Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions and directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to all the members of this House and ministers and critics and House leaders and everybody like that who has been involved in making that process as smooth as it has been. The committee Chairs have done a marvellous job, and the Clerk Assistants at their sides have kept them out of trouble for the most part. The whole process is an example of, I think, an efficient and proper way to get through a rather large number of hours of Estimates review.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call bills in the following order: Bill 8, 10, 28, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40, 45, 54 and 55.
* (1510)
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), Bill 8, The Real Property Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I will not keep you very long on this Bill 8. In fact, the minister, in his earlier address, I think covered all of the issues on this bill. This bill deals with the land sold following foreclosure, and there is evidently potential conflict between current Sections 141 and 137 in regard to such sales, and this is, in essence, really just a housekeeping section to this legislation.
I might point out, though, Madam Speaker, that this bill certainly does nothing to deal with stagnant property values in the city of Winnipeg. I could go on at considerable length discussing that whole issue and the government's lack of action in that area over its last 10 years inaction in government, but I will leave that for another day and would move that this bill go to committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 8, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman), Bill 10, The Mining Tax Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe minière), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): It is our opportunity to put on the record a few comments on Bill 10. Bill 10 indeed has two parts. One increases the Mining Reserve Fund amount from $5 million to $10 million, a move that we support strongly and wish to put that on the record. It has been set at $5 million for 27 years, and it is high time that that was increased.
Number 2, the second part of the bill, is one that we strongly oppose. For that reason we will be voting against this bill. I would like to put a few comments on the record as to why we are so strongly opposed to the idea that the Minister of Mines (Mr. Newman) has put forward, which is to allow the Mining Reserve Fund, a fund that was established to specifically assist mining communities, existing mining communities, the workers, the businesses, and those communities to have a viable future. In case there was pending closure, or the actual closure of a mine, this fund would be available to assist those mining towns.
So the purpose of the fund was quite specific in the act. Unfortunately, it is the decision of this minister and this government to change the purpose of that fund quite dramatically by allowing the funding of MEAP, which is a grant program for exploration companies, to be funded out of the Mining Reserve Fund, so what is a fund that is constructed by taxes from mining companies who are profitable at certain times, and those profits are put into a fund to assist those very communities in tough times. Madam Speaker, the times are very tough right now, and it is very ironic to have this bill before us suggesting that it would be indeed proper to use this money for what I would consider fairly speculative exploration programs and, in particular, the Superior Province.
I do not wish to suggest that exploration is not needed in Manitoba. Hardly. I believe that we need more exploration and that we need a real and active Prospectors Program. The Prospectors Program, in particular, has been a dismal failure because of the lack of leadership by the Minister of Mines (Mr. Newman). We have seen hardly a 50 percent take-up on the money that was allocated. That unfortunately is a legacy of incompetence and bungling in terms of dealing with the shortage and crisis in developing prospectors in Manitoba.
But, Madam Speaker, they have provided a special incentive for doing exploration in the Superior Province which is an area on the east side of the province, an area that is undeveloped. We know that exploration projects like this take considerable lead time. If we look even at the Cross Lake project, back in 1986, when I worked in the Cross Lake area as a geologist at that time, we knew of the deposit. We knew that it was potentially very significant. Here we are in 1998, we are still proving up reserves and we have not started production. That is a deposit that we would consider on the fast track. That is on a fast track. So the exploration that is going to occur in the Superior Province will perhaps lead to a mine. Ten, 20 years from now, we can be hopeful that something will happen.
Well, Madam Speaker, for the workers and the community at Leaf Rapids who have been given a sentence of three years, that is not going to cut it. Those miners in Leaf Rapids will not be working in the Superior Province, will not be supporting their children from the money that they make in a new mine in the Superior Province. In fact, they are going to need support from this government in terms of direction and in terms of the Mining Reserve Fund.
So we feel that it is a betrayal to those northern and southern mining communities, those mining companies who have invested in this fund for the purpose of helping those miners and the mining communities, and it is a betrayal to the workers themselves. This is not the purpose of the Mining Reserve Fund, and we strongly oppose the use of the fund for the MEAP program.
