ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask if you could please call report stage for the bills so listed on the Order Paper.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) that Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire, reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* (1510)
Bill 6--The Public Schools Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move that Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 15--The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that (Bill 15) The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement d'organismes de producteurs agricoles), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 17--The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2) (Loi No. 2 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 19--The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 19, The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'adoption internationale (Convention de La Haye) et apportant des modifications corrélatives, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 20, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 21--The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les obligations de développement rural, reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 22--The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et la Loi sur la Charte de Brandon, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 23--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, and Minister of Northern Affairs, Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), whatever all else he is minister of, that Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 27--The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 27, The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association des éleveurs de bétail), reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 28--The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 28, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité, reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Motion presented.
* (1520)
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we do not oppose this particular bill, but I would like to take the opportunity to make two observations about the bill. It is a--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I just wanted to remind the honourable member that this is report stage. The honourable member will have time to debate this bill when we get to third reading.
Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 32--The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 32, The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les procédures contre la Couronne, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask if you could please canvass the House to see if there would be leave to have considered for report stage Bills 8, 16, 18, 31, 34 and 36. If there is such leave, I would ask that you call them in that order for report stage.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 8--The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) (by leave), that Bill 8, The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non routier), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 16--The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) (by leave), that Bill 16, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18--The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) (by leave), that Bill 18, The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société d'habitation et de rénovation), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 31--The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) (by leave), that Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 34--The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) (by leave), that Bill 34, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et apportant des modifications corrélatives, reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 36--The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) (by leave), that Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale, reported from the Standing Committee on Muncipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask if you could please canvass the House. I believe you will find leave to consider for third reading of all the bills currently in report stage, which would be 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34, and 36.
If there is leave, I would ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that then you call the bills in that order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? No.
Point of Order
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand we are going to have recorded votes on Bills 2 and 15 first and then do third readings?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will probably find that there is not a point of order, but certainly on House business we have no problem with the comments of the member for Burrows.
House Business
Mr. Praznik: What I would ask, then, if there is leave to proceed with those third readings, is that, given the comments of the deputy opposition House leader, you would call for third reading first Bills 2 and 15 in that order. I think that would accommodate his request, and with the leave granted the House, the other bills, as I have asked.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed]
* (1530)
DEBATE ON THIRD READINGS
Bill 2--The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate on third reading, Bill 2 (The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire, le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East, who has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Deputy Speaker, we would like to use the few minutes available to us to put some final comments on the record with regard to Bill 2 prior to the vote that we expect to take place forthwith.
I cannot help but notice and note that after seven years in office this particular government has built up the provincial debt in Manitoba by at least one-third, and after all these years in government now they are talking about a method, talking about a process to pay down some of the debt as though they now have all the answers to debt repayment. I simply ask, where was this government over the past seven years?
They could have paid down the debt by nearly $60 million in 1988, and this is according to the former Provincial Auditor, Mr. Fred Jackson, at that time, who told me personally that those monies could have been used to pay down the debt instead of being put into a Fiscal Stabilization Fund. In fact, even the Dominion Bond Rating Service noted that that was the only surplus year that this government has achieved. This is the only year in which there was a surplus. The surplus was there, and it was available to pay down the debt.
In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in his budget has shown a surplus of $48 million in this document, in his blue book, Manitoba budget 1995, and yet the Dominion Bond Rating Service has noted quite correctly that this is not a surplus, but it is a deficit of $127 million. The reason they make that observation is because the government is using one-time-only payments of Crown asset sales and special lottery funds. These are being utilized on a one-time basis to pay down--to be used as revenues and therefore to attack the deficit on a one-year basis.
They used money from the sale of McKenzie Seeds. As a matter of fact, they took the money received in 1994 and put it into the 1995 budget. In addition to that, the special Lotteries transfer of $145 million helped to contribute to the budgetary surplus. According to the Dominion Bond Rating Service, this is not a real surplus, but this is in fact a deficit. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all these years we have had an accumulation of debt; so much so that our debt today is 33 percent higher than it was when this government first took office.
I believe it is overly optimistic in its approach here. They seem to think that they have the answer, they have a schedule of debt repayment, but they have not taken into account some major realities. One of the most important is the fact that this economy of ours is subject to business cycles, and many economists are predicting a downturn in the U.S. economy by 1997.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce issued a report recently saying that there could be a serious recession by that time. They also noted that it would have a negative impact on the Canadian economy, including the Manitoba economy, and that the revenue that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and this government expects to be achieving in a couple of years from now is simply not going to be realized. Therefore, the question arises, can they really live up to the commitments they are making in this bill?
It is going to be interesting to see whether ministers are prepared, indeed, to pay back some of their salary. In fact, you could throw out the whole debt repayment schedule if you accept the argument that unfunded liability should be included. It is our Provincial Auditor who said that they should be included. If that is the case, of course, we are talking about another $9 billion in addition to the $7 billion that the Minister of Finance has put into his Estimates as being the repayment target. So there is no question that if we go along with the Provincial Auditor, this whole schedule of debt repayment is totally out of whack.
Of course, I have said before, and I want to repeat at this time, this whole approach is really not in keeping with our parliamentary, democratic traditions because the tradition is that governments of the day take responsibility for fiscal policies needed in that particular year, and we have no right in this legislation, as we are, imposing on future legislators of this government, of this House and future citizens of this province a particular approach to fiscal matters as we are in this particular legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
So I think that the government can find itself in some serious trouble down the line. I note that the Winnipeg Free Press in an editorial has indicated, and I am quoting: Fiscal prudence is important, especially during a period of high debt and deficit. So too is the capacity to govern with flexibility and creativity. Mr. Stefanson's balanced budget law is fraught with danger for his government and for those which will follow. The bill should be withdrawn--unquote.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) do not realize that one of the major factors at work that affect the economy and therefore affect provincial finance is interest rates, and interest rates are set nationally. Yes, there are market forces at work, but also there is the role of the Bank of Canada. The Bank of Canada, or central bank, has seen fit historically to have a relatively high interest rate policy, but whether we agree or not, the fact is that there is volatility in real interest rates in this country and it can have a great bearing on the burden of debt.
There was a recent study done by a Mr. Ernie Stokes in the Canadian Business economic journal. He wrote an essay on interest and the debt, and he showed clearly that, if we only had a 2 percentage gap between the Canadian short-term interest rates and U.S. short-term interest rates, the projected federal budget in 1993-94 would be $4 billion and not $34 billion. He is pointing out in this article that our interest rates are far too high in Canada, and that, if they were brought down by two points to the American rate, there would be this fantastic impact on the level of the federal debt.
Well, I say those interest rates also have a bearing on our debt burden, on our deficit burden. So this, too, is something that the government has to realize; that is one of those dangers that lurk down the road as they proceed to implement this legislation. As I said, there is a great deal of dispute as to what deficits and debt have been in this province. There is disagreement by bond rating agencies. There is disagreement with the Provincial Auditor, and even Peter Holle of the Manitoba Taxpayers Association has observed, and I am quoting from a statement he made in the Winnipeg Free Press on October 3 of this year: There is a lot of smoke and mirrors about government accounting in general--unquote.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, this, too, presents a difficulty in us believing that this is good legislation.
* (1540)
I see that my time is just running out, but I want to say this: that the effect of Bill 2 is to put this government in a budgetary straitjacket. It will not be able to offset recessions as it could if it allowed the normal process of budgeting to take place, and we have explained this before. It is going to lead to offloading onto other government levels. It is going to lead to cutbacks in all kinds of tax credits affecting middle-income and poor people in this province and affecting small business in this province. We are going to see generally a further reduction of transfers to people living below the poverty line as well as further reductions in funding to our health and education system.
