LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, May 26, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees):
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the
House, I would like to table the letter of the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) to the Auditor requesting her review of the matter with respect to Shelter
Corporation.
Mr. Speaker: I
would like to thank the honourable First Minister.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1992
Annual Report of the North Portage Development Corporation and The Forks
Renewal Corporation.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today Mr. Claude
Duboulet, the Consul General of Switzerland.
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
Also with us this afternoon from the
Nelson McIntyre Collegiate, we have twenty‑nine Grade 9 students under
the direction of Mr. Ray Gosselin. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Boniface
(Mr. Gaudry).
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Immigrant Investor
Program
Audits‑Public
Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Since 1989, we have been asking
questions of the government dealing with the Immigrant Investor Fund. We have been raising concerns about
Can the Premier indicate today,
almost four years later, the status of the inquiry that it only began to
conduct in August of 1992? Will he make
clear today that all of the audits dealing with the five specific funds will be
made public?
* (1335)
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, this is a question the Leader of the Opposition asked approximately a
week ago‑‑[interjection] Two weeks ago.
At that time, I outlined that we had
received four of the five audits. We
have just recently received the final audit.
We are in the process of doing the internal review and analysis of that.
As I have indicated to this House
before, we will be making the appropriate public announcement after the review
and analysis of all five audits. I
expect that to be soon.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, increasingly, when we have been
asking this question to the minister, he has been saying that we will be
releasing our review and our analysis of these five specific funds, rather than
the five specific audits.
We are becoming gravely concerned
that the government is going to censor the information that is made available
to the public of
We have people who have donated tens
of thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party who are in the audit that is
being reviewed, Mr. Speaker, and we have a Conservative government that is now
going to control the information we have in this House.
I would like to ask the government
again to make it very clear that the five audits themselves will be released in
an uncensored form for the people of
Mr. Stefanson:
Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely nothing to do with censorship
whatsoever, and I would give the Leader of the Opposition enough credit to
respect issues such as third‑party confidentiality.
I think they did it when they were
in government, and if we have to do it in given situations in terms of
information provided, we will do the same.
I have indicated before, we will
make as much information available as possible, also respecting third‑party
confidentiality, and I hope he is not also suggesting that firms like Deloitte
Touche here in
I know they will and I have the
confidence they will. I would hope that
he is not in any way suggesting that they will be influenced by anything beyond
doing their professional job, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: When the
Provincial Auditor deals with various funds‑‑in fact, when they
dealt with the minister's own Vision Capital Fund, Mr. Speaker, they named
companies that were on the board of directors, because they have a sovereign
responsibility to report these issues to the Chamber and the people of
I want to ask the minister: In his definition of third‑party
interest‑‑which is not the definition that lawyers we have talked
to have used‑‑does that mean that the funds themselves‑‑[interjection]
Well, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) wants to answer the question about how he is
dealing with his friends, why does he not stand up?
Mr. Speaker, the audits are dealing
with the five funds themselves. Those
audits are the specific reviews of the specific transactions dealing with those
five funds.
Why will the minister today not
assure Manitobans that the public interest will be the preeminent consideration
of the government, and why will he not say today that those will be released
fully to the public for their perusal and review?
Mr. Stefanson: I will assure the Leader of the Opposition
that the public interest is of preeminence to this government, and it has been
throughout the whole process.
We are the government that undertook
a review that they could have done back in 1986 when the program came into
place if they had put in the proper rules, procedures and guidelines. We undertook the review in August of
1992. We froze funds in
I have outlined to him that there
might be third‑party confidentiality.
When we release the information, we will make as much information as can
legally be done available, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to provide as much
information as possible on this very important issue.
Education System
Extracurricular
Activities
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, perhaps
thousands of students will gather on the steps of the Legislature to protest
this government's cuts to the public education system and the potential loss of
extracurricular activities at schools in
Under this government, Mr. Speaker,
we have seen misplaced priorities which place Zambonis for
I ask the Minister of Education what
strategy she and her government have developed to deal with this growing crisis
in the public education system.
* (1340)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject the member's
preamble. I also reject the details that
he has put forward about the purpose of the students coming to the Legislature
this afternoon because last week, I did have an opportunity to meet with the
students who would be coming.
The students made it clear that they
would be attending in a rally, and one of the main and underlying purposes
would be to ask those people responsible for education to continue to discuss
and to talk and to problem solve, not necessarily to point the finger at this
single government.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this minister seems to be
indicating she can shunt this off to the local level, to the school boards and
trustees.
I want to ask this minister: Can the minister tell this House how she has
responded to River East students when they wrote to her and said, and I
quote: Do you realize that with the loss
of extracurricular activities, dropouts will increase at incredible rates? Where will the money come from to support
these students without jobs? Students
have nothing to do with their time, so the amount of drug and alcohol use will
increase and along with that, vandalism and crime.
I want to ask the minister, how is
she responding to those‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
his question.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, again, the member has asked about government funding. I have said before in this House that
education has not been singled out and teachers have not been singled out, but
that Manitobans must work together to look at our economic and fiscal situation
and the fiscal realities of this province.
We have also said that in the past,
education, health and family services have been areas where there has been
protection, but this year, we have now asked that those particular areas, as
well, must share in the recovery of this province, and that is exactly what we
have asked teachers to do.
Teachers have not been singled
out. Teachers have been asked to
share. We believe that teachers are
professional and they will be able to come to a resolution around sharing and
reconsider any kind of job action.
Education System
Extracurricular
Activities
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake. The crisis comes as a direct result of this
government's actions, and the Premier knows that.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
Premier, since the students from River East wrote to him on May 13, and they
said and I quote: The threat of losing
extracurricular activities will mean a drastic change to our lives. The responsibility and leadership skills that
you learn from these activities build character in our generation and
generations to follow.
They go on to say: How will anyone achieve athletic scholarships
without high school sports?
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr. Plohman: I
want to ask the Premier: How is he
responding to these River East students who are concerned about their future?
* (1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, rather than just simply
play politics on this issue the way the member for Dauphin does, who is also a
member of the teachers' union and wants to foment this kind of discontent in an
irresponsible manner‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I could
find a couple of areas in which the Premier is violating Beauchesne,
particularly in terms of responding to a question that was asked in terms of
high school students and their concerns.
If he is not going to answer the
questions, he should not also break our rules in Beauchesne in terms of
attributing motive. The member for
Dauphin is speaking out on behalf of the students, many high school students
across the province‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
The honourable First Minister, to
finish his response.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite speak on
behalf of their own narrow self‑interest as always. We know exactly where they stand and so do
the people of
The fact of the matter is it is not
this government that has put the students in this position. We offered a solution that would not require
any loss of contact with the students.
We offered a solution whereby those employed in the field of education,
like everybody else in society, would have to face up to the realities all of
us do.
There are people in society today in
all‑‑[interjection] The members opposite just want to tax and
spend, tax and spend and drive up the deficit.
We know where they stand. They
can afford to be irresponsible, but I can tell you that their colleagues who
are in government in
The fact of the matter is everybody
has to co‑operate in order to ensure that we can make ends meet. We have offered a variety of alternatives,
alternatives that are being pursued by responsible people in school boards in
this province.
If teachers indeed want to help
students, withdrawing their services and threatening not to participate in
their activities is no way to help the students of this province. That is not the way to do it. That may be the way that the New Democrats
want to. They are the irresponsible
people. We do not accept that, Mr.
Speaker.
Education System Reform
Government Strategy
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Later today, we are going to have
students coming to the Manitoba Legislature to protest which, in all likelihood,
will be the first time where we have seen elementary and high school students
in protest. We have had university
students, post‑secondary students protesting.
My question to the Minister of
Education is: What is this government,
in particular this minister, doing‑‑she makes reference to wanting
to solve problems‑‑to solve some of the problems in education?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, this government has put forward
more educational reforms in the past three years than has been seen in the
history of education.
I point to the introduction of a
bill for Francophone governance, reform of The Public Schools Act, review of
the universities and moving our community colleges to governance.
School Divisions
Boundary Review
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the minister is: When is this minister going to deal with the
issue of school divisions and restructuring of the number of school divisions
we have in the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): As I said when I made the announcement to
defer school boundaries a year ago, it was still an issue which this government
had said that it was interested in pursuing, and I hope to make an announcement
on that shortly.
National Council on
Education
Government Participation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question is for the Minister of Education.
Will she support the participation of a Council of Ministers of Education in a
national council on education to deal with these concerns?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): As the member may know, ministers across this
country do operate as a Council of Ministers of Education, and we do meet and
we have the opportunity to discuss issues which we have in common and issues of
concern across
We also have the opportunity to
discuss any initiatives which the federal government may also want to put
forward, and as ministers, we will take the opportunity to discuss it and come
forward with the position.
New Careers Program
Affirmative Action
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, on May 13, I asked the minister
in Question Period how many aboriginal employees she had fired from New
Careers. She refused to tell the House
and said she would answer in Estimates.
In Estimates with her staff present,
when asked about affirmative action in her department, she chose to table a
document that was two months out of date and which took no account of the
employees cut from New Careers.
With some persistent questioning,
the minister admitted that out of eight aboriginal staff in New Careers, five
had lost their jobs in the minister's reorganization.
Would she tell the House today again
about her extensive commitment to aboriginal affirmative action in her
department?
* (1350)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Yes, yesterday, I had to bring out the Hansard
to show the member that, in fact, the question was one which should be
considered in Estimates and which would be, and one that we did speak about
last evening.
When we spoke about the positions in
New Careers, I did let the member know, and we discussed affirmative
action. I let her know all of the
initiatives that we have regarding affirmative action.
But one point that she has had a lot
of trouble dealing with is the fact that under the collective agreement, the
collective agreement does not allow for affirmative action in the area of
reductions. That member seems to want us
to break the collective agreement and deal with affirmative action under that
heading.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, when the government makes the
difficult choices of building better private golf courses and cutting the New
Careers Program, that is exactly what happens.
I want to ask the minister what
message of hope does the Minister of Education believe has been conveyed to aboriginal
people in training in New Careers programs and elsewhere when her department
cuts more than $1 million from a successful program and now simply disposes of
more than 60 percent of the aboriginal staff in that program?
Mrs. Vodrey: As
I said yesterday, it is clear from the budget line that this government has
maintained a commitment to the type of programming which is offered by New
Careers.
In addition, I have also explained
to the member how through the restructuring of the Advanced Education and
Skills Training portion of my department, we look to provide a full range of
programming and opportunity for access for Manitobans.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister has
considered the program impact of the loss of those five staff in the New
Careers Program, so could she tell us today what the program impacts will be
for a department, for a program, in particular, whose success depended upon
culturally sensitive programming and counselling?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr.
Speaker, last evening, I did bring some up‑to‑date figures to say
that the aboriginal staff in that program were seven, and that there was still
a sensitivity to the area of cultural sensitivity.
In addition, we spoke about how that
program operates. It operates with people
also participating in work within their communities, where they also receive
community support and also, in some cases, cultural support where that is a
part of their work experience program.
Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry Report
Government Action Plan
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) kindly took notice of
questions raised by the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) with respect
to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and initiatives our government is taking.
Our government is working directly
with aboriginal communities, Mr. Speaker, to make the justice system more
sensitive and responsive to the needs and concerns of aboriginal Manitobans.