I want to just conclude saying that, indeed, the Mining Reserve Fund is a very important initiative and one that we are going to need in the communities of Leaf Rapids, perhaps in Flin Flon. We have seen layoffs in Thompson and downsizing. Our mining community right now is seeing a very stressful period. Commodity prices in all sectors, perhaps the first time ever, are at all time lows. It is time that this government retracted this amendment to this bill, particularly in terms of the Mining Reserve Fund focused on keeping those mining communities sustainable. The time is now, not tomorrow, as the mining industry faces a very serious crisis.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, want to put a few words on the record on Bill 10. I think the general principle of Bill 10 would appear, on first-hand, to be fairly positive in the sense that it is important to recognize the importance of sustainability, in particular within our communities, the mining communities. The greatest advantage that Winnipeg has is its diversification of its economy. You take that and you compare that to a one-industry town, it could be absolutely devastating to that community if you have a mine or the industry in that one-industry town shutting down. The idea of having a community mining reserve is very positive, and we understand that it is going to be, in fact, funded by the 3 percent of the annual mining tax.
Madam Speaker, this section, if you like, allows the minister to use the money to stimulate exploration within a reasonable distance, if you like, of closed mines. I think that government does need to do what it can in order to look at communities, in particular those one-industry communities, and seeing what we can do to allow for that particular community's ultimate advancement if, in fact, it is practical.
With those few words, I am prepared to see the bill go to committee. Thank you.
* (1520)
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I just want to put a few words on the record, because I think it is important to emphasize the current situation in the mining industry. As someone who represents a mining community, I can say quite clearly that we are concerned in mining communities at the present point in time. Prices are down. Nickel, for example, which is the backbone of Inco, has dropped to about $2.05, $2.06 a pound. We are in some very difficult circumstances. I want to urge the government not to do the kinds of things we saw happen with the Mining Reserve Fund recently, and to recognize that the mining taxes and royalties that have come out of northern Manitoba by and large have gone to support many programs throughout this province in the past.
We have had years where we produced $100 million, $120 million, $130 million of royalties in one single year. I must admit there is some frustration in the North that it seems that when times are good, money is taken out of the North, not reinvested in the way of services, whether it be Health or Education or Highways. When times are tough, of course, when we need the money, we now see this government taking money out of the Mining Reserve Fund and putting it into general revenue.
My message to the government, particularly this year when it is running a surplus supposedly, is when mining communities are not in a surplus position--in my own community, for the information of government members, we have had 150 contractors laid off, 45 staff people laid off, another 90 currently, both hourly and staff at Inco, in the process of being laid off. We are going through some tough times in our community, and it is the same in other communities, whether it be in Flin Flon or Leaf Rapids, Lynn Lake.
Any community that is dependent on mining now is dealing with a dramatic drop in commodity prices. That, by the way, Madam Speaker, is being reinforced as we speak by the very difficult circumstances in Asia. The more the Asian economy drops, the Japanese economy drops, the more we are in a sensitive position, the more that demand for nickel and other minerals, base metals, drops, we end up with the kind of situation, $2.05, and that compares to upwards of $3.50, $3.60, $3.70 a pound U.S. only a short two years ago.
I want to urge the government to listen to mining communities. I want to take the opportunity of speaking on this bill to say to the government that the money they have taken out of mining, particularly the money that was in the Mining Reserve Fund, they should put it back. Put it back where it belongs, in northern Manitoba, and take it out of the sticky hands of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).
Our communities need that money right now. We need the money for diversification. We need the money to deal with the potential in some communities, if we have continuing low commodity prices, that those mining communities may be hit with the kind of circumstance we saw in Lynn Lake and Snow Lake only a few years ago, very difficult situations for individuals.
Madam Speaker, I say to this government what they did when they took the money out of the Mining Reserve Fund was unacceptable. It was unacceptable to northerners. Northerners have told me to tell them through you to say to the government: get your hands off the mining revenues of northern Manitoba. Get it out of general revenue, put it back in the Mining Reserve Fund, and preserve what I think was one of the excellent legacies, many of the legacies of the Schreyer government affecting northern Manitoba, that is, the Mining Reserve Fund.
So, with those few words, Madam Speaker, I send the message to the government: listen to the North, listen to mining communities, and do not take our Mining Reserve Fund and do anything other than what needs to be done, which is to keep the money in it and improve it and enhance it. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 10, The Mining Tax Amendment Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? No?
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. On division.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I would like to just have it recorded that that was on division. That is all.
Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St. James, and I believe that was done.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), Bill 28, The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments (Code des normes d'emploi et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments to make on Bill 28, The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments. This is something that has been talked about by this government. I think, if I recall correctly, it was the now Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), then Minister of Labour, who talked about these changes and consolidating these three acts into one when that particular member was first elected to this Chamber. So it has been a number of years that this issue has been in the works by the Department of Labour. Of course, we saw that while that work was ongoing that particular minister was transferred out of the department, but the department continued to work on the consolidation of those pieces of legislation.
This act, Bill 28, will combine The Employment Standards Act, The Vacations with Pay Act and The Payment of Wages Act into one Employment Standards Act. It is our understanding that, in listening to the comments that were made by the Minister of Labour and talking with people in the workforce of our province that have to deal with these, it will make it much easier for an interpretation of the act itself, much along the lines that the former minister had indicated. At that time he said he had a specific interest and some expertise in that area and said it created some problems in trying to interpret the act when you compared one against the other.
Madam Speaker, that is along the lines of what we have been hearing as well, that this will in some ways streamline these three pieces of legislation by incorporating them into one act and making sure that each of the sections or clauses of the legislation is consistent with the overall purpose of the Employment Standards Code. This legislation, as I said, will combine the three acts: The Employment Standards, Vacations with Pay, and Payment of Wages Act.
It would have been nice if we could have seen some modest improvements by way of this legislation since you are opening up the Employment Standards Code of this province, and I look along the lines of your Vacations with Pay Act, for example. There have not been some changes in that area for a considerable period of time. I am sure there are other changes that we could have proposed, some amendments or some improvements to the code that would have increased the ability of the Employment Standards Code to make the lives of working people much easier in this province because of the conflicts that they come into from time to time.
No doubt the employers face similar problems as they try to interpret the current act that is in place. We perhaps could have suggested some other improvements to the Employment Standards Code, but the government was intent only to combine the three at this point.
Of course, it was not that long ago that this government, through its actions in the budgetary process, eliminated the Payment of Wages Fund in this province, something that assisted working people and the government has eliminated that now. It has made it much more difficult for working people to obtain the wages to which they were entitled in a timely fashion. I know I have received calls just recently on this, last week as a matter of fact, from members that are having some difficulties with the payment of wages that are due and owing to them. I think, if I recall correctly, there was a letter that has gone to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) in that regard.
This legislation, Bill 28, will co-ordinate the definitions and eliminate any redundancies or inconsistencies in the legislation, and will make it easier for those members of the public, employers and employees in the province, to understand the act more clearly without having to compare one act to the other. It will no doubt make it easier to have some definition of what the act was intended to do and, of course, the interpretation by those who are charged with the enforcement of the acts themselves, not only from the Employment Standards Branch of the Department of Labour, but also by legal counsel and the courts who are charged with the ultimate enforcement of any legislation.
* (1530)
This bill, I believe, will modernize the legislation by clarifying those clauses of the act that were in conflict with the other two acts. So it will provide some greater clarity in that regard. I also want to indicate that there will be more opportunities for effective and efficient enforcement of the law itself by the combining of those three acts into one.
It is my understanding through this bill that there was a requirement now that will allow for some consultation to take place between employers' and employees' representatives prior to the enactment of any new regulations that I think, if the government of the day is willing to listen to the players, to the stakeholders when they move to change regulations, will allow for some consultation, and also hopefully a broad consensus to be reached by any regulation changes that would be proposed at that time.
Now, it is my understanding that the act itself under this new code will allow for the vacation pay to be equal to 4 percent of wages earned during the vacation entitlement year for an employee entitled to a two-week vacation. Of course, if you have three weeks entitlement under the current law, then the vacation pay earned would be 6 percent. This approach is much easier to understand and is not a significant departure from the existing legislation. But, nevertheless, it will make it easier for those who are affected by the legislation to have a greater clarity or understanding of what the act intended under The Vacations with Pay Act, incorporated under the new Employment Standards Code.
In regard to the other provisions of the act itself, there is a specific section dealing with overtime provisions. I know in past employment opportunities, there had been discussion at those times with respect to pay and people being required to take pay for any overtime that is worked at the prevailing rate of time and a half for those in the first eight hours of overtime. But in changes with this act, it will allow some flexibility in that the employees themselves will now be able to, in consultation no doubt with their employers--there is some flexibility built into the code now that will allow the employees to take their overtime worked, their hours worked in overtime, take it off with time in lieu of pay and at the prevailing time and a half or overtime rate. This will allow the employees, of course, those that are already in a tax bracket for which they were not feeling comfortable perhaps and felt that this could boost them up into the next tax bracket, meaning that they would have to pay more tax by claiming the overtime in pay, would be allowed to take the time off in lieu of receiving that pay. So it does provide some options or some flexibility for people who do or are required to work overtime.
