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is
the House ready for the question? The
question before the House is second reading of Bill 7, The Builders' Liens
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le privilege du constructeur. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker:
Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the
House, I believe that you would find that there is unanimous consent for me to
introduce a motion respecting the reconvening of this House in the new year.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable deputy government House
leader have leave to introduce such a motion? [agreed]
Mr. Praznik:
Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey),
that when this House adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned until Monday,
March 1, 1993.
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to putting the question, I would like to inform the House that on
behalf of myself and my family, the table officers, the Chamber branch and
Hansard, we would like to take this opportunity to wish each and every one of
the members of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly and your families a very, very
Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year.
We will harken at the fact that we will see
you again at the beginning of March to see all of your happy and smiling faces.
The question before the House, it has been
moved by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), seconded by the
honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that when this House
adjourns today it shall stand adjourned until Monday, March 1, 1993. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Praznik:
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to canvass the House, you would find
that there would be unanimous consent to waive private members' hour as well as
to call it six o'clock.
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 March 1, 1993.
Merry Christmas!