For the second year in a row, our
government has established a special $1‑million Aboriginal Justice
Initiatives Fund. This money is used for
a variety of projects directly in aboriginal communities; for example, $100,000
over two years for the St.
On the other question regarding
aboriginal policing, I met just last week with the Honourable Doug Lewis,
federal Solicitor General, to discuss the tripartite policing negotiations.
I am pleased to report that
negotiations are progressing with the federal government, and we remain
committed to increasing aboriginal participation in our police forces and the
expansion of aboriginal police forces on reserves.
* (1355)
Environmental
Legislation
Enforcement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Department of
Environment collected a mere $9,600 last year from penalties of environmental
infractions. This is pathetic when
compared to other provinces which had raised more than a million dollars from
environmental infractions.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Allow the
honourable member to put her question.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Environment is: Why is
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I presume she is also in favour
of quotas for RCMP officers on traffic tickets.
Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely
galling when a member of the opposition which numbers among its benches a
number of members who condone the amount of cost that the taxpayers of this
province are now paying to clean up the Manfor site‑‑and they talk
about the lack of ability to collect fines.
We are paying up to $13 million to clean up the mess they left behind.
Ms. Cerilli: I
will give the minister another chance to answer the question.
What are other provinces doing that
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, again, it appears that the member would like us to assign quotas to
our environment officers and tell them that they can go out as bounty hunters
and collect under The Environment Act.
Mr. Speaker, the member would imply
that there are polluters out there who are not being brought to task, and I
suggest she had better give examples.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, the State of the Environment Report admits this is a
pathetic performance and that the government is now working on an enforcement
policy to increase its enforcement and penalties collected.
What is the new policy going to do
differently so that our generation of money is going to enforce the law in
Mr. Cummings:
Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate that the enforcement of environmental
regulation was going to be a revenue stream, but I think that is what she is
suggesting.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is we have
been increasing the number of environment officers in this province. Once we go into Estimates, I hope tomorrow,
we will be able to show where the number of environment officers on the ground
is increasing.
I would point out that of the
provinces across western
Seniors Programs
Funding
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
responsible for Seniors.
The minister issued a press release
last week proclaiming the month of June to be Seniors Month. The proclamation was issued in recognition of
past and present contributions of seniors.
At the same time as the government
is recognizing the contributions seniors have made to
How can he justify saying that
seniors are important to his government when its own spending priorities show
they are not?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for
Seniors): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal caucus already
requested the funds that were spent last year.
Under the Freedom of Information, we will be providing them with that
information shortly.
However, we did consult with senior
groups throughout the province, and the four events that are held, and the ones
held before, have been very well received.
We will continue to support seniors
and have them come to the Legislature. A
lot of them, it is the only few days they have to come to the Leg, and, also,
the events throughout the province are very well received.
If he wants to point out, for
instance, the day at the Leg last year, I think we spent in the vicinity of
$9,000 for 1,500 seniors, so figure it out per capita, and it is money well
spent for our seniors throughout
* (1400)
Mr. Gaudry:
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of fitness and sport (Mr.
Stefanson).
At the same time as it has increased
the budget allocation to fitness and sport by 2.1 percent, this government has
decided to eliminate its grant in support of the
How much of the increased funding
for his department will be directed towards seniors' sporting activities?
Mr. Ducharme:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was all consolidated under the
Minister responsible for Seniors as of last year.
We consulted with MSOS who sponsored
the games, and through their revenue and their surplus of $250,000 they have in
the bank, they have decided this year they will carry on with the MSOS games
without funding from the government.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corp.
Seniors Discount
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, under the no‑fault
legislation, seniors will no longer be eligible for income replacement after
age 68, yet I suspect they will be paying full rates nonetheless.
Considering cuts to the Seniors
Directorate and the elimination of the Pensioner's School Tax Assistance from
the property tax bill, is the Minister responsible for MPIC going to give
seniors a cut in Autopac rates so that they are not paying for coverage they
are not even eligible for?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the
administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would have to suggest that the
member is incorrect in his assertion that seniors are not eligible for benefits
under the legislation that is presently before the House.
The fact is if there is an income
loss, it will be replaced. Additionally, all other services that would be
available to anyone are available to seniors without restriction. All health care, all rehabilitation, all out‑of‑pocket
expenses will be replaced. Where there
is a loss of income, that will be replaced.
Private Money Lenders
Regulations
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the invisible
Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable member for Elmwood
that we refer to ministers as "the honourable minister of" and his
responsibility. We also respond to
members as "the honourable member for" in relating to his
constituency.
I would ask the honourable member to
comply with said rule.
Point of Order
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): On a point of order, I am sure that the
member opposite would not want to make comments with respect to the minister if
he were aware of the fact that she suffered a bad fall and has been instructed
to be confined to bed by her doctor, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable First Minister did not have a point of order.
We appreciate the information.
* * *
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to ask the
Minister of Consumer Affairs this question for two weeks now. Perhaps I will direct my question to the
acting minister.
Mr. Speaker, consumers of this
province have paid fees and never received funds from loan brokers in this
province. Given that the firm has now
left the province, having bilked hundreds of Manitobans of their money, when is
this minister, when is this this government going to take some steps to
regulate private lenders in this province?
They have known about it for a month
and a half now, and they have done nothing.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the preamble of the question as
being accurate, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the minister.
Consumer Alert
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, since the minister knew about
this situation now for six weeks, why did the minister not issue a consumer
alert when she first got complaints over a month and a half ago and before the
Better Business Bureau got 160 complaints on this matter?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, again, without accepting any of
the preamble as being accurate, I will take that question as notice on behalf
of the minister.
Private Money Lenders
Investigations
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, since this government is not
prepared to act on this matter, my supplementary is to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Could he tell the House what
involvement, including meetings, he has had with FYB Management Services,
Western Financial Services Ltd. and Premier Canadian Financial Services Ltd.
and whether these groups have been investigated as part of his long‑awaited
investigation into the Immigrant Investor Program operated in this province?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I have had no meetings with any of those three organizations,
certainly in the last period of time or that I can recall under those
particular names.
In terms of their involvement or
potential involvement with the Immigrant Investor Program, we will await the
conclusion of the five audits I have received that I referred to earlier.
To the best of my knowledge, again,
there is no relationship of those three firms.
We will wait and see what the information shows, Mr. Speaker.
Grain Transportation
Method of Payment
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Last week, I tabled a copy of a
report of the NTA on the western grain transportation efficiencies. Since the report indicates that if these
changes are implemented, farmers' costs will increase by $500 million over
eight crop years, I want to ask the minister whether he has had a chance to
look at this report, and if he has, does he still support implementing the
changes and changes to the method of payment which will further increase farm
costs and do nothing to improve the farm gate prices?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has now
finally recognized we have some troubles at the farm gate in terms of
costs. I would like to remind her of
costs I gave her before. Maybe she will
get around to looking at them.
At the farm gate, we have seen costs
for terminal activities, the elevators going for $3.77 in 1980 to $6.58 today,
lake transportation from $14 to $18, storage costs from $4 to $1.83, the
freight and elevation costs going from about $9 up to $21. Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the member recognizes we have cost increases that have been passed on to
the farmer.
We are trying, through the process
of evaluating the overall system, to find ways and means to create efficiencies
in the system that decrease overall costs, and particularly costs that accrue
at the farm gate because, at the same time, the member is well aware that the
value of the commodity we are producing in terms of the dollars per bushel for
wheat and barley has gone down at the farm gate to about half. I am glad she now recognizes that problem.
Minister's Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the minister: He says he supports efficiencies and he says
he supports improving the farm gate price.
What does he say about this paper that says farmers' prices are going to
go up by $500 million and railway profits are going to go up to a billion
dollars, increasing by $500 million?
What is this doing for farmers?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the issue is very involved, very
complex, and that is why in 1989, we formed the Ministers' Advisory Council to
look at the overall issues of grain transportation, the ability of grain
farmers to survive with an international grain trade war and increasing costs. That process has been ongoing. Many studies have been put out. This is one of many, many studies that have
been done.
The committee which is broadly
represented by all rural Manitobans is analyzing the issue and making constant
recommendations to me as to how we proceed in the future for farmers to have
the ability to grow those crops and make a profit exporting it to the world.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr.
Speaker, this is the National Transportation Agency reviewing the system that says
farmers are going to pay more money, and this minister will not‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: Will the minister tell us whether he has read
this paper and when he is going to stand up for farmers and oppose all of these
things that are going to cost farmers more money and not do a thing to improve
the farm gate price?
Mr. Findlay:
Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, that is the luxury of opposition. She can oppose anything. She just wants to oppose everything. She has no solutions.
We have gone through Estimates, went
through the Estimates discussion. She
had no solutions. She opposed this, she
opposed that, but she has no solutions.
I am one who consults with the industry broadly. I have done that religiously for five years,
and I continue to do it working with the stakeholders to try to find solutions.
An Honourable Member: Close your eyes and the world will not change.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, to quote the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), close your eyes and the world will not change‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Grow Bonds
Program Review
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): The same is true, Mr. Speaker, for the
Minister of Rural Development, who has had his eyes closed with respect to the
Grow Bonds Program since its inception.
Yesterday, I indicated that in my
discussions with chambers of commerce and Regional Development Corporation
managers and others involved in economic development in the province, the Grow
Bonds Program was not operating as it should.
My question is to the Minister of
Rural Development. Will he now, after
the president of the Manitoba Chamber has indicated that this program is a
failure, is failing the
* (1410)
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the
member opposite that the Grow Bonds Program was implemented in this province so
that rural Manitobans could invest in opportunities that might be coming to
their areas and so that they would have a vehicle whereby they could invest in
those kinds of opportunities.
I can indicate to the member that to
date we have several very successful projects underway and several more that
are in the works. I can refer the member
to the Rimer‑Alco project, which, indeed, has been a tremendous success
in terms of the Grow Bonds initiative that was implemented. I can refer the member to the Teulon
experience, where the Grow Bonds were sold out in a matter of a week and a
half. These are examples of success
stories.
However, we have to understand that
this was not a quick fix for rural
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, we understand that the vehicle has merit, but,
unfortunately, this vehicle is stalled, this vehicle will not start, this
vehicle needs a boost. That is what the
chamber of commerce says. That is what
people in rural
My question to the Minister of Rural
Development: Will he now acknowledge
that there are some legitimate problems in this program, problems that stem
partly from the variety of levels that are involved in the approval process,
and will he attempt to streamline it with the groups involved in rural
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the member is dead wrong. As a matter of fact, it is up to the
communities, and it is up to the individual proponents to come forward with
ideas. As soon as those ideas have been
developed, the process moves along very quickly.
No one intended that we would simply
throw money at rural communities and the problems would go away. That is the NDP fix. It is not the way we are approaching the
problem.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government is not
going to be interested in solving the problem until they acknowledge there is
one. There is a problem. The chamber of commerce has told the
minister.
My question is: Will he now work with the Manitoba Chamber of
Commerce, with the
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are
doing. We are working not only with the municipal groups, the UMM, MAUM; we are
also working with the chambers.
As a matter of fact, I have met
personally with the president of the
Mr. Speaker, just last week, we announced
a new program with regard to assisting rural Manitobans to invest in projects,
and we will continue to work with chambers and municipalities to ensure that
rural Manitobans have every opportunity of investment in our province.