So it is bad legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I say, the legislation is flawed in logic and in details. I think the government should swallow its pride, withdraw this legislation as the Winnipeg Free Press has suggested. I believe that there are a lot of economists who have commented that there are mistakes in this, that there is not even sufficient funds in the proposed Fiscal Stabilization Fund to pay off the debt as indicated.
The last point I would make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this legislation is not necessary. You can pay down debt, you can balance budgets, you can have surpluses without this legislation. In fact, there is nothing in this legislation that cannot be done without this Bill 2.
I say, unnecessary legislation is bad legislation. I learned that some many, many years ago and, therefore, I say, this flawed legislation, this unnecessary legislation, this bad legislation should be withdrawn. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of balanced budget legislation, but against this balanced budget legislation. Just so the members will know where I come from, I am going to talk about a speech I gave over 20 years.
On Monday I will be lecturing to a group of people from Maples Youth Services Canada. I do not know why, but they have asked me to lecture on public speaking, so in preparing for that speech I looked at some old material from a course I took at Red River Community College 20 years ago, and the title of the speech was Financial Irresponsibility. I will just quote from the start of that speech.
Remember that I was just a young person at that time without the knowledge of economics and without having had a mortgage and a number of financial responsibilities. It starts off, what would you call a man who earned $20,000 a year but spent $25,000 a year by borrowing $5,000 each and every year. I would call him irresponsible, and yet that is exactly what Pierre Elliott Trudeau has been doing every year since he came into power 14 years ago. Well, I now have a better understanding of economics and I could understand some of the reasons, but in that same speech I write about the solutions, that the solutions are simple to see but are hard to swallow.
The deficit must be reduced, if not ended altogether. To do this, the government must spend less by either cutting back on the services it offers or find a way to do them more efficiently.
Speaking against this balanced budget legislation is--I do not want to appear to be against balancing the budget, but this legislation is bad legislation. The concept is one we are in favour of. That is why the leader of the Liberal Party, Paul Edwards, two years ago introduced a bill in this Legislative Assembly, balanced budget legislation, so we are not against the concept. That is why we were welcome to see this bill go to committee and hear the public presentations.
We were hoping that we would be able to make some amendments. Two of our amendments were not passed, one that would have called for the Provincial Auditor to determine if the budget was balanced or not. The second amendment dealt with a business cycle to not tie government down to one year, and one that unfortunately, because of an error by myself, to deal with the referendum issue. This goes back to--everybody would like a police station at the corner of their street. Everybody would like a hospital in their community. Everybody would like all types of services but nobody wants higher taxes--nobody.
I asked that question at the public presentations from a representative of the Independent Business association, and the question I asked him is: When? What circumstance can you imagine where you would ever, ever agree to increased taxes? And he said, there are none.
And yet, if you ask people who are talking about the closure of emergency hospitals, you talk to people about schools, you talk to people about police services, they want more but nobody wants higher taxes. That is why I was encouraged when I heard the words of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) speaking to a matter of urgent public importance regarding hog marketing, that he said, I really do not have much confidence in referendums. I am prepared to accept the responsibility that people have given to me from time to time and act in, I believe, good conscience. That in fact is the responsibility the Executive Council has bestowed on me. That is leadership. Leadership is not polling the population deciding which way it is going and running to the head of the pack. It is making difficult decisions.
Yes, people are demanding no increase in taxes, but they are also demanding services. They want better medical care. They want better police protection. With the referendum, we have seen the dramatic impact it has had on places in the States. I guess the most notable is in California, where police cars sit in parking lots because there is no money to hire police officers, where police stations are closed.
The other day, in Michigan, I am not too sure what city, a school board went for the third time to its population to do a tax increase that would raise $30 million for their school division. For the third time it was refused, even though this will result in classrooms of 40 to 60 kids in a classroom, gyms being used as classrooms. That is not leadership; that is poor government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, although we are in favour of the concept of balanced budget legislation, we cannot support this legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is third reading of Bill 2, The Balanced Budget, Debt Repayment and Taxpayer Protection and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'équilibre budgétaire,le remboursement de la dette et la protection des contribuables et apportant des modifications corrélatives.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yeas and Nays have been requested. Call in the members.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question before the House is third reading of Bill 2.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 28, Nays 24.
Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the bill.
THIRD READINGS
Bill 15--The Agriculture Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) (by leave), that Bill 15, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le financement d'organismes de producteurs agricoles, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I want to just take a few minutes on this bill to indicate, as we did in second reading, that we will be voting against this bill because it is a very undemocratic bill. It takes away the right of farmers to make a choice.
Madam Speaker, farmers should have the right to organize. They should have the right to have a group represent them. Commodity groups should have a right to organize, but they should not be forced to join an organization that is the choice of this government, and that is what this legislation is doing. It is a negative option. Farmers are forced to belong to a farm organization which they may not choose to and have to apply back for their funds. This legislation is going to force grain companies and auction marts and other buyers to do the work that organizations should do on behalf of producers if they want to represent them.
Madam Speaker, when this legislation was introduced, I sent out letters to many producers informing them of what this government was doing, because the government had not informed them. I want to tell you that I had well over 100 calls in response to this legislation, and there was only one of those calls from a producer representing the Manitoba forage growers association who said they wanted this. The rest of the producers said that they did not know the government was passing the legislation and that they did not support it. They wanted a choice, and they said that if an organization was doing a good job they would send their money in.
Keystone Agricultural Producers is the organization that is designated, and I can tell you, Madam Speaker, if Keystone Agricultural Producers will take a strong stand for farmers and hog producers on the legislation, on the position of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), and stand up for producers and protect the monopoly of the hog marketing board, the farmers will go to them in droves for their membership. But we have to have an organization that is going to speak up for them, and when an organization speaks up for them, they will take their membership in that organization, but it will be their choice. It should not be forced upon buyers to have to collect it. At the presentations the grain company said that they were not impressed with having to do this, but they would do it. We will see whether producers will follow it or not. We will see whether they will allow their money to be docked off their cheques when they go to it. They took the option to opt out before, and if producers are not happy, they will find a way to opt out. I hope that the government will recognize that this is not democratic legislation, and we do not support it.
* (1610)
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is third reading, Bill 15, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Amendment Act.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please indicate by saying yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Robinson, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 31, Nays 21.
Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I was paired with the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against this bill.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Just a point of clarification, it is my understanding that leave has been granted for all remaining bills to be into the stage of third reading and that they will be called in sequential order.
Madam Speaker: Is there agreement for all remaining bills to be called in sequential order? [agreed]
Bill 4--The Real Property Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 4, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I want to just rise and put a few comments on the record with respect to Bill 4, The Real Property Amendment Act, especially after the good discussion that we had at the committee with regard to this legislation. This is the legislation that is going to afford protection to homeowners purchasing their home through an assumed mortgage and selling their home through an assumed mortgage. It will also provide more protection for banks and lenders insuring mortgages.
We want to see this bill come forward because it will assure the viability of assumed mortgages which increases the option or opportunity for more Manitobans to purchase a home. We want to make sure that it is indeed a viable option for both sellers and purchasers of homes to use an assumed mortgage option. We also want to make sure that there are going to be regulations in place so that the lending institutions will see this as a viable option as well.
As we discussed in the committee, Madam Speaker, there still is the possibility even with this bill that a homeowner selling their home under an assumed mortgage can be held liable. This would be the case if, as under one of the provisions in the bill, the term of the mortgage expires and a lending institution refuses to approve the assumed mortgage of the new homeowner. The bank could then demand claim against the original owner and there could be a situation, as was the case with one of my constituents and I think constituents from the members on the opposite side as well, where they were held liable for tens of thousands of dollars. This can, as in the case of my constituent, occur years after they have sold the home and purchased another home and are then in the very difficult financial position, for many, many families in Manitoba, of having to be responsible for the mortgage of two homes, which they had not planned to do.