In this Employment Standards Code, revision to it, there are changes dealing with employees who are called into work on their regular rest days, their regular days off, and there was a provision that would require them to receive at least three hours at their regular rate of pay. Now, it is my understanding that under the current act, at present they must be paid for three hours at the minimum-wage rate. There is a change in this regard now, and I think it is probably a move in the right direction. So anyone who is called in to work on their regular rest days would be required to be paid the minimum of three hours of their regular rate of pay. So there is some clarity or some change in that regard as well.
There is also a change in the Employment Standards Code for persons against whom payment of wage orders have been issued by the director of the Employment Standards branch, that there will now be an administrative cost or an administrative fee attached that would now be owing against the person who is charged or required to make payment of those particular wages. It can be also based on a percentage of the wages found owing, and I think it is up to a maximum of a thousand dollars. So the fee is variable in that regard, dealing with the administrative cost. So there will be some recovery of costs in that regard.
It would hopefully be a discouragement in cases where individuals or employers have chosen not to make payment of wages and have been found guilty of that infraction, would also have an additional charge levied against them. So they would have to think clearly about not paying wages that are legally due and owing.
Also, there is going to be interest now charged on unpaid wages as a result of the Employment Standards Code streamlining, if we can call it that. The director of Employment Standards will be required to pay interest on any money held in trust. So, if there are items that are in dispute between an employer and employee, those monies could be then forwarded from an employer to the branch, and the branch would hold those monies in trust. Of course, any interest accrued to those monies, would then be forwarded as well.
The fine levels have changed under the code and will be increased substantially. I think this would probably be viewed as a progressive move, in the sense it would be a discouragement from one stakeholder group taking advantage of other individuals in our society in an employer-employee relationship. We would want to make sure that we minimize the number of cases that would have to come before the branch dealing with issues like this. By increasing the fine levels under the code, if this goes a ways towards acting as a deterrent in this regard, we think and would view this as a positive move.
It is my understanding, too, that the director of Employment Standards will be authorized to settle differences between employers and employees. Well, perhaps that is something that is commonplace in the current legislation that is in place. The Employment Standards branch, from my experience and from understanding, tries to work through a conciliation process to try and solve these differences and, hopefully, obtain the monies owing from the employers on behalf of the employees after some investigation is undertaken by the branch.
Now, the director of Employment Standards, of course, will be authorized to settle these differences. I would take it that that would mean that there would be more powers in that regard and that the director, even though they can issue a director's order now, are still appealable to the Manitoba Labour Board as a quasi-judicial body in dealing with such matters. The Labour Board, as we know, has those powers and can have final say in regard to directors' orders that are issued. I believe that employee or employers, themselves, can appeal those directors' decisions to that particular body still, if they feel so aggrieved.
Madam Speaker, there may be a number of members of the public that want to come out and debate or talk about changes to the Employment Standards Code. We wish that there had been perhaps some other changes incorporated with the act, but nevertheless, this is a modest step with some, perhaps, minor but important changes that the government has incorporated into this legislation.
We know in looking back on their past labour standards that they have had during the term of their government, you have taken a much more heavy-handed approach. In fact, many times your government has disregarded the viewpoints of the Labour Management Review Committee dealing with various pieces of labour legislation, and it was convenient. Obviously, that was at the beginning of your term or your mandate. You felt that you could get away with your actions, and you had no need to consult and you had no need to take into consideration the viewpoints of a consensus reached by employers and employees in this province, but it is interesting to juxtapose those two positions now that you are much later in your term. You are taking a much more conciliatory approach in dealing with these changes than what you have done in the first year of your mandate. So, it is interesting to see how this process works, how our democratic process works, depending upon what point you are at in your legislative term.
So, Madam Speaker, I wish this could have been the case back in 1996 and '97 when we were dealing with changes to The Labour Relations Act, The Essential Services Act and others, but that was not to be. It is interesting that the government has chosen to take that more conciliatory approach this time. We hope that members of the public will come out and speak on this bill and let us know their thoughts. We look forward to this bill moving through to committee in a very short period of time. Thank you.