Housing
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Housing.
The housing conditions and concerns
in remote northern communities are significant.
There are poor housing conditions, lack of repairs, and now there are concerns
in many northern communities about the changeover in programming with the
assumption of responsibility by CMHC, which is leading to people going from
fixed rents to increased rents based on income, and people who had the
opportunity to own their own home now in the position of being renters.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Housing what his position is in terms of the shifts that are taking place and
what his government is doing to deal with the many concerns being expressed by
people in remote northern communities about these changes.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the member for Thompson's
questions are quite broad, and it would be better served, I think, in terms of
a discussion once we get into the Estimates of the Department of Housing.
I can say, though, that a number of,
particularly native groups in this province about a year and a half ago
approached CMHC and asked that all of the native housing programs that were
being provided formerly by Manitoba Housing be returned to CMHC for delivery by
them.
They in turn sublet the delivery of
that program to the Manitoba Metis Federation which is presently delivering the
program.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I had a specific question in
terms of the impact it is having in terms of rental payments. Many people are faced with increased rental
payments and continuing problems with maintenance.
What is the position of the minister
and this government in dealing with the very significant concerns being
expressed by northern residents about housing conditions and rents?
Mr. Ernst: The question of rents, maintenance and so on,
Mr. Speaker, falls under the purview of CMHC.
I suggest that he contact the local manager here, Mr. Roy Nichol, to ask
him those questions.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask firstly if you could
seek leave of the House to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker:
Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker:
No, leave is denied.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask then if you could
call for second reading Bill 37. I
believe that is the bill dealing with the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation, then if you could call for continuation of debate on second
reading in this order, Bills 23, 19, 16 and 22.
SECOND
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the
administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 37, The
Motion presented.
Mr. Cummings:
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Bill 37.
This bill calls for the introduction
of a no‑fault injury compensation plan for
The new plan will replace the right
to sue, a provision which often results in some people being paid too much for
their injuries and others too little, with guaranteed compensation for all
accident victims based on their real economic losses. This compensation is greatly enhanced over
that which is available today. This bill
takes restitution for injury claims out of the realm of litigation and into
that of compensation.
The government recognizes that Bill
37 represents a major departure from the status quo, but let me assure everyone
in this House that such a dramatic action is what may well be preferable to the
alternative, and that alternative may be continuing massive increases in injury‑claim
costs resulting in a doubling of Autopac premiums by the turn of the century.
Mr. Speaker, those costs are being
driven primarily by claims for relatively minor, temporary injuries. These become a major burden on the insurance
system. Last year, in fact, these types
of injuries, such as whiplash, made up 80 percent of all injury claims
reported. Clearly, Manitobans are
concerned.
My friends, no doubt, have heard
that the implementation of no‑fault will result in some considerable
saving, but let me remind everyone that that saving will ultimately accrue to
the motorists of this province. With
these changes, very simply, Manitobans will no longer face the unacceptably
high premium costs that they experienced last year.
Mr. Speaker, I think the acoustical
system in the other side of the House is not working well.
When we announced that legislation
would be introduced, Mr. Speaker, we emphasized four key principles to ensure
that Manitobans are fairly compensated for real economic losses due to auto
accidents. I repeat that we wish to
ensure that Manitobans are fairly compensated for real economic losses due to
auto accidents.
The four key principles are
these: coverage for all Manitobans
injured anywhere in
I would like to touch on a few of
the highlights of this bill that I believe will reinforce the four principles
that I just mentioned. By now, most
Manitobans probably have a good idea of the general coverages that are
available under the no‑fault plan.
Many of them have likely seen the brochures that have been delivered to
their homes.
Income replacement, medical
rehabilitation costs, personal care expenses, death benefits and funeral
expenses, child care expenses, compensation for students unable to complete a
school year or term and payments for people who suffer permanent injuries are
all essential components of the package.
Many of these coverages are not capped or limited, for as long as the
person legitimately requires coverage, they will receive it.
* (1420)
That is an important reference
point, when we look at some of the other forms of no‑fault compensation
that are being tried in other jurisdictions across this country and across the
United States, there are very few of the benefits within this compensation
package that will be capped.
There are certain points which speak
to concerns about the benefits that have been expressed by some members of the
public. Income replacement provisions apply to anyone who looses income as a
result of an accident. If wages are
lost, or salary from a full or a part‑time job, there will be
compensation, and that compensation will be up to the level that covers the
vast majority of Manitobans.
Homemakers, students, seniors and
self‑employed are assured of comprehensive protection against financial
loss. In some cases, even where there
was no wage income in place, income replacement is provided. For example, the homemaker who is injured and
disabled for six months or more will receive income replacement even though he
or she did not work for wages outside of the home. As well, all other applicable coverages will
be paid to homemakers such as compensation for medical and rehabilitation
expenses.
Mr. Speaker, seniors have asked
questions about income, and what would occur should they be injured. Those who depend on private or public pension
income will not be affected because this income remains in place even if a person
is injured. At the same time, they will
be eligible for benefits such as medical expense, payments to ensure that they
suffer no economic loss as a result of an accident. In addition to this, they will be eligible
for all other benefits. Working seniors
will also receive an income replacement indemnity even if they are also
receiving pension income at the same time.
Mr. Speaker, as we all too well
know, economic circumstances can change from one year to the next. As they do, they can have a profound impact
on people with fixed incomes. People
receiving no‑fault benefits will not be placed in this unfortunate
situation. These benefits will be
adjusted to assure that people whose lives have been affected by injuries as a
result of automobile accidents do not fall behind.
Also, I would like to draw attention
to the appeal mechanism. It is a strong
appeal and review mechanism designed to protect accident victims who disagree
with decisions that have been made about their claims. This appeal process will be available to all
claimants.
Firstly, the review will be
conducted by a corporation representative who is not involved in the original
claim decision. If this is not
satisfactory, an appeal can be made to the independent automobile injury compensation
appeal commission. This body will be
made up of a chief commissioner and other commissioners, and it will be
appointed on merit, with regard to their expertise and their broad base of
experience in helping them deal with situations that they may be faced with.
It will seek appropriate appointees
who will bring their skill and good judgment to bear on the decisions that they
render. The commission will have
adequate powers to conduct through reviews and, if necessary, through
investigation. It will provide a yearly
accounting of its decisions and the reasons for those decisions in a report to
be tabled annually in this House through the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh).
Let me assure members that the
provisions of Bill 37 do not mean that the concept of fault in terms of responsibility
for accidents will go by the wayside.
People who cause accidents will continue to be held accountable for
their accidents through the current accident surcharge and demerit point
system.
Mr. Speaker, the changes proposed by
this government and as outlined in Bill 37 represent another progressive step
to reinforce confidence in
Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago,
there is a rather unique situation in this province where we have a monopoly Crown
that offers a minimum amount of insurance that is required to put a vehicle on
a road in this province. That in itself
has caused a lot of controversy. Many
members of this House historically go back to the early days of that debate, if
not the very first days, and that debate is an ongoing one.
In these amendments and through this
bill, we are bringing a further dimension to how people will be reimbursed for
their injuries as part of that automobile insurance plan. People may well choose to buy additional
insurance, as they do today. But we
believe that the basic requirements and the basic coverages that are needed for
protection of the driving public and of the passengers and automobiles in this
province are included in the amendments that are before you today in
conjunction with the previously accepted bills for automobile insurance in this
province.
I commend this bill to the
House. I would expect that there will be
some hardy debate in committee. We will
be endeavouring to make available to the committee, as much as we can, details
regarding what regulations may be attached to this bill to provide further
clarity as to how it will be seen, or how it will be received as it is being
implemented. I look forward to that
debate.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk
(Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 23‑‑The
Retail Businesses
Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 23, The Retail Businesses
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave that this matter may remain standing? [agreed]
Also standing in the name of the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) who has 20 minutes remaining. Is there leave that this matter may remain
standing? [agreed]
Point of Order
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I look to my colleague the
opposition House leader as to whether or not there was need to have this bill
remain standing in anyone's name today.
I understand there are members who want to speak on it, perhaps conclude
debate. I look to him for his comment.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, those that are listed have
indicated that they do not wish to debate.
Perhaps you might want to ask if there is leave again. I believe there
probably is not leave, and we can proceed with other speakers.
Mr. Speaker:
Maybe I misunderstood, we will ask one more time.
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 23, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Is there leave that this matter
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker:
No. Leave is denied.
Also, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) who has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker:
No. Leave is denied.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
put a few words on the record concerning Bill 23, The Retail Businesses
The legislation has created a great
deal of controversy in rural
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the
legislation is still opposed by the vast majority of individuals in rural
It was passed in the Manitoba
Chamber of Commerce in a Resolution 13, and I will just read: Therefore be it resolved that the Union of
Manitoba Municipalities oppose the implication of Sunday shopping.
This was from the R.M. of
Their policies have failed so their
only alternative is to, well, let us allow wide‑open Sunday
shopping. They figure this will revive
the economy. This will make everything
better for all Manitobans. Well,
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this will not.
This will hurt the rural economy, and as someone who represents a
constituency in rural
Selkirk already has had a number of
economic blows over the past years brought on by the government opposite: the closing of the school of nursing. There was significant job loss. There was a significant amount of students
who left the community and took with them their purchasing power. The government closed the training plant
within the Selkirk community, the Human Resources
The municipal leaders in our
particular community were opposed to the whole issue of Sunday shopping, and
now they are opposed to the way this government is dealing with this issue in
this particular piece of legislation, because now they have to make the
decision. They were unhappy with the
whole issue of Sunday shopping before and now they are very unhappy with having
to bring forward the resolution to their own council and debate it and having
to decide the issue themselves.
They feel that it is a passing of
the buck by the government, Mr. Speaker, and it is something that will not be
forgotten by those of us who live in rural
We have also called for the
government to hold public hearings outside of the city, outside of this
building. We have asked them to hold
public hearings in communities such as Steinbach, Gimli, Brandon, Dauphin,
Selkirk.
When they first introduced Sunday
shopping they mentioned that it was brought on as a trial basis, and they were
going to conduct during that time an objective analysis of the shopping
patterns of individuals on Sundays. That
of course brings the question of has there been any objective analysis, and the
answer unfortunately is no.
It was suggested by the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) that the Rural Development Institute in
It is going to mean job losses in
rural
There have been many businesses that
have already closed in the community, and this unfortunately will not at all
help them deal with the whole issue of economic difficulties that they are
facing. This of course will even
compound the issue, because if you live in a community such as Selkirk,
adjacent to the city of
This again has been one of the major
criticisms of this whole issue. One of
the stronger opponents of Sunday shopping is an individual who actually has a
business in the Selkirk community, Mr. Jim Gaynor. He is the president of Gaynor Foods in
Selkirk and the past president of the Selkirk and District Chamber of
Commerce. Mr. Gaynor has been very vocal
in his opposition to the government's position in terms of Sunday
shopping. He owns, I guess, the largest
independent grocery store within the community of Selkirk. Up to now he remained closed on Sundays, and
he was very satisfied with the existing legislation prior to the introduction
of this particular bill and the bill that followed it.