* (1620)
We proposed an amendment to this bill that the government chose to not accept, and I think that it speaks to the government's dealings with this issue, because in the case that I just mentioned, in the scenario that I just mentioned, the banks still would hold the balance of power, if you will. There is also another area where the banks, I think, hold more protection than citizens, and that is in the area where we proposed the amendment. I want to give the example that I think is a reasonable situation for homeowners to be in and to expect that a lending institution would still afford them the opportunity to have their assumed mortgage approved. With this bill that is not going to be possible.
We proposed an amendment that would eliminate the three-month window for homeowners to apply to have the bank approve their mortgage after the transaction or sale of the home has been made, and this government rejected that amendment. I want to give the scenario where that would be a reasonable scenario, where that kind of amendment would need to be in place in the legislation.
If there is a situation where there is a family, that when they purchased the home under an assumed mortgage, they are a one-income family and they do not want to go forward within the three months after purchasing the home, to apply for approval of the assumed mortgage, and they know that down the road, perhaps even in four months, they are going to be a dual-income family and would then be in a much stronger financial position to have the bank approve the assumption of the mortgage, I believe that that family is going to be prevented from having the mortgage approved. The vendor of that property is going to then be held responsible for the personal covenant of the mortgage until the end of the term of that mortgage. It just does not make sense that this is a situation that would have to occur.
I have put this case forward at the committee. The minister and the government refused to look at it seriously, I believe. I think though that they are going to have to look at this bill and The Real Property Act again in this case.
The Manitoba Law Society had a member of the subcommittee that deals with real estate mortgage matters at the public hearings. Unfortunately the individual, a lawyer, was not able to make a presentation. It was unfortunate that he did not register before we began dealing with the bill, but that group, the subcommittee on real estate and mortgage matters with the Law Society, is going to put forward a letter that will also raise other concerns with respect to the legislation. I think that the government has not--and some of those issues deal with families that may or may not have joint ownership of their homes.
I am just about to conclude my remarks by saying that we are going to support the legislation. We do feel that there are some problems with it or there are some areas where it could have been more balanced, it could have done more to protect the interests of citizens in Manitoba, and to indeed make assumed mortgages a more viable option, but we will support the legislation because it does go some way, does take some steps in making that possible.
So with those remarks I want to again thank the minister for bringing forward the bill. As we have said before, this was a bill that we had been asking for and had come out of concerns raised by constituents from this side of the House, and we are glad to see that there are going to be some improvements to The Real Property Act so that mortgagors are going to be further protected. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 4, The Real Property Amendment Act, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bien réels. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 5--The Education Administration Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) (by leave), that Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to put a few comments on the record on third reading about his bill. There were a number of presenters in committee at this bill, and I want to first thank them for the very serious presentations which they made and also to note that the presenters did indicate support for this bill in the area where the government has changed it. This, of course, is in the government's change from the last session when they were permitting teachers to suspend students from both school and classroom.
The government has withdrawn that section, and I think most of the presenters, indeed all of them, were very thankful for that and we do congratulate the government for also withdrawing that. I wish that the former member for Rossmere had been here to note and to vote on this bill because I think he endured a great deal of mockery at the hands of this government for putting on record exactly the same concerns which we heard in committee and to which the government has thankfully now reacted.
Presenters at committee also were concerned about a number of other areas and in particular about the minister's intentions for school councils. I think there is throughout Manitoba universal support for a variety of types of school councils, and the problem with this bill is that it does not lay out in the bill, as for example in the Yukon public schools act, it does not make clear the intentions of the minister for the franchise, for the role of the council, for its reporting lines or for its membership.
This issue was raised by a number of presenters, and it is certainly ones that we have also raised in the House before. In committee these intentions were really not made clear. It seems to me that the government has not yet given a great deal of thought to the franchise or to the membership of these committees. The franchise, for example, when we discussed it in committee the minister seemed to me not to have a clear idea about the distinction between people who live and work in the community. I know that the department and the minister will want to pay some attention to that as it draws up its regulations.
The presenters were also very much concerned about the existing schools councils. There are, of course, 85 percent of Manitoba children who are covered already by school councils, and there was concern, I think, to express to the minister that people were very supportive of existing school councils which operated under a number of different types of guidelines and reported to their school boards. They were concerned that the act set up the possibility that these councils which are functioning well, in most cases, can be overturned, and we had a rather peculiar debate within the committee as to whether in fact they could be or not. The minister claimed that it was not her intent to eliminate existing successful councils, and we will take that on trust, but she also, it seemed to me, envisaged a situation where 10 parents could ask for council elections and yet be unable to find seven parents, which is the minimum in the existing guidelines, for the creation of a council.
So I think there are some areas for concern there, and we do want to express our concern again and our support for those existing councils which are working well and which are supported by the people in the community and by the parents.
* (1630)
Madam Speaker, we also proposed an amendment, and our amendment was based upon a government report, that of the Roy White committee, the panel for legislative reform, which sat for several months, which toured Manitoba, which heard hundreds of presentations, and which brought forward specific proposals for legislation for school councils. They recommended that the regulations for school councils be made by school board by-laws. We thought that would deal with the issue of flexibility required by the diversity of Manitobans and of Manitoba communities. We thought that would enable the existing school councils to continue, successful and supported as they are. We thought that proposal supported the role of school boards, and we know from recent discussions around school boards in Manitoba and the Boundaries Commission how very important those school trustees and school boards are to Manitobans. We wanted to support that role.
Finally, Madam Speaker, we thought that our amendment would avoid any question of the new legislation that the minister is proposing, this Bill 5, that might indeed lay the ground in regulations and in legislation for charter schools. Charter schools is a different issue, should be debated differently and publicly rather than coming in by the backdoor. We have some concerns that this bill lays not sufficient legislative grounds for creating charter schools, but it does open the door to some of those changes. So those were our concerns that we expressed at committee and which I think were expressed by a number of people who presented.
We are, and we want to stress this, strongly in favour of community councils which support our schools. We want to make the point that a number of presenters have, that advisory councils for school leadership are not the only way for parents to become involved in schools, and perhaps this then becomes the entire focus when it need not necessarily be so. We should as a province and as school boards be encouraging and finding many, many ways for parents to support their children in schools. The advisory council and school leadership, the school community councils are only one way. We want to perhaps remind the minister and the department that we do seek many, many other ways of supporting parents in their educational roles with their children and with the community's children.
I think, Madam Speaker, that the minister understood many of these concerns, and I was particularly heartened by the minister's recognition that trustees and parents and community members wanted consultation on the regulations that the minister would be preparing.
One of the presentations, I believe it was the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, made a reference specifically to a different government commission, that one initiated by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), which has indicated to Manitobans that they can and should be involved in the development of regulations for bills. The Minister of Government Services is speaking particularly in the context of the elimination of red tape.
The school trustees looked at this and thought that this was also appropriate for developing regulations which are going to affect a wide variety of communities across Manitoba. Again, in concluding a few brief remarks on this bill, I want to draw that again to the minister's attention. She, I think, was prepared in committee to do this, and I think that it was in the regulations that people saw their greatest anxieties. So that consultation and the development jointly of those kinds of regulations for school councils I think will be most important and crucial to the success of these councils.
Although we have some very serious concerns about this bill--we did try to amend it--we are prepared to take on faith the government's concern and their commitment to review and to consult in the development of regulations. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 5, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is a will of the House to waive private members' hour today.
Madam Speaker: Is there a will of the House to waive private members' hour today? [agreed]
Bill 6--The Public Schools Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) (by leave), that Bill 6, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 8--The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) (by leave), that Bill 8, The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non routier, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 9--The Wills Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 9, The Wills Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les testaments, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 10--The Development Corporation Amendment Act.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 10, The Development Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de développement, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading, Bill 10.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On division.
Madam Speaker: On division.