Now he finds himself in the awkward
position of having to open on Sundays to compete with the larger food and
retail stores within the community. He
feels that his particular business is based upon the loyalty that he has
developed and secured with his customers over the years, and I would agree that
he has done an excellent job. His
concern is that if he did not open on Sunday, as his main competitors are
doing, that he would lose that particular business that he has built up over
the last number of years. So this is why
he is in strong opposition to it, and I understand it is his case. I know that my sister works at his particular
store, and she is now required to give up her Sundays on a regular basis to go
into work, Mr. Speaker. She has a young
family. She misses the opportunity now
to spend time with her children and with her family.
As Mr. Gaynor was stating, he makes
a number of points in his opposition to Sunday shopping, and I would just like
to quote from some of the statements that he has made in a recent publication
of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Manitoba Focus. He quotes as No. 1: It will be very damaging to small business in
our province, the sector which is well recognized as being our major employer.
No one can deny that small business
in our province is the major generator of jobs, and I believe it was a quote
from another source which states that large employers like SuperValu create about
one hour of employee time for every $500 worth of sales. You compare that to small independent grocers
who create one hour of employment for every $50 in sales, Mr. Speaker, so there
is no denying the value of small business within our province. There is also, unfortunately, no denying that
wide‑open Sunday shopping will have a negative impact upon these very
important job generators within our community.
He makes another point: It will be very damaging to the commercial
life of rural communities at a time when our government is spending large
amounts of money to move jobs to these communities in an effort to strengthen
them.
He speaks, of course, about the
government's decentralization strategies.
Here we have the government moving jobs into rural
I speak of Selkirk, Stonewall,
Morris, Beausejour perhaps, communities that are adjacent to the city of
* (1440)
I was reading in the Hansard the
speech given by the former member for Rossmere, and I quote: I have one great concern, Mr. Speaker, and
that is that stores in outlying areas to
Maybe this is one of the reasons why
the former member for Rossmere quit, because the government opposite are
uninterested, Mr. Speaker, in any of his concerns. Obviously he raised the concern about this
government running up the largest deficit in the history of the
So, anyway, as I was mentioning, the
member for Rossmere in one of his quotes, he understood that communities in
outlying areas to the city of
Mr. Gaynor goes on to say: The only businesses positioned to benefit
from this change are a few large corporations, many of whom have a questionable
commitment to our province as they have recently moved their head offices to
other provinces, Mr. Speaker.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair)
Again, he is very accurate in that assessment
of the current situation in our province.
He goes on to state: The case has
been made by some large corporations that businesses expand as a result of full‑scale
Sunday shopping. This is absolutely
wrong. The reality is that business shifts from rural communities in small
centre cities to large corporations, most of whom are headquartered in distant
cities or foreign lands.
Sunday shopping will not benefit
rural
We are disappointed with the fact
that the government will not go out to rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, I realize that
there are other members in my party wishing to speak on this legislation
today. I just wanted to voice a few
concerns in opposition to this legislation.
I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak to it, and I will not be
supporting this legislation.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, the members opposite are
a little overanxious on this bill. It is
a pleasure to speak on a bill that is this important in the Chamber and affects
as many people and lives in the
I want to start my comments with the
comments of the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), comments that were made in
1987 in this Chamber dealing with the Sunday shopping laws that were changed in
1987. I remember because I was a new
member of this Legislature, and I remember the kind of co‑operation that
was put in play to get a made‑in‑Manitoba solution to a problem
that was developed in the courts arising out of a legal technicality dealing
with the 1979 law that was passed by the former Conservative government dealing
with Sunday shopping.
I remember when the courts overruled
the made‑in‑Manitoba compromise, we all got together‑‑the
Liberals, the NDP and the Conservatives‑‑and passed the Sunday
shopping law that maintained the
I thought we had a pretty good
solution in this Chamber in 1987, and I want to quote the member for Pembina in
responding to‑‑and the member for Pembina could never be accused of
supporting the NDP legislation on a whim.
He supported it, of course, because it was consistent with the
legislation that he had been involved in passing in 1979.
The member for Pembina said in 1987,
quote: I have not changed my position
from when we passed this legislation some eight years ago, and I approach this
legislation from maybe a different perspective representing rural
He goes on to say: And I have to tell you that rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister
says and the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) states: I cannot support wide‑open Sunday
shopping, shopping because of its impact on my constituency, jobs in my
constituency and the people I am elected to represent and protect here as much
as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, these are the
words of the member for Pembina when he talks about the Sunday shopping law
that was passed in '87, because that Sunday shopping law, by definition, was
almost the same Sunday shopping law that Sterling Lyon brought to this House in
1979, which was a compromise between rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am
absolutely shocked when I listen to members of the community from rural
I shop at some of the same stores
the member opposite does. I shop in some of the same community stores as the
member opposite does. She and I have
seen the petitions from stores in our collective northeast quadrant of the city
of
* (1450)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had a
situation with Bill 4 that the government tabled in November and December of
1992. I am sure they told the members
opposite in their own caucus, oh, this is only a trial period; we will have a
trial; and we will have a five‑month trial; and we will let the people
speak; and we will study the situation.
That is what they said when they brought the bill in, in November of
1992.
Let us look at the minister's
original press release‑‑a trial.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of legislation, a trial surely means, (1)
there is an independent judge; and (2) for legislation, there is public
input. Now did we have an independent
judge on this trial period? We suggested
that the Rural Institute do that independent study‑‑maybe a better
idea.
Government did not come back with
one. We did not want to have a few
bureaucrats with the former deputy mayor from the City of
The second thing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is public hearings. We do not pass very many bills to second hearing
quickly very often. In fact, members
opposite would normally accuse us, as opposition, of debating bills too
long. Perhaps the odd time that is
correct. Perhaps the odd time we have
not debated them long enough. But we
passed this bill within 10 days in December of 1992 at second reading so the
public would have a chance to speak at public hearings.
All of us make speeches about, you
know, politics has changed, we have to have greater empowerment, we should
listen to the people, and we have to have communities. The Speech from the Throne after the 1990
Okay, maybe the government was
busy. Maybe they were over in
Maybe they were too busy at that
point. So we asked the question on the
first day we returned in March of 1993:
Are we going to have public hearings?
And the minister said to us, yes, we are going to public hearings, and
we are going to have them shortly.
First week goes by. Second week goes by. I do not know whether it was raised in the
Conservative caucus. Third week goes by
and, lo and behold, without any public hearings we see a second bill, Bill 23,
on the Order Paper that suspends the trial period for Sunday shopping, suspends
the five‑month period of time we were going to evaluate it, cancels it
out fully with the stroke of a minister's pen and a stroke of a cabinet's fiat,
and says we are going to go to a new system of Sunday shopping.
We are going to go to a new system,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and where they develop this system, I do not know, but we
are going to delegate the decision now to the communities in
How does that solve the problem
between rural communities that say this is bad for them, and the urban
community of
It is absolutely, patently
unfair. Where did we develop this? Where did this come from? The last time a Premier of a province came up
with a ridiculous idea of delegating it to the communities was a person named
David Peterson who was thrown out of office because of his arrogance and his
cavalier behavior and his lack of ability to have a compromise and consensus on
some of these tough issues.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to
the members opposite: How have you let
the Conservative Party in your own caucus be so totally dominated by two ex‑deputy
mayors across the way who had the portfolio of Industry, Trade and Tourism and
a number of members opposite who had tremendous clout in the former City
Council and are now running the City of Winnipeg's agenda as part of the
provincial Conservative government agenda?
That is a very important point because
there is no other conclusion to be drawn.
There is no other conclusion to be drawn. Don Orchard said in 1987 that the people that
will benefit are retail chains.
Now, I have gone out and talked to
rural businesses, and I have gone out and talked to businesses in
Now are we listening to different
people than members opposite? Are we
listening to different people in Beausejour than the minister? Are we listening to different people in
Steinbach than members opposite? Are we
listening to different people in Selkirk than they are listening to?
[interjection] Well, there is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
SuperValu was not open and Costco
was not open before the government changed.
Now let me explain it to you.
When you have a huge retail chain that is now open on the seventh day,
that impacts on the stores that were formerly opened the four employees or
less.
I want to explain this to you
because, if you have those stores open and taking hundreds of dollars of
purchasing power away from the small store in Beausejour or Selkirk or
Steinbach or
You are in effect decreasing the
activity of the smaller stores and the rural stores and increasing the volume
in the large retail chains in the city of
So this issue is a compromise. I mean, there are things that are open on
Sundays. There were in 1979 under the
Conservatives. There were in 1987 under
the NDP, and there are obviously today.
This is also a compromise between
small business and big business. So we
have a compromise between rural
Now the government opposite says,
oh, members opposite are only concerned about the unions. That is an allegation they make. Well, let us look at it. Are small retail operations
"unionized"? [interjection] Okay, well some members‑‑the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) said that to us. [interjection] Okay, well, that is fair
enough. The member says no. I know that when we asked the question about
eight weeks ago, and I will show the member the Hansard, the Premier says, oh,
you are only representing "unions."
Well, quite frankly, SuperValu is unionized and many of these small
operations are nonunion.
This crosses across "union
lines" and let me throw that argument out right away. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) says he
has not raised it. I respect that. The member for Emerson also says he has not
raised it, and I respect that as well.
Not the member for Emerson, sorry. [interjection] Pardon. No.
* (1500)
Let me say that this is a compromise
again between small business and large business. The other compromise this is, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is on the whole issue of families who want to get as much time
together as possible. It seems to me
that again we have a compromise here in
It seems to us that this, again, a
Sunday shopping law which is again a compromise. The retail shopping law is a compromise. It
allows for the maximum amount of people to have time with their families, and
it still allows for some of those things to be available for families in terms
of entertainment and in terms of other activity that will allow them to enjoy
some of the qualities of life when they have their time with their families,
again, a compromise.
Now, you cannot argue this bill on
the basis of one extreme or another, because in 1987 there was a compromise. In 1979, there was a compromise. The only time the compromise has been broken
is in the proposed legislation from the Conservative Party and the former
deputy mayor of the city of
Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe
that Bill 4 was a bad bill, but we did believe that it should go to public
hearings early, and we did believe that we should propose creative and crucial
ways of improving Bill 4. We proposed
that the study be conducted by a body independent of the government, the Rural
Institute. The government chose to
ignore that. We proposed that the public
hearings take place in the January and February period of time so that the
public could speak out.
We believe that Manitobans do not
want extreme policies on Sunday shopping.
They do not want everything closed up and they do not want unfettered
Sunday shopping as proposed by the Conservative government. We believe that the compromise with limited
employees for limited Sunday shopping in limited areas is the intelligent
compromise for those with strong religious beliefs, for those with strong
respect for small businesses and particularly for those people who want to keep
rural businesses alive and well.
I ask members opposite to look at
the comments made by their colleague in 1987.
Think about the fact of who is running this bill through this Chamber,
who is denying them the opportunities to have public hearings in the so‑called
trial period. Vote for a
I would therefore urge all members
to vote against this delegated bill to the municipalities of
Thank you very, very much.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on this
bill despite the nattering from the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs
(Mr. Downey) with respect to the question.
I am speaking on this bill because I think that it is a decision on the
part of a witless, gutless government.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, let me tell you, when this bill was
introduced on Bill 4, I would have supported the piece of legislation. I would have supported the piece of
legislation because I honestly believed that the majority of people in my
constituency were in favour of Sunday shopping.
I said that, and I would have supported it.
The caucus took the position that
everybody should have a free vote on this particular piece of legislation, and
the caucus was very divided. I wanted us
to have public hearings, wide public hearings.
We voted for, as a caucus, this bill to go into committee, as did this
whole House in December, so that this could happen. What has happened now, in my opinion, is an
example of a government who, because its own caucus was very divided on this
issue, simply absented themselves from decision making and have determined that
they would back out of any moral authority that they should have had on this
particular piece of legislation.
So the Liberal caucus will vote
against this bill, and we will vote against this bill not on the basis of
whether Sunday shopping is good or bad, but on one basis alone, and that is that
when a government is given the legal authority to make a decision, then that
government has a moral authority to make that decision. This government, by offloading to
municipalities a decision which should be made by the
I am deeply disturbed that in a
province where 60 percent of the population lives in the city of Winnipeg that
a government would decide that the rural municipalities did not have a valid
position to take, but that that position would be in no small way affected by a
decision made in Winnipeg.
You are now asking City of
If we want a bill on Sunday shopping
and we want that bill changed, then let us have the courage to do it in this
Chamber, not to make the decision that the City of Winnipeg, who by law, by
moral authority should not take into consideration the needs of those outside
because that is not what their mandate is all about. We have that mandate. We represent rural and urban citizens living
in the
* (1510)
This government has opted out. It is bad legislation. It is an extremely bad precedent. It is bad for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 23. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed.
All those in favor, 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. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yeas and Nays, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker:
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 23, The Retail
Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and
Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours feries dans
le commerce de detail, la Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la Loi sur le paiement
des salaires.
All those in favour of the motion
will please rise.
A STANDING
VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau,
Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer,
Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lathlin, Maloway,
Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 22.
Mr. Speaker:
The motion is accordingly carried.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like
to announce that the Standing Committee on Economic Development will consider
Bill 23, (The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards
Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act), the bill we just passed at 8
p.m., Wednesday, and if necessary, Thursday morning at ten o'clock. That is next week. I do not specifically have the dates, Room
255.
Furthermore, I would like to make
announcement that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will sit
on Monday, May 31, Monday coming at 10 a.m. to consider The Freedom of Information
Act review. That will also be held in
Room 255.
Mr. Speaker: I
would like to thank the honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness).
Bill 19‑The Court
of Queen's Bench Amendment
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill
19, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wellington.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Bill 19 is The Court of Queen's
Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act and basically changes the
legislation in two areas, both of which we support. It allows for the payment of post‑judgment
interest at the same rate as the pre‑judgment interest rate and gives the
court the ability to make a judgment for damages from personal injury claim or
death as a periodic rather than a lump‑sum payment.
Mr. Speaker, we support this
legislation, of course, with the caveat that in public hearings, should there
be concerns raised by members of the public, we would certainly pay attention
to those concerns. Basically we support
this piece of legislation because it simplifies the process. It basically states that if you have a
payment due you through the court system, the court, upon the request of one of
the parties, can make the judgment in periodic terms rather than a lump‑sum
payment which provides for a greater degree of flexibility and also allows the
court to establish the interest rate and those other costs at a regular time
frame rather than at one particular point in time.
Also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting
to note that
Under the amendments, the court can
make a periodic damage award when application is made by one of the parties to
the litigation and, secondarily, when the court feels that this is
appropriate. So it creates a much
greater degree of flexibility in awarding of payments and also continues to
give the court the ultimate decision as to the payment schedule for the
award. It is not universal, Mr.
Speaker. It does deal with only damages
arising out of a personal injury claim or death. So it does not include all kinds of
litigation, but it is one of the areas that has been the most problem to the
court system and to people in
* (1600)
What currently happens with the lump‑sum
awards is that the award now has to take into account the future earning
potential or future losses that the litigant who has been the recipient of the
award would have. So it forces the
court, in effect, to look into the future and to make a judgment based on what
the court's best estimation is of either the potential losses or the potential
earnings of that individual would be.
The periodic payment system means
that the court will reduce the size of the awards potentially because it does
not have to take into account in one sense only but can wait till the actuality
occurs of the compensation for future losses.
The high awards also are seen by many to be as a result of the
management fees and the gross‑ups for future taxation as part of the lump
sum. So it allows the court to be more
realistic in its awarding of the payment and also to provide, in effect, more
of the payment going to the payee and less going to potential fees or taxes.
So on all of those levels, Mr.
Speaker, we feel this is basically a very good piece of legislation. As I stated earlier, it is interesting that
in this particular piece of legislation
The argument that has been made in
this House by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) that we cannot afford student social
allowances because no other province has them does not appear to be across the
board with this government. So in a case
like the Court of Queen's Bench amendments, the province is more than willing
to be first off the mark. We find that a
bit disconcerting, to say the least, that the government chooses this one
particular area to take a leadership role‑‑not an unimportant area,
but an area that probably will not affect large numbers of Manitobans. We hope it does not affect large numbers of
Manitobans, because we hope that people are not involved in accidents and other
events that would lead them to the court system to an ultimate determination of
this kind of payment. However, we do
know from history that there are thousands of Manitobans who are going to be
affected by the government's making a decision that they are not going to be first,
they are not going to retain a leadership role in another very important area,
that is, in the area of student social allowance.
So, Mr. Speaker, while on the one
hand we are very pleased with this piece of legislation with, as I have stated
earlier, the caveat that should there be presentations at the public hearings
that have some concerns of a more specific nature, we would be certainly open
to those concerns and would hope that the government would act on any
legitimate concerns that are raised at the public hearing process.
We are, on the other hand, certainly
in favour of this bill in principle and would like to see it get to the public
hearing process so that we can see if there are any other issues that need to
be raised in this matter.
So with those few comments, Mr.
Speaker, we are prepared to send this legislation to the public hearing
process.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 19, The Court of
Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker:
Agreed? That is agreed and so
ordered.
Bill 16‑‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand. Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 22‑The Public
Sector Reduced Work Week
and Compensation Management
Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des
salaires dans le secteur public, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Stand?
Is there leave that that matter
remain standing? [agreed]
And also standing in the name of the
honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), who has 32 minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand? Okay. Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? Leave. [agreed]
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I am pleased to be able to join this debate at
this time. I guess when I reviewed this
particular piece of legislation it struck me that one of the things that keeps
a government in power is good will, that the electorate on balance must feel
that the government is acting in the best interests, collectively, of the
province. They have to feel that they
can trust the government to do what is fair.
Mr. Speaker, there are students
outside this Chamber who do not feel the government is being fair. We have seen more demonstrations in the last
couple of years against government actions than in the history of this
province. The reason is because the
government is operating in an autocratic, authoritarian, heavy‑handed
style.
When I read this legislation, I
said, is there a clause in this legislation which sums up the government's
attitude, in particular to public sector employees but I think probably more
broadly, an attitude toward employees in general? The answer is yes.
Mr. Speaker, for those who are
following the hymn book, it is Bill 22, it is page 6, it is Section 7 and it
says, we are no bargaining agent. I want
to read this into the record because I think it is instructive and not all
members in the Chamber may have had a chance to read this legislation, but it
says: "In the case of any employee
not covered by a collective agreement, a direction that days or portions of
days are to be taken by that employee as leave without pay under this Part is
effective on such a direction being given to the employee by the employer, and,
without further notice, such direction and any arrangements with respect to its
implementation are deemed to be part of the employment contract or arrangement
between the employer and that employee."
I would ask the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) to indicate that this means something other, that the employer
can do whatever the "H" he or she or it requires. Whatever they want, that is what it means.
Mr. Speaker, there is no respect in
this legislation. There is no respect
for the needs of individual employees.
There is no respect for the collective needs of employees. There is no respect for the negotiated
agreements with employees. There is no
respect.
* (1610)
This clause says it all. This clause says that the employer simply
tells the employee what they are going to be doing and under what circumstances
they are going to be doing it and that is it.
That is a heavy‑handed, a dictatorial and, I think for a lot of
Manitobans, an unacceptable approach to managing the public affairs of the
The scope of this legislation is
extremely broad and, as my colleague from Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) said the other
day, it is carefully crafted. We
acknowledge that many of the concerns that could have been raised, would have
been raised under the Charter of Rights, under the Human Rights Act, the Human
Rights Code under employment standards, have been carefully and shrewdly
covered under this legislation to make it impossible for people who object to
this kind of authoritarian, dictatorial attitude to overtake us in the
workplaces across the province.
Mr. Speaker, who are we talking
about? Who is impacted by this
legislation? Again, the list is
long. It affects, of course, provincial
Crown corporations. It affects the
employees of the provincial government itself.
It affects hospitals, personal care homes, Child and Family Services
agencies, municipalities, school boards, universities, colleges. It affects, in addition to that, any group
that the government considers publicly funded.
The government may in this legislation designate who in fact is a public
sector employee. The long arm of this government reaches out and touches many
of those agencies which have not heretofore considered themselves under the
purview of the provincial government.
I would advise and I would encourage
members opposite to read Section 7 if they want to understand the full intent
of this legislation, because it speaks to a conservatism which is far to the
right of what I think even the most moderate members on that side believe to be
the core of their value.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is
draconian to say the least. Having noted that the government has painted an
extremely broad brush when it comes to the ramifications of this bill, and when
it comes to the sheer number of people, employees that this bill is going to
affect, you have to ask yourself, what else is the government going to do? This is where I see some quite contradictory,
I guess, arguments coming from the government.
We hear on a regular basis the First
Minister stand in his place, the Premier stand in his place and telling the
people of
The government imposed some $435
worth of additional taxes on the average Manitoban as a result of the
budget. What many Manitobans,
particularly those who are not affected by this legislation, will not have
understood nearly as well is that this legislation is also a form of taxation. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may refer to you
and your constituents in a suburban part of the city of Winnipeg, when you talk
to them or when one of your colleagues on the front bench should be talking to
constituents in your area, I want them to explain to your constituency how this
is not a tax. For the average public
servant in the
So let the government not say that
it is not taxing somehow the middle class.
The fact of the matter is, the middle class is bearing the brunt of this
legislation. In particular, it is the
middle class that forms the vast majority of public servants in our province,
those people who provide hospital care and education and all of those other
services that are vital to our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think, if you frame this bill in those terms, it
is a tax increase. That is what it is.
In the Minister of Finance's (Mr.
Manness) words, it is a reduction in disposable income. It is a tax increase of $1,400 to $1,600 for
every single public servant in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon) stands up and says, well, the only reason that teachers are
protesting and that other civil servants are is that they are not willing to
share. They are not just sharing the
pain. They are paying for the
government's failure, economic failure, fiscal failure. That is what they are paying for.
[interjection] The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) wants to say I know
better. The Minister of Finance knows better than anyone in this Chamber who
has had the highest deficit in the history of the
The Minister of Finance says it does
not bother me. It does bother me. What bothers me even more is that this
Minister of Finance has chosen to take out his failings on the backs of public
servants. This is a tax increase to
public sector employees, to those who serve the people of
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) had better share all those thousands of
letters because I will certainly share with him the hundreds that I am getting
that are opposing.
So this is a tax increase. What is wrong with this government's approach
to taxation is that it is dishonest.