Bill 11--The Trustee Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 11, The Trustee Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les fiduciaires, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is third reading, Bill 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 12--The Louis Riel Institute Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 12, the Louis Riel Institute Act; Loi sur l'Institut Louis Riel, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
* (1640)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I just want to add my words to others that have spoken on this bill at second reading. We, of course, in this caucus support the legislation, The Louis Riel Institute Act.
Madam Speaker, I think obviously we are approaching a very important anniversary of Metis people, I believe shortly. If my memory serves me correctly we will again be celebrating the birthday of Louis Riel in St. Boniface. Often we all go to St. Boniface to the grave and pay tribute to the great contribution in our Manitoba history of Metis people.
Madam Speaker, I know that we have passed resolutions in this Chamber on the contributions of Louis Riel to the establishment of our province. The Riel provisional government, of course, is the first government in Manitoba in terms of establishing this province. We also pay tribute to the fact that in the House of Commons, under I believe Joe Clark, there was a resolution to pay tribute to Riel. I know there are other measures that we would like to see pass in the House of Commons and in our country dealing with the role of Louis Riel.
Madam Speaker, it is very important that our history and the history that is taught in our schools reflect the contributions of Riel and the Metis people in this province. I think that many of us who went to school a number of years ago were taught that Louis Riel was a traitor that was hanged. We were not taught about the great contributions of establishing this wonderful province of Manitoba and the great contributions of Riel and the Metis people in the development in our history.
So it is very important that not only do we pass legislation, but we give meaning to bills that are passed in this Chamber. I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of heads of the Metis organizations, Edward Head, John Morrisseau, Ernie Blais, Yvon Dumont and Billyjo DeLaronde.
I have also had the experience of dealing with Sandra Delaronde, who is president of the Canadian Metis women association of Canada, and they have given us a lot of advice.
I also have enjoyed and respect the opportunities we have to meet with the local activists in the Metis community who are trying to improve the lives of their members. Whether it is fishing issues in northern Manitoba, whether it is educational issues in other communities, whether it is housing issues, the local organizations and the volunteers that are so actively involved in that organization are very, very important to us.
As the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has stated in his speech previously, to some degree the Metis people are the forgotten people of Manitoba, and I just hope that this bill, this institute will help us remember and put meaning to the historical role of Metis people in the establishment of our province, of our communities and give meaning to the very important role that Metis people will continue to have in the leadership and participation in our province. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): We, too, do support the Louis Riel Institute as a charitable, nonprofit organization and understand that it is going to be mandated to continue and expand the study of Manitoba history for a lot of good reasons, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) has pointed out.
I know, Madam Speaker, that my colleague, in particular, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has always been very proud of Louis Riel and has taken so many opportunities to honour this particular individual. We are also pleased in the sense that the MMF will be given a role, a significant role to play in the make-up of the board.
With those few words, Madam Speaker, I would like to see the bill pass.
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I would like to just say a few words with respect to the bill. As I indicated earlier, and as the words spoken by our Leader, the Metis people indeed have been regarded as a forgotten people over the years. Having grown up with many Metis people in my home community, I have seen first-hand a lot of the discrimination that the Metis people or the mixed-bloods had to face. In fact, my late father was regarded as a mixed-blood Indian, and also my grandfather. This was because my grandfather joined up with the army in World War I to fight for the freedom of this country, along with many other men from the Grand Rapids, Cross Lake, and Norway House communities.
These people did not have to join the army to protect this country. In fact, they did it voluntarily. They felt, based on the treaties that were made with the Crown, that Indian people had an obligation to protect Her Majesty Queen Victoria at that time, so many aboriginal men and women enlisted in the armed forces in years gone by.
Unfortunately, what resulted was, many of these people who joined up in the armed forces lost their Indian status as a result so that they could be with their friends in drinking establishments, for example, and also in other places where Indian people at that time were not allowed to be in. Many people gave up their treaty rights to be in these places that they were not allowed to be in.
We have seen Metis people gain and make a lot of significant strides over the last few years particularly. Over the years I have become acquainted with many of our Metis leaders. Many times it is hard to distinguish Metis people from First Nations people because, for the most part, we are all regarded as simply Indian people anyway, or as aboriginal people, in modern-day terms.
It was not until 1982 that aboriginal people together, and I mean lumping the First Nations, the Inuit and Metis people, were formally recognized in Canada's Constitution when the Constitution was brought home to Canada from England. We congratulated the Metis people that finally, after many years, they had that formal recognition as being a nation among themselves, together with the First Nations and also with the Inuit people. Up until that time, the whole notion of Metis people was such that the Metis people did not really exist.
We are very proud on this side of the House to be supporting this bill, and we would expect all members of this House to give this bill unanimous approval. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 12, The Louis Riel Institute Act; Loi sur l'Institut Louis Riel. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 13--The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'accord de règlement de la première nation crie de Split Lake relatif à l'application de la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain, modifiant la Loi sur l'énergie hydraulique et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to place a few further comments on the record. I had the opportunity to speak on second reading, and I had the opportunity as well to make some comments at committee about the significance of this bill and the efforts, the experiences and the ongoing work of the residents of Split Lake and the Split Lake Cree First Nation.
What I would like to do is commend all of those who have worked throughout the years on community issues and particularly on dealing with the implications of the flooding that took place, and, I think, note for the record that it took a great deal of work and a great deal of effort not only from leaders of the community but the elders, the many residents of the community, Madam Speaker.
* (1650)
I wanted to do so because I think that is what is the most appropriate thing to do today is to reflect on the 18 years of work from the signing of the Northern Flood Agreement and the years that preceded that in terms of the original negotiations and reflect upon the difficult road that the people of Split Lake took, being the first community to be involved in negotiations towards a final settlement that has culminated in this particular bill. What I want to do, Madam Speaker, is pay tribute to each and every one of the residents of Split Lake who were part of this process.
I had the interesting opportunity a number of weeks ago to be able to attend a retirement in honour of one of the respected elders of the community and respected elders throughout northern Manitoba, and I had the opportunity at that time to talk to Chief Norman Flett, to Joe and many other community residents. I think it is important to recognize the involvement of individuals throughout the process, Madam Speaker, because there were many times when the chief and council had to seek the wisdom of the elders of the community, had to seek the wisdom of people of the community.
I can indicate that there were many difficult moments and there was reference even at this retirement event of some of the many difficult moments, but throughout the deliberations, Madam Speaker, there was, I think, a sense in Split Lake that it was important to ensure that whatever was done in the final analysis was done in the appropriate manner, was something that was done with full consideration of all the consequences. It was done in a way that at times was perhaps even a slow but steady process, and it comes out of the commitment, I know, in the community to the future.
The sad part is that many people impacted by the original flooding have since passed on. Many of the elders at the time are no longer with us. I think it is important that we understand that what the people of Split Lake are doing with the passage of this bill, the passage of the bill through the House of Commons, the signing of the final agreements, is ensuring that there will be at least some greater hope for the many young people in Split Lake.
In many ways, the legacy of those people who are no longer with us will be not only their commitment to the community and the role they had in building and maintaining a very vibrant community, but also the wisdom of the negotiations, the discussions, of ensuring that the young people of Split Lake, the next generation will have some opportunities where perhaps previous generations only saw the negative impacts of the flooding that took place.
As I was at the retirement, Madam Speaker, I was very honoured to be able to speak on behalf of the Legislature. I was presented with this representation of the Split Lake Cree First Nation, which I promised at the time, which I indicated that I would take into the Legislature out of recognition of just how significant the role was of the people in the community and the elders.
As I do that, and as I hold this here today, and I realize that rules prohibit us in terms of having exhibits in this House, but I bring this here more as a symbol of what I think is perhaps the most striking fact of what has happened. That is despite everything that has happened in terms of the flooding, despite the 18 years of negotiations, despite the many years which the people of Split Lake Cree First Nation have worked on this particular matter, that they still show a great deal of respect for this Legislature, for other levels of government, for Manitoba Hydro. When I bring that here today, I do it out of recognition of the spirit of respect that was shown by Mr. Morris and my appreciation to him, my deep honour in the respect that he paid me by making me this presentation.