What is wrong with this government's approach to taxation is that it is
not fair. It is not up‑front with
the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not
forthright. It is a hidden tax. It is a hidden tax primarily on the middle‑income
groups in our province. It is not
fair. Now what is not fair about this
legislation? Well, what is not fair is
that the pain is shared equally, and of course there is the tyranny of
equality, I guess.
An Honourable Member: Tyranny of equality? I have heard of tyranny of the majority, the
tyranny of the minority, but I have never heard of the tyranny of equality.
Mr. Storie: Well, there is also the tyranny of the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). He
has not heard that one yet.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a
certain logic to saying, well, everyone is going to lose 10 days pay. The difficulty of course is‑‑and
the Minister of Finance may have acknowledged this when he introduced the
legislation, I do not recall it. The
fact of the matter is that there is some inherent fairness in that approach,
because what he is doing is taking the same 10 days pay from someone who earns
$20,000 or $16,000 and someone who earns $100,000. [interjection] Absolutely,
the same 10 days pay is being taken from those people.
The problem is that the amount of
disposable income that someone that earns $20,000 has to lose is marginal. I mean, we all recognize, and maybe even the
Minister of Finance will recognize, that anyone that is involved as a single
income earner in a family of four and earning $20,000 is living below the poverty
line.
So there is some inherent unfairness
in this. It is not completely
forthright. It is a tax increase, and it
is unfair. Now if those are not three legitimate and justifiable reasons for
voting against this legislation, then I would like to hear some rationale for
voting for it.
The fact of the matter is that this
legislation deserves to be defeated. I
am not trying to belittle or understate the difficulty the government of
* (1620)
This issue reminds me of the way the
government has dealt with Sunday shopping.
It reminds me of the way the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
who represents rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, this
legislation is not standing up for the people who serve the
When the government first introduced
the Sunday shopping legislation back in December‑‑unilaterally
decided that we were going to have Sunday shopping‑‑the government
said that this was the wave of the future, that the government was doing this
as a test and that they were firmly convinced that this was what was needed to
spur
Well, only five months later, the
government decided to back away from its supposed commitment to wide‑open
Sunday shopping, and instead passed the buck.
That is what the government has done in this legislation. Instead of the government imposing what it
sounds like it thinks is the solution to our economic problems, it once again
passes responsibility. We see that more
clearly perhaps in the education field than any other, because what has the
province done with this legislation?
Well, it does not require school
divisions or hospitals or any other outside agency to do (a) or (b) to meet
certain requirements. It simply says
that you may and you can and that if you wish you may‑‑you will,
but what it has done is create a patchwork of implementation.
So that what we have in the case of
school divisions is some school divisions not requiring their teachers to take
any reduction in pay. We have some
school divisions that are requiring a certain number of reduced workdays in the
year, other school divisions requiring a different number. So we are shown absolutely no leadership.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the
government really believes that the only way to solve its problems‑‑if
they really believe that and I hope that is not the case, but if they do‑‑then
the government should have the courage to act.
The same should be said of Sunday shopping. If the government believes that wide‑open
Sunday shopping represents a net economic benefit to the
So the government's legislation
fails on another count because it is not clear that the legislation is going to
do what the government thinks it is going to do. Other governments who believe that it was
important to reduce the cost of providing services have used other
methods. That is one that we would
counsel.
One of the other things that is
wrong with this legislation is that it does not respect something that virtually
every other government in the history of
The government has decided
notwithstanding collective agreements that were reached that this legislation
is going to override those agreements and is then going to impose this tax on
wage‑earners in the
The collective bargaining system can
be used in a more positive and pro‑active way. I remind the government that in years past,
the wage increases have been kept at zero, but years have gone by and
agreements have been struck where there has been no increase to the base salary
cost of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
knows, or it should know, that even if it succeeds in imposing its will through
this bill, Bill 22, that it is not going to reduce its base salary costs. What the government is going to enjoy is a
one‑time saving. What school
divisions and hospitals are going to enjoy is a one‑time saving.
If you want to reduce the base costs
for a longer period of time, you actually have to reduce the base. If, instead of, as is the case in this
particular instance of having a negotiated increase rolled back, because the negotiated
increase is going to form part of the base in subsequent years, in other words,
the costs of the negotiated increases are going to show up as increased costs
in future years. The only way to reduce
your long‑term costs is to establish a zero increase on the base, and if
you achieve that, then you net real savings.
Obviously it also is true that if you achieve a reduction in base, you
also incur some benefit over the long term as a result of that.
But this particular legislation
imposes the will of the government in a very unfair and autocratic way, in a
way that is unfair to low income employees of provincial governments and
provincial Crowns and provincial agencies.
It does it without regard to already established collective agreements
freely negotiated, so, Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation is a failure from
many perspectives. It is not going to
achieve in the long run what the government hopes it is going to achieve.
So Madam Deputy Speaker, the
legislation, in my opinion, although it is cleverly drafted, is not going to
serve the interests of
The First Minister stood in his seat
today and tried to place the blame for the demonstration that is going on in
front of this building on the school teachers in the
At the same time, what were they
doing? They were reducing the funding
that was available to school divisions by $16 million, and they were telling
school divisions that they could raise no more than 2 percent through the
special levy, that they could not raise local taxes to cover the shortfall to
continue the program.
* (1630)
So what happens, Madam Deputy
Speaker? Well, some divisions have
decided to reduce the workweek for teachers and taken away the professional
development days‑‑again, in my opinion, a short‑sighted
solution. The professional development
is as important to parents and students as it is to teachers. [interjection]
Here we have the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) who was not here when I said
what he has done, in effect then, if he will just be a little bit logical, is
impose a $1,400 to $1,600 tax on these people because that is what it is, a
$1,400 to $1,600 in costs, disposable income.
The bottom line is that the
responsibility for this should not rest with the school divisions, because it
is the government's responsibility. If
they had taken it, in some straightforward and honest way, then you could have
some respect for what they are trying to do.
But they are now trying to lay the blame on someone else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the final
subject that I would like to touch on is the question of service. I think it has been quite clear by questions
that have been raised by my colleagues and the second opposition that there is
a great deal of confusion and uncertainty when it comes to who and where
services are going to be available and who is going to provide them as we get
into this 10 days of reduced activity.
Certainly, for those in personal
care homes and hospitals, those responsible for education to some extent, those
involved in daycare, those involved in emergency family services are going to
be hard‑pressed to provide a level of service that is acceptable.
We can only hope that there are not
unfortunate consequences from some of this service reduction, because that is
what we are doing. We are taking away,
you know, 5 percent of the service that is available to Manitobans on a regular
basis. Some of those services, obviously,
are more important and more vital than others.
It is not clear that the government
has thought through or has in place a system to make sure that emergency
circumstances, the personal, medical kinds of emergencies that develop, are
going to be managed by the employees who remain in service or by the other
people who are hired on at additional costs by the government to do these
services.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen a
couple of examples already where the government's supposed savings by this
reduced workweek have gone out the window.
We know that there are going to be circumstances where people are called
back for overtime duty at greater expense to the government. It is going to happen in some Family Services
areas, it is going to happen in Highways, it is going to happen in Natural
Resources. So it is not clear that the
government's desired savings are going to come about as a result of this.
[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to
conclude by urging the member for Inkster and some of his quote, unquote,
Liberal colleagues, to the extent there are any left, to read the section that
I quoted earlier where no bargaining agent, and to come to the conclusion that
I have that this legislation is draconian in the extreme, that it represents
the extreme right wing of the Conservative caucus, that it is authoritarian,
that it opposes the will of employers on employees without any compassion, any
consideration for the extenuating circumstances they face.
I would urge the member for
If we want to use the euphemism that
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) used, we could say, well, it is just‑‑[interjection]
Yes, it is a contribution‑‑that is the Minister of Health's (Mr.
Orchard) euphemism for tax, but the Minister of Finance always says that it is
a reduction in disposable income. It is
not a tax; it is just a reduction of disposable income; and it is $1,400 to
$1,600.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) has not been listening again. I did not say "they." It is not us and them, it is all of us should
share. The Minister of Energy and Mines knows that he gets to make the
decisions and that is what everyone else‑‑that is what the
"they" want, too. They want to
be part of the decision making. This was
arbitrarily done without consultation with the groups who are going to be affected
and it was not very imaginatively done at that.
So it is a form of taxation. It is draconian; it is intrusive. It does not respect the collective bargaining
process. It is cowardly in that it
passes on its responsibility to other levels, to hospital boards and school divisions
and others, and it does not reflect an understanding of the importance of many
of the services that are being provided by these people who have now been told
that they are going to take 10 days off without pay.
So I hope that the government will
listen when it comes to this piece of legislation, that they are not going to‑‑as
governments of all stripes are wont to do‑‑forge ahead regardless
of the costs. I hope that they are going
to consider this because it is not going to do what they want it to do, and
quite ironically perhaps it is going to do what they do not want to have
happen, and that is turn the public of Manitoba against them.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure and a
privilege for me to participate in this debate on Bill 22.
Bill 22 enables a public employer to
designate a minimum of 10 days up to a maximum of 15 days of unpaid leave. If you analyze this so‑called leave, it
means nothing but 10 to 15 days salary cap because this is unpaid leave.
In other words, what the government
is trying to do here is the indirect way of taxing those people. What they cannot do or would not do directly
because they promised so in the political forum that they would not tax, they
are now going to do indirectly. It is
even worse because people will not be working and they will receive no pay.
Some of these services that are
being cut are essential services. By
essential services, of course, we mean those segments of public services which
the people cannot do away with without suffering some damage or injury. Essential services cannot be postponed. They are by definition services that are
needed by the citizens of the community, and if they are needed, it is
essential that they be provided. This
bill enables any public sector employer to cut those services by means of
unpaid leave without work. However, they
do establish a process by which they can negotiate the number of days that they
can go without pay, but this is only a sham form of negotiation because,
regardless of the outcome of the negotiation, in the ultimate analysis, it is
up to the discretion of the employer to impose their will on the employee. Regardless of the result of such negotiations,
such unpaid leave can be implemented.
If we try to analyze what is going
on, they are trying to cut public services, the kind of services that the
people have equal access to. These are
the essential and nonessential public services.
It is only in the area of the public sector that there is an element of
equality of access among all the citizens, and they are cutting the public
sector. At the same time, the vacuum
that is created by lack of those services, they will have to fill up by contracting
out services to some employer in the private sector. Take for example, in this very Legislature,
it may be necessary that some of the security guards not work on a certain
Friday, but in order to provide the necessary security on the premises, you may
have to hire out some private security agency to do the same work. So what kind of saving will there be?
* (1640)
It is simply transferring some of
the work in the public sector to their friends in the private sector, and if
you analyze this carefully, you can infer the basic root of all these
activities that are going on. It is
based on an ideological premise well known to have been subscribed to by the
Conservatives, namely, that the best form of government is the government that
governs the least. In other words, they
are cutting the essential public services in order to cut government services
because they think that the best form of government is the government that
governs the least. That is the basic
Conservative philosophy.
On the other hand, if you look at
the unholy alliance between the government and segments of the private sector,
you could see that even the private entrepreneurs are receiving some government
largess and grants. For example, the
private sector will be receiving training grants in order to train the private
employer sector to do their work, but they are getting the resources from the
public sector. So while they are saying
the government that governs the least is the best form of government, the
private sector is in fact dependent on some of the resources provided by the
public sector.