So, Madam Speaker, with those few words, I want to say on the record, once again, that this is a very significant day for the Split Lake Cree First Nation. I, too, look forward to working with the residents of Split Lake towards what I think is the real goal of these negotiations, and that is, ensuring a better life for the younger generation, for the young people at Split Lake, ensuring that the legacy of the many community leaders, the many residents, the community elders that negotiated and worked on this agreement is transferred into a new spirit of hope for the young people of Split Lake. Thank you.
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I would like to just say a few words with respect to this bill as well.
[Cree spoken]
What I said in Cree, Madam Speaker, is that the things we do today must reflect our character, must also reflect our commitment to our nation in a country that we know as Canada, but we also be true as to who we are as First Nations people. We have to be true to our language. Without our language, we will not preserve our nationhood. Those are the words that were spoken by the elders of the Split Lake community when the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I had the opportunity of visiting there most recently.
I had the opportunity of being in Split Lake on numerous occasions, one time with the commissioners of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry who were examining some of the problems that the people in Split Lake were having with relation to the justice system as it relates to them. I had the honour of being in the company of the former Chief John Garson and members of his council and also members of the community and members of the elders council in Split Lake. We had a community meeting last spring, when it was about 35 below outside, along with the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and me. It was probably the first time that I witnessed a blessing by the elders, and also members of the community, for a representative such as an MLA, their MLA in this case, who represents them in the Manitoba Legislature.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
Time was taken from the very busy schedule and also a very hectic agenda, but what we have come to learn by visiting communities, not only like Split Lake but other communities like that, is that time is not important. What is more important is to get the business at hand accomplished, rather than being restricted by certain time factors as we are in a bigger world.
* (1700)
In that blessing for the MLA, the member for Thompson, the elders talked in our language and my first language about the work that is necessary for him to do in this Legislature, to be of good mind, to be of good heart and to be of good spirit, the three sacred elements among Indian tradition that makes a person function. These three things are reflective in a person, for example, in the way you see a blade of sweet grass or the way you see a person wear the three links in their hair, that may wear braided hair. Those things also represent that those three very sacred elements are the three things that make all of us operative in our everyday lives. It was a very emotional moment for me when I saw the MLA because rarely do we see nonaboriginal people get that blessing from an aboriginal community, but I was indeed proud of my elders and my relatives in Split Lake for honouring my colleague in that way.
Split Lake is a very traditional community. In spite of the negative things that have occurred there and the alteration of a way of life from the traditional way of securing a livelihood through fishing, trapping and hunting, the people have nevertheless been able to survive and have made changes and have made adjustments to their way of life, although it has been difficult in certain situations to alter the way of life that was much more common to our people.
In my language, we are referred to as ispapiskino-wuk, the high-rock people, roughly translated from the Cree language. The people that settled in Nelson House, Norway House, Cross Lake, York Landing and, of course, Split Lake, these are people that settled along the Nelson River system and made our livelihood from there. Our forefathers were mistakenly known as the Swampy Cree. The traditional name for our people are the High Rock Cree people because of the way we situated ourselves and the way our forefathers situated themselves along the river systems in northern Manitoba. Those four or five communities, including York Landing, are very closely connected by relationships and by internation trade in years gone by, so the five communities were also the first five communities that entered into the Northern Flood Agreement in 1977. Split Lake, of course, has decided to go on its own, and I think that we indicated to Chief Norman Flett, who was here last week in committee, that we would certainly support this bill.
I believe what has to be mentioned here is that congratulations have to go out to the perseverance and the patience of the Cree people in Split Lake. It has been many long, hard years, and we want to congratulate them for their efforts in having this act proclaimed. At the same time, I also want to congratulate the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik) for the work that he has done, along with his staff, in working with the people in realizing this. I think that it is in my custom, it is in my tradition to do that.
But what we are doing here is not trying to take credit nor politicize the situation. Simply what we are doing is proclaiming an act here, in my opinion, that will provide some pride in the future for the generations to come, something that First Nations people are highly regarded for, because we are told that whatever we have in mind today, we must think about two generations and three generations ahead, so that way, what decisions we make today will not harm our children and grandchildren. We always have to look ahead; we have to have some foresight.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, with those few words, I would encourage all members of the House to support this bill for the good of the Split Lake people.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Speaker, some members will recall that I attempted to make a few comments on Bill 13 at second reading but missed my opportunity or was unable to do so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I certainly do not want to prolong the debate, nor do I want to provoke a debate. I am, of course, supportive of the legislation, and I am appreciative of the comments made by the speakers on this bill, particularly the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), and it is for that reason that motivates me to make a few comments.
The member for The Pas spoke eloquently about a way of life that is no longer there: those were good days, those were good times, that was a good life. He spoke in that vein.
The member for Rupertsland, at second reading, also made an eloquent speech and commented about the fact that it was not his purpose--and I appreciate it, and he indicated that again today--to politicize the debate. In his speech he made reference--he thought that perhaps he could throw remarks across this Chamber as to who is responsible for the flooding of the many traditional territories and loss of life: it is unfortunate that we lost our way of life in many of our northern communities.
It is those comments made by these two particular members that prompt me, as the only member in this Chamber who participated in an active way when some of those very serious decisions were being made, and for the record, if for no other reason if some undergraduate student is doing research sometime in the future, the record is clear. Let the record be clear.
In the early '60s, when the then-administration of Duff Roblin decided that the northern rivers of Manitoba would provide the energy for future requirements of Manitoba, many discussions and many studies preceded that decision. Nobody can deny that those silent giants that produced the cleanest energy in this world are troubled with the problems of coal or oil or nuclear, that those were the right decisions. It was known from the beginning, sir, that there would be costs involved, and the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) represent communities that paid some of the cost, some of which we are addressing with Bill 13.
But let the record be clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that need not have happened. It was known right at the early investigations that if the Nelson River could be augmented, if additional water could be added to it, tremendous efficiencies to the production of hydro generated could be realized. The obvious sources were the Churchill River waters and a great deal of studies--some of the best international and national engineering firms consulted, and I suspect Manitoba Hydro paid out several millions of dollars to research the most desirable route. They looked at using the use of Lake Winnipeg as essentially a hydro reservoir, which meant then augmenting the Nelson River through a channel at the northern end of Lake Winnipeg and, indeed then, of course, affecting the water levels at Split Lake, at Cross Lake and all the communities that we are now talking about.
They also looked at an alternative route, and that is getting the same amount of waters, indeed a bit more water, from one source, South Indian Lake. At that time, the land around South Indian Lake was unoccupied Crown land. There was no permanent settlement. There were some fishing shacks there, largely fishermen who used to frequent the lake from the Nelson House community, but there was no reserve. There was no organized community.
Senior management of Manitoba Hydro made the decision at that time, in the spring of '69, that the cost of augmenting water by the Lake Winnipeg route was just too costly, too costly in human terms, too costly in environmental terms and too costly in sheer dollars as we are witnessing today as we make amends for that decision. That decision was accepted by the then-government, Conservative government, of Walter Weir, which I was pleased to be a member of. Indeed, I was the lead minister who brought into this Chamber a bill, Bill 15--I remember it well--that would provide legislative authority for that action, that said, if you have to flood, then just keep your flooding contained in one place. Yes, the flooding at South Indian Lake would have been somewhat more than what has now occurred, but for those of you who have ever maybe experienced basement flooding in your basements, it really does not matter. The damage is done with the first five inches or 10 inches of water on your carpeted floor or something like that.
That became a big election issue in the election of that same spring. Members opposite, who were the third party at that time, took a very active role in it. I often refer to that as the dawning of the environmental age in Manitoba, and understandably so. There was massive environmental damage that was about to be done to a significant portion of northern Manitoba, but it was to be contained at South Indian Lake.
My government was defeated, although I was privileged to come back in this Chamber. The New Democratic Party government led by Ed Schreyer felt they had an obligation to review the whole situation, and review the situation they did.
* (1710)
They fired the general manager, the president of Manitoba Hydro, and brought in somebody that, in my opinion, from Saskatchewan Power, was a little more politically correct, and politics intervened massively for the first time in what should have been highly technical decisions. And what happened? When you compromise, you end up with the worst of both worlds.
They found out that they compromised for still flooding South Indian Lake and using Lake Winnipeg as a hydro reservoir causing the flooding that we are compensating now for in Bill 13. Had that decision not been made, the communities of Split Lake, Cross Lake, York Landing, Nelson House, would not have suffered any damage.
At the very formal and lengthy official inquiry that was conducted by the late Chief Justice Tritschler, he couched it in appropriate words. But the cost to the Manitoba taxpayers was in excess of $500 million to dredge that channel at the north end of Lake Winnipeg, to put in probably the most inefficient hydroelectric station that we have anywhere on the continent at Jenpeg, where we imported the horizontal Russian submersible turbines, when the other alternative at South Indian Lake would have cost us in the order of $48 million as compared to the $500 million that the New Democratic Party government led by Ed Schreyer chose.
But along with it, regrettably, we are now still paying the bill. And more to the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that government led by--and honourable members may not agree with everything I say, but this is all factual, it can be documented--a very willful Minister of Mines and Natural Resources, one Sidney Green, refused to acknowledge the damage. He refused to sign the Northern Flood Agreement. Adamantly he refused.
One of the first things that another Conservative government did when they came into office under Sterling Lyon was to acknowledge the hurt, to acknowledge the damage, and sign the Northern Flood Agreement. Then we began to work towards honouring the terms of the Northern Flood Agreement. Regrettably, these take time. These are multitiered, you know, negotiations with the federal government, the Indian bands involved, with Manitoba Hydro, with the provincial government, and before we could address the issues, we were thrown out of office again, in '81. Then followed six years of total inaction by a New Democratic Party government, and it had to wait to this day for some action taking place.
While I add my thanks that have already been expressed to the communities at Split Lake, to the elders, to everybody involved, the person that probably deserves the most of the thanks is our Deputy Premier, the honourable member for Arthur (Mr. Downey). You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was some chuckling going on when he was appointed Minister of Northern Affairs from our most southwesterly part of the province.
We sometimes get chastised from honourable members that this group is not sensitive enough to issues of the North. Bill 13 speaks in the loudest possible terms possible that we on this side will address legitimate grievances. We on this side do concern ourselves with issues in the North. We on this side stand for action. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to rise to, of course, support Bill 13 and just deal with a couple of matters raised by the honourable member back in 1966 and '69 and '77 and '85 dealing with other proposals.
First of all, let me say that we do support this bill, and we do support the agreement reached with the elders and people of the Split Lake community. I too have had the opportunity to visit those communities, all the communities mentioned by the minister, and of course we all recognize that there was damage done, and we have all recognized that in this Chamber.
It is interesting, you know, to talk about the alleged benign damage that would have been created with the 35-foot flooding proposal--
An Honourable Member: Benign, it would have been massive and severe, but contained in one area.
Mr. Doer: There is rather an interesting description about the 35-foot option which would have been massive and severe, as the member has indicated, and the 10-foot option that was accepted by the Schreyer government. Suffice it to say that members in this Legislature today would probably have not accepted either option. We have gone forward, we have moved ahead as a society, as a province.
We have, I believe, reached a much greater maturity about the way in which developments must proceed and the balance that must take place with people. I think it is important to note that it is not just an intent that is in this Legislature by words, but also by law.
In 1987 the new Environment Act was created in this Chamber supported by all parties, I might add. It was the only act of legislation that we proclaimed in 1988 in the election campaign. We did not appoint anybody. We did not sign any contract. I was in the middle of that election and elected as leader of the government, and the only thing I said we should do is proclaim The Environment Act, because it had passed this Legislature.
It does provide that the Crown is bound and must go through an Environment Act that has the people of Manitoba involved in it, and sometimes we have debates about 10 feet versus 35 feet. Sometimes we will debate--the minister has his view on this. He says that five inches is no different than 10 inches. I would rather be drowning in a two-foot pool than a 10-foot-deep pool perhaps. [interjection] Because I can go to the side. Probably a bad example--do you know what? I think I am going to withdraw. I am going to make my first withdrawal of the session on my words.
An Honourable Member: Try again.
Mr. Doer: Well, some of us know when we make a mistake. Some of us do not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, there would have been damage, as the minister has indicated, on a significant community. I have been to that community, and there are many people who feel that both of the options in South Indian Lake were not acceptable.
The whole issue of 1977 Northern Flood Agreement has not been totally resolved. The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, a commission of hearings that took place across Manitoba, recommended that the Northern Flood Agreement be treated as a modern-day treaty, that we would not have piecemeal settlements as we have before us here, which we support because the people of the community support it, but we would have a modern treaty for the aboriginal people who are affected in the communities the minister indicated. The government has not implemented the Northern Flood Agreement as a modern treaty. In fact, they have not implemented any recommendations. Recommendation No. 1, establish a co-commission between the government and the First Nations people in terms of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Churchill River projects did create damage. It did create damage, we believe less damage than the other option that was being proposed by the Weir government, and that is a matter of history and a matter of disagreement in a democratic society. It is interesting that when we move forward to the next project in 1984-1985, the Limestone project on the Nelson River, I believe there is one community that has some claims in terms of the community left in Sundance, the Fox Lake community, but, other than that, there was very little damage done on the Nelson River. In fact, that was approved by the federal agency at the time, the federal energy board at the time, an independent board, but that still was not the opportunity to have independent hearings and an independent process that must take place.
* (1720)
I would also remind members opposite, and this was a matter of dispute between the former Minister of Energy and Mines and Minister responsible for Hydro and First Nations communities, that the Northern Flood Agreement says that there must be a full environmental impact study of the damages done by this Northern Flood development. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that full environmental assessment has not been completed pursuant to the Northern Flood Agreement signed by the previous Lyon government. There are many people that argue that assessment should be complete rather than having just settlements that are arrived at by certain criteria, that we should proceed and complete what are the actual damages that were done, and there were damages done under the projects covered by the Northern Flood Agreement.
This does conclude one community's part in terms of this settlement, but it does not conclude all the issues raised in the Northern Flood Agreement, the issues of treaty land entitlement and the whole issue of a modern-day treaty, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that has been proposed in the AJI. So you have two or three outstanding issues still in the whole area of the 1977 Northern Flood Agreement and in the decisions made in the early '70s on proceeding with this development.
I do think it is important to note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that never again should any political party proceed with independent environmental assessments that is now required by law, by independent assessments of damage that will be done by any hydroelectric project. I think it is important in the 1990s to recognize that we now have a law in this province that would have provided independent decision making, nonpolitical decision making, independent advice to us, and comprehensive environmental and sustainable reviews of any project and how they would affect people. That is the important message, that never again should we proceed in any project that affects directly people, without them having a right and the people themselves having a right to speak up and be heard as part of an independent environmental process.
I want to add my words to the minister's on Bill 13 and to others on Bill 13, but as I say, we still believe in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry's recommendation that this Northern Flood Agreement be treated as a modern-day treaty as recommended by Justice Hamilton and Justice Sinclair. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 13, The Split Lake Cree Northern Flood Implementation Agreement, Water Power Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed.