So this is an inconsistency. Of course, in the performance of government
services, in the prohibition of public services, we have to have efficient,
well‑trained and effective public servants. But how can you create a core of public
administrators who are motivated by the spirit of serving the general public in
the best interests of the public if they are to be the brunt and to be the
victim of government cuts?
There is, as applied to the public
servants, the public servants have a very negative image in the eyes of the
general public. The general public in
the abstract are saying that the government civil servants are fat cats in our
society, that they have high salaries and, therefore, need to be cut.
Yet, when you survey the same
citizen as to their personal experiences in dealing with the employees of the
government, in dealing with public servants, they will admit that they have
received courteous and prompt service.
This is apparently an inconsistency in the general image that was formed
by the media and being inculcated in their minds as compared to their personal
experiences.
We have a public service in
The public servants that you are
cutting, these are dedicated people who have devoted their lives to the service
of the citizen. At the same time, we are
trying to erode their effectiveness by affecting adversely their motivation to
do the job. Why? It has been a remarkable achievement
throughout the years that even in the public sector they have achieved a right
to collect bargaining. The right to
bargain collectively is an achievement that had been fought throughout the years,
and yet by the very stroke of this legislation, that right to collective
negotiation is being denied and eroded.
This is a hard‑fought right, a
cherished right to determine the terms and conditions of employment. Yet, by the exercise of the public authority,
the provincial government is, of course, negating and denying the right of
collective bargaining of public servants.
Applied to the teachers, it means that the teachers will not be able to
have their days of professional development and training. It is now up to the school board to
determine, ultimately, the condition and terms of their employment. This will undermine the teaching profession
and the capabilities and motivation of public schoolteachers. In fact, they are opposed to Bill 22, the
schoolteachers, because the school board, in the ultimate analysis, can impose
its will, regardless of the outcome of the so‑called negotiation between
the teachers and the school board.
We are now taking back history to
the pre‑1948 days when the school board would say: Here is the pay, take it or leave it. If you
do not take it, we have other people who are willing to take even less pay.
This is retrogressive. This is not progress. This is an erosion of the educational
opportunities that are open to all the youth of our community. Therefore, Bill 22 in that sense is bad for
the community and bad for Manitobans.
Moreover, the bill rolls back the
salaries of MLAs and fees for physicians.
Well, as far as the public is concerned, they also have a negative image
of all politicians. They are very
cynical about people in the public service, in the elected segment of the
public service. So they think that again
politicians, like the public servants, are fat cats in our society and,
therefore, should share in the burden.
From the point of view of the
politicians, they cannot say anything here.
They will have to agree, because it will be a conflict of interest on
their part not to accept the cuts of 3.8.
An Honourable Member: Conflict of disinterest.
Mr. Santos: The member for
But it should not be at the expense
of other people in the community, of other societies. There should be an essential ingredient of
fairness and, if you can do it in a win‑win situation‑‑but
how can you win in days of limited resources, in days of recession, in periods
of limited government receipts because of less economic activity?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Would the honourable member permit a
question?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member for Broadway (Mr.
Santos) permit a question by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources?
Mr. Santos: I
would gladly do so after my speech is over, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1650)
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway has agreed,
after he has completed his remarks.
Mr. Enns: By that
time I will have forgotten the question, Conrad.
Mr. Santos: Then you can write it down now.
I had been saying, it is only in the
public sector that the services can really be categorized as equal access to
public services, because whether you are poor, middle income or rich, if the
service is provided by the government, you have a right to access the service.
So there is an element of equality
and egalitarianism in the provision of public services. That is the reason why we have chosen to
educate our children through the public school system, generally, unless, of
course, some people would like to, again, inject the element of hierarchy in
society, the class structuring of society, but this is, again, creating
uneveness and inequality of opportunity.
The essential public services
instead of being cut had to be reformed, because like in the private sector the
best form of public service is one that is client oriented, that is to say,
people oriented. Most of our public
servants, government civil servants, provincial civil servants, they are
dedicated servants trying to do the essential public services to the best of their
ability. But we are now adversely affecting
their motivation to run an efficient and effective public service by doing this
thing to them. They are now being the
victim who are being asked to sacrifice because of the inefficiency and
incompetence of this government in trying to control the escalation of
provincial debts and deficits.
If everybody has to share in the so‑called
sacrifice, this is necessitated by the fact that we have dwindling resources in
our hands at the control of the government, the economic activity. Too many
bankruptcies are taking place because we cannot control what is developing
outside our national economy.
It is our inability to control the
activities of the multinationals, because they can relocate their profitable
businesses in the low‑cost areas of the globe. Yet the government is helpless to impose any
kind of taxation on these corporations.
Why can we not start, in
But the thing that is wrong about
this bill is that when it takes effect it becomes retroactive. Generally, retroactive legislation is no good
because they are trying to change the existing state of affairs where people
have already established their contracts.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
People have already committed
themselves to certain legal relationships and then the law will change those
relationships, which militates against the stability of agreements. In fact, no more negotiations can have that
kind of dependability if changes can be retroactive after the agreement has
been made.
This, of course, is an erosion of
the very process of collective negotiation, one of the basic processes in
democratic society in the reconciliation of conflicting interests of all the
various groups in a peaceful nonviolent way.
That is the genius of our democratic system, that we can negotiate and
make compromises in a peaceful, orderly way.
And yet the government has eroded these hard‑won collective
bargaining rights of public servants and public school teachers. The government would like to impose its
sovereign will over and above these agreements.
It undermines the process of arriving
at reasonable settlements and where all the parties will be contributing to
that settlement, where all the parties will be satisfied and happy under the
agreement that they themselves had forged among themselves. If the government all the time will invoke
its public authority and overrule and override all these negotiations, that
will be bad for society as a whole, because then the frustrated group will have
no other resort but to go against the authority, and that could mean sometimes
the eruption of unwanted violence in our society.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Broadway will have 17
minutes remaining.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the House leader earlier
announced that the Committee on Economic Development would meet on Wednesday
night, I believe, to consider Bill 23. I
would also like to advise the House that they will also consider Bill 4.
Mr. Speaker: I
would like to thank the honourable acting government House leader for that
information.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker:
The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 27‑‑Quick
Court
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by Monsieur
Gaudry, le depute de St. Boniface, that
WHEREAS hundreds of Manitobans
become involved in civil litigation each year in Manitoba, the majority of
these cases being brought for amounts less than $25,000; and
WHEREAS the cost of civil litigation
in
WHEREAS it has now become very
difficult for litigants to address the merits of the issues between them in a
trial in cases for amounts less that $25,000 because of these high costs; and
WHEREAS this situation results in
litigants often settling their cases not based on the merits but based on each
party's ability to finance the litigation; and
WHEREAS this situation does not
serve the interests of justice in
WHEREAS it would be in the best
interest of justice to provide an expedited trial process for liquidated claims
under $25,000.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba recommend that the Minister of Justice
consider putting in place an expedited trial process for all civil suits
brought in Manitoba for less than $25,000 thereby allowing these cases to move
to trial expeditiously and cost effectively.
Motion presented.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have this resolution come
forward today. I know that it will be
quickly recommended for passage and accepted by my colleagues to my left, the
government, in view of the fact that one of their own, Mr. Randy Smith, a Canadian
Bar Association representative, has recommended passage of this in a recent
newsletter of the Canadian Bar Association. [interjection]
Well, the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) says he never really liked that guy, but you know, I thought it was
wonderful that Mr. Smith had the fortitude to know a good idea when he saw it,
and he recommended passage. I was very
pleased to have the assistance and recommendation of him and indeed his
subsection of the Bar Association.
By the way, I think Mr. Smith is quite
a friend of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). So I know that the members on the government
side will want to see this resolution pass because it is like being a bit of a
lightening rod these days being a lawyer in this Chamber. There are some controversies surrounding some
allegations about lawyers, no‑fault insurance‑‑[interjection]
Well, that is true. There always are
allegations and spurious ones, I might add, but in particular, these issues
have come up.
Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution whose
sole purpose is to increase access to the courts. That is important because, not only must
justice be done, it must be seen to be done.
The truth is, people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves
embroiled in civil suits end up having the costs of litigation becoming the
determining factor. That is not
right. It is not good for the
process. It is not good for the
litigants, and it is not good for the lawyers because you have people, who are
your clients, who are not satisfied.
They do not get to court. The
truth is, whether you win, lose or draw, people want their day in court, and
they should have it. They do not want to
be buried in paperwork and all kinds of delays and costs not associated with
getting to the nub of the issue.
They want to get in front of a
judge, have their case heard, state their piece, and have a result. That is a very, very important part of the
justice system. It must be speedy, it
must be impartial, and it must be, in my view, accessible. If the costs of litigation become the
determining factor in settlement, become a bar to putting forward a defence or
a claim that a person truly believes in, the system is not working.
Currently, Mr. Speaker, in my
estimation, and I am prepared to negotiate and discuss with members on an
amendment on the amount involved, I have chosen $25,000 and less as a
reasonable size of claim that should move to an expedited process. I would be open to suggestions that it should
be higher. I would also be open to a
suggestion that it should be lower, although slightly lower, because I think
that frankly anything less than $25,000, the truth is, that very quickly one of
the parties, either the plaintiff or the defendant, can quickly drive the other
party to settle the case based on costs alone.
How do you do that? Well, Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows the
system knows, you just start flooding the other side with paper, motions on
this, motions on that, particulars, discovery, all kinds of things‑‑[interjection]
That is right. The member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) knows.
You can flood the process. You can take up time. You can delay. There are protections against that, and the
judges do a good job of attempting to streamline it, but the truth is the rules
are very particular, they are very lengthy, and they are there. They are there to be used effectively, but
occasionally they are abused, Mr. Speaker.
So what we are doing here, what we are proposing here is saying not
quite like the Small Claims Courts which are fairly ad hoc for claims under
$5,000. There is some more formality to
these claims between $5,000 and $25,000, some more formality recognizing that
they are worth higher amounts.
Mr. Speaker, the key thing is that
there are not‑‑I have attempted by this resolution to cut out all
of the expensive processes, and the biggest one, in my view, would be the
examinations for discovery. That is the
time when you go to the lawyer's office and spend sometimes days under oath. There are transcripts produced. It costs hundreds and thousands of
dollars. There is no need. You should do an exchange of documents, an
exchange of relevant documents. That is
easy, that is quick, and then you should go to court. You should have your lawyer do what you pay
him to do, just to fight the case, not write letters and all kinds of
documents. That is important, but the
truth is people want to get in front of a judge.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this
makes sense. It makes common sense, and
proof that it has worked is the example, the experiment in
Mr. Speaker, the truth is that this
minister‑‑and I was at his first public speech as Minister of
Justice, it was up in
* (1710)
I know that the Minister of Justice
currently has some other things on his mind, as do I; however, I believe that
given the previous approval of a close friend of his, a member of the legal
community in Brandon, on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, Randy Smith,
in view of that, this should merit fairly speedy passage, because it is time
that we truly allowed access to justice.
That means making the costs realistic, making them fit what the case is
worth. It is so easy to make a case cost
so much for the other side that the other side quickly comes to you and says, I
give up regardless of the merits of the case.
We have got to settle because it is just not worth it to me to pursue
this. I cannot afford it. It is taking too long.