Bill 14--The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 14, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les mines et les minéraux, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to this bill in second reading and in committee and at that time raised several concerns about The Mines Amendment Act as before this House. To give credit to the minister, some amendments were made in committee. One issue, dealing with the date of the annual release of the annual report, we raised our concerns about the delay amounting to six months, and we have moved that date to September publication release date, and we have concurrence on that issue.
In addition, in the committee stage and in second reading, I raised the issue of The Mines Act, recognizing another deficiency, and that was recognizing a certain amount of flexibility was needed for prospectors and explorers who need to do work on claims that have been affected by natural disasters.
This year we saw the North ravaged by fires once again. Some of those areas are difficult to get to at the best of times but, when you are dealing with an area of a fresh burn, it is particularly difficult to get in and do the required work on those claims.
That amendment was then brought forward in committee and we were pleased to respond to the need of the mineral industry. We are pleased to respond to the needs of local prospectors and make The Mines Act a more reasonable and workable document.
However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have some serious concerns about the amendments proposed, in particular the deletion of the conflict of interest provision in The Mines Act, a provision that in fact covers those who have access to sensitive materials information. Those who have had any knowledge or workings with the mineral industry will realize that there are significant economic repercussions to the knowledge that can be attained by knowledge of various decisions in the mineral industry.
The conflict of interest provision in the act, as is, has some very broad terms of reference and also has consequences in law for those that break it. We do not agree with the government's position that indeed it should be deleted in total. There are those, for instance, in the minister's office who are privy to information that may be perhaps sensitive in nature.
Those individuals, like all civil servants and those members of the House who are covered by conflict of interest provisions, must be covered, and that is not done in the amendment as is.
For those reasons we have very serious concerns about this bill. In terms of public interest we cannot support this bill with this amendment.
In addition to that area, we would just like to add for the record that we are not prepared to support the change to the act which does not require Order-in-Council for expenditures from the Quarry Rehabilitation fund.
Only today, I raised one issue about accountability, about fairness, in that the very people who are out there to monitor and enforce the act are the ones that identify and give out grants, obviously an area that needs change, and we are going to be raising those concerns.
In addition to that, the only record of monies expended from that fund are in Orders-in-Council. In fact, having questioned the minister on policies and procedures, there have been no amendments to the procedure. This would, indeed, reduce the amount of accountability at a time when we have seen the Auditors raise concerns about the Department of Mines in terms of managing another fund, the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program. Serious concerns about accountability, the way the projects are assessed for eligibility, whether the projects are actually completed, all of those questions were raised, and, in fact, not settled satisfactorily.
This fund, just begun, is also dealing with millions of dollars. We feel that there needs to be a rigorous program of policies and procedures which ensures that public money is being expended in an expedient and efficient and fair way. For those reasons, we are opposed to this Mines Amendment Act.
* (1730)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is third reading, Bill 14. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On division.
Bill 16--The Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) (by leave), that Bill 16, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to put a few words on the record in regard to this bill. This bill relates to the trucking industry and deregulation of interprovincial trucking. Originally, interprovincial trucking was regulated to prevent excessive, destructive competition and foster the ability of carriers to subsidize service to smaller communities, but because of a change in federal transportation policy, it will be impossible for provincial governments to effectively regulate interprovincial trucking. In addition, most Canadian provinces already have deregulated interprovincial trucking and view continued regulation by Manitoba as a barrier to Canadian internal trade.
So, for this reason, there is a need for this type of legislation, but we have to be careful in deregulation as we have seen in deregulation of telephone service or air transportation that there are effects that we sometimes cannot predict. The government will have to monitor closely, especially in rural communities, what effect this deregulation will have. We charge the government to monitor very closely. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 16. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 17--The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) (by leave), that Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18--The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) (by leave), that Bill 18, The Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société d'habitation et de rénovation, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I am pleased to be able to debate Bill 18 in third reading. This is The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation Amendment Act, and it is going to change the structure and the membership of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation.
It is a very short bill that allows the government to make some changes in the structure of the board. Currently the board is five senior civil servants that are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and the minister is the chairperson of the board; the deputy minister is designated as the vice-chairperson. This has been a structure that has been in place since, I think, 1967 or '68.
An Honourable Member: No, 1984.
Ms. Cerilli: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst) is correcting me and saying that particular structure has been in place since 1984. It has been the Renewal Corporation itself that has been in place since 1967-68.
The direction that the government is going with this bill is to change the membership of the Renewal Corporation board to between five and 13 members appointed by the government through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and they will also have the designation of the chair and the vice-chair. The minister has said that this is going to ensure that there is public representation on the board for the Housing and Renewal Corporation.
We must keep in mind that the Housing and Renewal Corporation is the public corporation that actually holds the assets of all of the public housing stock in Manitoba and also deals with all the finances that come from the federal government to fund social housing in the province.
I am saying that because, unfortunately, the government has not seen fit to include any tenants on this board. They are all going to be government appointments, and none of those government appointments at this point are going to be tenants. The minister, in committee, said that that is a consideration. I am surprised that they have not had that consideration when they have moved forward with the bill.
The other thing that the minister made clear at the committee is, as I have asked in Question Period, that the policy is to, with this bill, move to amalgamate the Manitoba Housing Authority and the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation and that the current members of the Manitoba Housing Authority will make up the public members that will be appointed to the new board that is going to be created.
It is important then to recognize that the Manitoba Housing Authority is the management for the social housing in the province.
We have put forward amendments to the bill, as I said, that recommended not only tenants be represented on this new board but that those tenants should also be elected. We feel that in a democracy it would make sense to have representation elected from the body of tenants. There are some 13,000 to 20,000 units of social housing in the province, and it would make sense that all of those families would have some representation on the board. We put forward those amendments concerned that this government has moved away from tenant involvement in social housing in the province.
* (1740)
It was back in 1990 when they centralized the management and governance of social housing by eliminating all the volunteer and public housing authorities. There were some 98 housing authorities throughout the province, and they chose to eliminate all of those volunteer and community-driven housing authorities and to create the Manitoba Housing Authority. At that time, they were supposed to establish social housing advisory groups, and those social housing advisory groups would have maintained some of the functions of the regional housing authorities in terms of ensuring that there is local community input into the needs and management of public housing, ensuring that the public housing is managed according to the needs, and sensitive to the needs, in the communities throughout the province.
Unfortunately, the way that the government has handled the establishment of those social housing advisory groups was simply to send one letter to municipalities, and they said that they did not receive a response large enough to establish the creation of those social housing advisory groups. So that commitment has simply been negated. They have simply not complied with that commitment that they made even though they set up very clear terms of reference for the social housing advisory groups. I want to read into the record what those terms of references are. The establishment of the social housing advisory group was to be done on a community basis that would invite participation from previous housing authority boards.
So they were going to provide some continuity with the previous community involvement that had been ongoing in the province. The role of these advisory groups or social housing would be to provide advice to the Manitoba Housing Authority on locally sensitive issues. It was anticipated that the social housing advisory groups would play a role in the relationship that develops between the Manitoba Housing Authority district offices in each community. The social housing advisory groups may provide the input necessary so that the housing stock can be managed in a manner that is sensitive to local concerns. The district Manitoba Housing Authority manager will meet with the local social housing advisory groups on a regular basis to discuss their concerns and obtain their input into the management of the housing stock in the community.
The terms of reference then went on to talk about the membership, and the appointment of the social housing advisory group membership would be as follows: There would be nomination and ministerial appointment procedures that were previously followed for the Housing Authority Board, and the previous Housing Authority Board members would be invited to participate on the boards of these advisory groups.
That suggests to me that there was going to be some local community election, since there was the reference to nominations, and I believe that that was something that had been in place previously with the housing authorities.
The terms of reference also made specific recommendations for the tenant associations. As is presently the case, the terms of reference read: funding will be available for tenant associations on an annual basis, and where it has been confirmed by the district manager that the association duly represents the interests of the majority of the tenants in the project or groups of projects, the funding level for such associations is being increased to encourage more effective participation of tenants in the management of their housing projects.
We know that that level of funding has been $24 per unit. The district manager was to provide assistance and/or advice regarding the process to be followed in the formation of these associations. Further, the district manager will be required to monitor tenant participation in these associations and to ensure that the tenants' views are being effectively represented. That is very clear and I think would set a good proposal for how we could involve the community in the management and operation of public housing.
I think we have to look at the importance of public housing in providing low-cost housing for low-income Manitobans. In the Estimates I referred to a number of studies that showed that low- income Manitobans are better served by public housing, that they have better quality of housing, it is better maintained, they have less problems in terms of overoccupancy. It also is in the interest of the government, in terms of the number of people on social allowance, to ensure that there is public housing, because then those people are assured that social housing is going to high-quality housing that meets the standards of the province of Manitoba, and I have referenced those issues previously in the House.
There are, I think, problems because of the model that has been used in the past for public housing development in Manitoba and across the country. It is the same model that came from the '60s and the '70s, and the large, high-density complexes have posed a number of problems. I think that is one of the things that is important about the amendments that I put forward which, even though the minister agreed with what I said--he said over and over again that he agreed that tenant associations were important; he agreed that there should be staff, the tenant relations officers and other staff, as referenced by the terms of reference for the social housing advisory groups that would be there to support and develop and formulate these tenant groups.
Even though he said all that, they not only voted against the amendment calling for tenant-elected membership on the board, but they also voted against the other amendments that I proposed. The amendment that I proposed would have ensured that there was 50-50 representation on the board for the housing authority, 50 percent elected tenants that would have been elected at the annual meeting. This, I think, speaks to our belief in participatory democracy in that people should have a voice and input into government decisions that affect their daily lives, particularly in areas where the governments could do that easily.
I was very proud of the previous NDP government in the effort that they took to set up community-based child and family services agencies which used this kind of model to ensure there were volunteer boards elected at the local level to reflect the community and to ensure that there is some accountability to the community and input from the community. So that same kind of model was the intention with my amendments on Bill 18.
It is important, I think, to look at the fact that the amendments I proposed were in keeping with what the government said they were going to do in 1990-91, when they eliminated the 98 housing authorities in the province.
We were not asking them to do anything other than what they had said they were going to do, and we wanted to see that put into new legislation that was going to govern public housing. So that deals with a number of other amendments that I had proposed.
The one other thing that I am concerned about, in terms of the government and also included in my amendments, was a reference that they develop a program and a model for tenant management. The minister has made a number of references to the Gilbert Park housing development, and they have taken almost 10 years to get to the point where they are at in terms of having an active tenant association that is getting involved in tenant management.
I think that the government is obliged to show in fairness, to afford all public housing in Manitoba the same opportunity and by bringing in a model and a program that will stipulate what tenants have the authority to do. It is the same issue that we are dealing with in terms of the parent councils in public schools. There have to be some guidelines, and the government cannot just leave it up to some ad hoc reactive process that is going to respond to the individual tenants in individual public housing neighbourhoods.
So they need a system that is going to establish what the roles are for staff and for tenants. That is what we were proposing.
It is interesting when I look at the number of housing developments that have benefited from the $24 per unit afforded to tenant groups, there have been in the last year approximately--well, there was--$92,799.37 given to tenant groups to conduct various projects. These are projects that are the basic grassroots community development. They are programs for children. They are programs to deal with community safety. They are programs to ensure that there are dispute resolution mechanisms. There are all sorts of programs that are going to meet the community social, health and economic needs of neighbourhoods where there is public housing.
* (1750)
It is interesting though, of the $92,000-odd dollars that have been granted, there is eligibility for $312,000 according to the formula by the government.
We know that there has been quite a reduction from the federal government to social housing. There has been a $270-million cut over the next three years. That is going to, according to the minister from Estimates, mean a $5 million reduction each year for Manitoba. We have also had a number of concerns with the direction that the government is going in trying to deal with this, and they are passing off more and more costs to tenants. This is particularly a hardship for those low-income tenants who are working, often at minimum-wage jobs.
So increasing the rents geared to income to 27 percent has been a hardship, just as the policy to add the property tax credit into the calculation for rent geared to income, and when we look at the fact that that has generated about $300,000, we have to ask ourselves how the government can justify all the procedures and the system to put that in place for that kind of money when it is coming out of the pockets of some of the poorest Manitobans.
The other issue that is of concern is the government's decision to include foster-family allowance into the rent geared to income and how that has really meant a loss to foster families of 33 percent of their allowance that was supposed to go to foster children.
I am going to conclude my remarks by following up on the issues I raised today in Question Period that, even though the minister endorsed and agreed with everything I had said in terms of the development of public housing, in terms of the development of tenants' input into public housing, and, specifically, in terms of the role of the tenant relations officers in supporting tenant involvement, that they are looking at eliminating seven tenant relations officers as well as eight maintenance co-ordinators.
The maintenance co-ordinators are very important to public housing. I just want to urge the minister and the government, if they are serious about having tenant involvement and tenant relations officers do the kind of community development that is possible through public housing support, that they would not go forward with those layoffs, that they would realize that those staff are paying for their salaries many times over in the kind of preventative work that they do in public housing.
We know that tenant involvement will decrease the vacancy rates--I have not talked about that even though I would like to--we know that that is one of the ways that can be done. I asked the minister that in Estimates, and I was disappointed at the lack of a plan the government has to fill the vacancies in public housing. Again, that would be to their financial advantage.
I just want to conclude by saying that because we view this bill as undemocratic in terms of the way it is dealing with public housing and the tenants in public housing, we are not going to support the bill. We think that the government could have taken a much more positive direction by implementing a number of the ideas that the minister says he agrees with. For that reason, we are not going to support the bill, and I conclude my remarks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 18. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Doer: On division, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On division.
Bill 19--The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh) (by leave), that Bill 19, The Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'adoption internationale (Convention de La Haye) et apportant des modifications corrélatives, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) (by leave), that Bill 20, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 21--The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) (by leave), that Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les obligations de développement rural, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 22--The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) (by leave), that Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et la Loi sur la Charte de Brandon, be now read and third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 23--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) (by leave), that Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie, be now read a third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable House leader, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) (by leave), that Bill 23, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie, be now read a third time and passed.
An Honourable Member: No.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The motion has been carried.
Bill 25--The Real Property Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 25, The Real Property Amendment Act (2); Loi No 2 modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels, be now read a third time and passed.
* (1800)
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
There may be a will of the House, Madam Speaker, not to see the clock for a few minutes while we finish these bills.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House not to see the clock? [agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very briefly, we understand that it gives additional discretionary powers to the registrar which will allow for more flexibility and thereby giving the need for the survey plans. In addition, the amendments clarify that the Land Titles office is not responsible for verifying the terms and mortgage presented for registration. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 26--The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 26, The Liquor Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la réglementation des alcools, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 27--The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) (by leave), that Bill 27, The Cattle Producers Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association des éleveurs de bétail, be read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On division, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On division.
Bill 28--The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) (by leave), that Bill 28, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995 (Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 31--The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) (by leave), that Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 32--The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) (by leave), that Bill 32, The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les procédures contre la Couronne, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On division, please, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: On division.
Bill 33--The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 33, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 (Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 34--The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: Third reading, by leave, Bill 34.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, Bill 34 will be held until tomorrow's sitting.
Bill 36--The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) (by leave), that Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion presented.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I will speak in English. I will be very brief.
This bill has an amendment that would require nonprofit community organizations to pay school taxes on a portion of their facilities which are licensed to serve liquor. Presently these organizations have an unfair advantage over legions which are required to pay school taxes on licensed portions of their premises. Therefore, we will support this bill.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 36. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Ernst: I believe the hour, Madam Speaker, is six o'clock.
Madam Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).