You should not be able to do that,
Mr. Speaker. That is the purpose behind
the Small Claims Court. Well, the Small
Claims Court is $5,000. The reality is
today claims, I believe, $25,000 or less are in a similar situation. I am not calling for a Small Claims
process. What I am calling for is an
expedited trial process, and it would serve the interests of all people
involved, and I point to the experiment in B.C. as proof that this can
work. It is a good idea, and we should
lead in this province in opening up the court system to the people for whom it
is designed, that is the litigants in the province.
Let me make one other comment, Mr.
Speaker, which is that I have had, off the record, discussions with many judges
about this. I have talked to them about
this. They are frustrated that there are
not mechanisms for this size of case where they can get to the nub of it and do
their job. They are willing to be more
proactive in courts. Because we have not
got all these examinations for discovery, they are willing to be more proactive
and they are willing to hear cases without all the paperwork. They do not mind
doing that. I have had that repeated to
me many times by judges. So the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) need not think he is putting an extra burden on
judges. They want to do their job. They want to have people in front of them and
do their job which is to hear evidence and then make a decision.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have the lawyers
through the Bar Association, their voice, expressing approval. We have judges expressing their
approval. The public, I venture to say,
would lavish praise on this minister for passing anything that would make
justice more cost‑effective, more efficient. All of the stakeholders are winners under
this proposal. It is an idea whose time
has come, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I believe, has committed
himself five years ago to increasing access to justice. Here is his chance to prove that he has the
courage of his conviction.
Now I understand, as I said, that he
has some other things on his mind. So do
I, but I felt it was so important to deal with this, Mr. Speaker, that I am
here today expressing my opinions for my fellow members. I am sure that the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) will have researched this and passed on the recommendation and advice
to his colleagues that this should receive speedy passage.
I am pleased to recommend to all
members this resolution as a way to do the right thing for their constituents
and as a way to make the justice system work for the people, not for the
lawyers, not for the judges, although they would be pleased to have this
happen, but for the people. Let us make
it work for the people.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
rise on this matter officially in my capacity as the acting acting Attorney
General for the
Let me assure the member for
Thompson, whom I know well, that it is not my intention at all to see increased
legal fees and cost to the people in the province or to form an alliance with
the member for St. James. I know my
deskmate, the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), has come out
in support for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in the Liberal leadership
campaign, but I can assure the member for Thompson that I will not be
supporting either of the two contenders for the Liberal leadership, nor will I
be voting Liberal in the next election.
Mr. Ashton:
If they have a vote.
Mr. Praznik: If
they have the vote, the member for Thompson says. When shall it be? The great questions and the issues. The
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) makes reference to my Liberal past and my
family. Certainly, my family has a long
history in the Liberal Party throughout most of this century, one we are quite
proud of.
Mr. Ashton: So
what happened to you?
Mr. Praznik:
The member for Thompson says, what happened to me? I grew up; I
matured. The question I put to members
of the New Democrats is, what happened to them?
Mr. Speaker, to the issue at hand,
and that is the proposal by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) for a quick
court system, let me say first of all, I think all people share in the belief
that the court system should be accessable, that citizens of our province,
indeed of our country, should have the ability to access a court system, a
decision‑making body to settle disputes between them in a fashion that is
both timely and cost‑effective.
There is no doubt that over the
years the court system, not only in our province but, in fact, throughout most
of the industrialized world has grown in its complexity, not only issues being
dealt with but, certainly, their process and procedure, all of it designed, of
course, to ensure fairness in trial, to ensure that the respective issues of
the parties are brought out in an appropriate manner such that the appropriate
decisions can be made by the deciding officer.
We know that this has added, no
doubt, to the cost of litigation. We
have also seen our friends in the bar over the years, the cost of retaining
counsel grow, perhaps not just because of the complexity. One has to wonder if some of it is not a bit
of work creation on the part of members of the bar. I know from some of my own experiences both
in practice with other counsel and now as Minister of Labour, in some areas we
involve members of the legal profession.
I often have to wonder if matters could not be dealt with more speedily
with often a better result if some of my own colleagues in the profession of
law were not involved in those processes.
Mr. Speaker, in preparation for this
afternoon's debate I had opportunity to speak with officials in our Ministry of
Justice in the province, and I know that the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards)
as the Justice critic of the second opposition party has proposed this quick
court method and has made reference to a similar system having been
successfully piloted in British Columbia.
I understand from our officials in
the Ministry of Justice that this proposal for a system, known as economical
litigation, in B.C. to deal with less complicated matters was considered there,
I am told, three years ago in that province.
However, opposition from the bench concerning the rights of
unrepresented litigants, because of that opposition from the bench and concern
that was raised, the proposal really never materialized in the full sense of
their court system.
* (1720)
Perhaps I am wrong, but that is the
advice that I received from our people in the Justice system who monitor these
initiatives across the country. We do
know, now, in fairness, that our Small Claims system, our Small Claims
Practices Act and Small Claims Court, has been improved by this administration
in terms of the limits of the cases, the value of the issue being decided and
that this system has worked well to ensure that for disputes involving lesser
amounts of money that individuals can receive speedy adjudication without
having to involve the expense of legal counsel.
We do know, though, that in the
range above our Small Claims Court to a larger amount of money, that there
probably is a void. But how do we
address that? How do we come to address
that? The member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) makes the argument that often these matters in that range of issue are
settled not on the legal principles that surround them, but on simply what the
cost of litigation is, weighing out the balance as to what has been gained, and
a settlement occurs.
He makes the case, of course, that
somehow that is not a proper way of settling matters. I would like to just for a moment explore
that argument somewhat, because I can tell the member in my experience as an
MLA, that there are a number of issues that come to my attention, as I am sure
they do to other members of this House on occasion, where individuals are
prepared to fight a particular matter that really is a matter of principle for
them. But the value of the contract, the
value of the service not provided, the value of the annoyance in cash is very,
very limited.
I know often they come to us as MLAs
and we help them as part of our public responsibility, or our staff helps them
and sometimes they end up in small debt court and there they are dealt
with. But if one were to really look at
the cost, the effort involved in pursuing these matters that are often not
involving great amounts of money, you really have to ask the question, was it a
good use of one's time?
When people do ask that question and
weigh the cost, the inconvenience of pursuing some of these matters with what
is to be gained, it truly has to be a matter of principle that they wish to
pursue and are prepared to go to that expense.
In that larger range, above the
small debts court, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that sometimes that balance
is a hard one, where the costs are not going to equal or only slightly less
than what is to be gained. We recognize
that the cost of litigation, all of the various pre‑trial procedures, can
add up, but I would remind honourable members that within the pre‑trial
procedures in civil litigation, each step presents an opportunity to settle the
matter. Each step provides an
opportunity to expose more fact on which the parties then can judge the
strength and merits of their case, and if it is a weak case, not to proceed.
I refer to the examinations for
discovery, where you have the opportunity to examine the chief witness in the
matter from the other side and gain a testimony that you can use at trial. From that you get a very good sense of the
strength of your case and the kind of evidence that is going to be adduced at
trial, and again you have a chance to assess whether or not this should
proceed. In the exchange of documents as
well, another opportunity to garner and test the strength of your case.
So ultimately all of these provide
those opportunities, and often, I would suggest from my recollection in
practice at the law firm at which I did my articles, the majority of cases that
are being litigated are settled, quite frankly, in one of those early
procedures. That is probably where they
best should be settled, rather than not only going to the expense of counsel
and litigation, but also really wasting the time of the court on a matter that
is in fact very, very minor.
Mr. Speaker, our Attorney General
over the last number of years has, as I have pointed out earlier, taken the
steps to improve the use of our small debts court. As many members may be aware, this
Legislature or the previous Legislature of which I was also a member, amended
the Small Claims Practices Act, so that all claims for less than $5,000‑‑we
changed that limit to $5,000‑‑and they are, in fact, set for
hearing not more than 60 days after filing.
In addition, the Department of Justice has reviewed the effectiveness of
the current Small Claims system and is currently reviewing with the court a
number of initiatives to ensure that the court continues to meet its principles
of expeditious, informal and inexpensive access to the court. This includes the relocation of the entire
Small Claims system to 373 Broadway and will include a review of the financial
jurisdiction for Small Claims.
Another initiative, Mr. Speaker,
which sped up the system is an amendment to the Queen's Bench rules governing
the pre‑trial procedures. The
Queen's Bench Summary Judgment and Expedited Trial Rule was introduced in 1989
to provide an avenue to dispense with or limit pre‑trial procedures and
expedite hearings. Several other
initiatives have been undertaken by the court to reduce costs and delay to
litigants. The number of court
appearances has been reduced by signing of documents as opposed to personal
appearances in the courtroom. All
requests for adjournments are also carefully scrutinized by judges.
To further reduce delay, the
judiciary has also instituted a system of pre‑trial conferences in an
effort to narrow and define trial issues, a very important part so you are not
wasting one's time dealing with issues that everyone is, in fact, in
agreement. So there have been a number
of very important steps taken by the Ministry of Justice to deal with this
issue. Some of the existing methods,
quite frankly, end up in settling those particular matters. But we would agree with the member for St.
James that there is a need to continue to work to ensuring that we are not
imposing hardships, financial burdens on those wishing to proceed with
litigation, that people have access to a speedy as possible trial system. But I think that the experience of
I think all of us as MLAs from time
to time have seen people come forward, whether it be on civil matters, whether
it be on unemployment insurance matters, whether it be on Workers Compensation
matters, who have done some harm to their case, because they did not appreciate
the case they had to build, the issues that they were dealing with, and did not
proceed in a manner that ended up prejudicing their ability to get the remedy
or the compensation that they may have been entitled to.
So having proper advice is
important. There is some concern, I
think, in the part of the ministry that this system, as piloted in British
Columbia, leads to that kind of difficulty, which, of course, creates, I think
you would agree, another type of injustice.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst),
THAT Resolution 27 be amended by
deleting all words following the first WHEREAS and substituting the following:
many Manitobans become involved in
civil litigation each year; and
WHEREAS the best interests of
litigants are not served in a system where cases are not based on merit, but on
each party's ability to finance the litigation; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage the provincial government to
continue its efforts to reduce the delay and cost of litigation in
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable minister's amendment is in order.
* (1730)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I am bit puzzled, Mr. Speaker, by the
amendment to the resolution because it seems to me that in many cases the
amendment to the resolution is only restating what it is allowing for the
resolution itself. Maybe I should try
and clarify that statement just a bit.
In the amendment to the resolution
it says: BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage the provincial government to
continue its efforts to reduce the delay and costs of litigation in
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the
resolution as put forward by the member for St. James does exactly that. We are not in favour of the amendment, but
certainly would support the unamended resolution.
Mr. Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
Oh, do you want to speak on this?
* * *
An Honourable Member: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is a quorum in
the House.
Mr. Speaker: A
quorum having been requested, I would ask all members present to rise in their
place, and the Clerk will record the names of all members present.
Madam Deputy Clerk (Beverley Bosiak): The Honourable Mr. Ernst, Mr. Ashton, Ms.
Barrett, Mr. Santos, Mr. Dewar (Selkirk), Mr. Alcock, Mr. Edwards, the
Honourable Mr. Rocan.
Mr. Speaker:
Eight. Due to lack of a quorum,
this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow
(Thursday).