* (1540)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, generally speaking, when we have had labour legislation before the Chamber here, at times it can become quite an emotional debate. I can recall individuals like Jay Cowan, and even to a certain degree the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who really get and sink their teeth into the philosophical debate of labour and people and so forth.
With respect to this bill, as the member for Transcona points out, no doubt there could have been substantially more done when you were bringing together the legislation to come across as being more friendly to labour, but that is something which the government really has not made a fine art of.
Madam Speaker, having said that, essentially the bill is a major overhaul of The Employment Standards Code. Acts affected by this bill include The Employment Standards Act, The Vacations with Pay Act and The Payment of Wages Act. This bill, to be presumably replaced by stipulations more in line with standards, will eliminate several parts of those acts deemed redundant or outdated. Some of the features of this particular bill, we will see an overall streamlining of labour regulation, which I think can be a fairly positive thing. In areas, we will see fines being increased, changes to regulations regarding holiday pay, and a number of other things that are happening.
But with those few words, we are prepared to see it go to committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 28, The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et modifications corrélatives).
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I would just like to make a few comments on Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. As previously stated by the Minister of Rural Development in '96 and prior to the enactment of Bill 54, The Municipal Act, in which The Municipal Act was completely revised and, being part of the process, it was stated at that time, of course, that with all the changes and the overhaul of The Municipal Act, that we anticipated and had indicated to the minister and the government of the day at that time that there may be changes within The Municipal Act, Bill 54, that we would seriously have to be considering once all the municipalities, urban and rural, had an opportunity to be under the focus, under the umbrella of Bill 54, that we would be seeing some recommendations and changes to the act to better streamline some of the issues that, of course, were very important to most of the municipalities.
As a whole, Madam Speaker, I realize that there have not been too many changes that have been requested by municipalities and by the organizations such as UMM and MAUM. Bill 32 has proposals to make some changes and clarifications that certainly we on this side of the House look forward to hearing from municipalities and others as to some of the changes.
One of the issues, Madam Speaker, that the minister refers to and has had requests from not only the UMM, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, but also municipalities as a whole from across Manitoba is with respect to the drainage issues that we know are so important to some of the municipalities in Manitoba. Some of the drainage issues that, of course, we have, specifically in my constituency, are long-going and need to be changed. The responsibility of drainage and the responsibility of how people drain their land and where they drain it to and how they drain it and at what rate has made it a problem for some of the municipalities in being able to control that issue and in being able to control just where individuals who are not licensed, or licensed, are able to drain to.
Madam Speaker, that is an issue and part of Bill 32 that certainly interests me because the Union of Manitoba Municipalities is urging and has urged its member municipalities to present and pass resolutions and send them to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) appealing the fact that in the amendments municipalities have been given clarification about the type of drainage for which they are responsible and to which standard they should be maintained.
The UMM has urged the government and the Minister of Rural Development to make these changes, and the minister's response is that he is not going to make any changes. We are certainly hoping that prior to or at committee and through presentations that we have to Bill 32 that the minister seriously look at the requests by the municipalities in undergoing some of the changes. Basically what they are asking is, in fact, to ask the government of the day to give municipalities the opportunity to close unlicensed drains which increase water flows in municipal drainage areas.
Now, the municipality at times does not have the opportunity. If the Department of Natural Resources, the Water Resources branch, issues a licence without a proper review, Madam Speaker, then it is impossible at times for municipalities to act upon a drainage system, a new one or existing one, to be licensed. Then that proponent of the licence and the request for drainage seems to have the opportunity to be able to drain water from his or her property onto other properties and, at times, onto and into drainage systems that are overburdening the drainage systems responsibility to the municipalities. They want some control over that, and I think that they are requesting that they want the right to obstruct or close the drains and that this amendment and this portion of Bill 32 did not support that request.
I wonder where the minister and where the government of the day are at with this, because it seems to be a great concern for most municipalities. We have received resolutions, Madam Speaker, and I want to read into Hansard an example of the motion carried by some of the municipalities that has been sent to the minister. It says: The Municipal Act amendments on drainage. Therefore be it resolved that the R.M. of Bifrost requests that the Minister of Rural Development include in The Municipal Amendment Act, Bill 32, a provision which will allow municipalities to close an unlicensed drain which is impacting on a municipal drainage system.
Now, I have received copies of resolutions from my constituency in the R.M. of Bifrost, Armstrong, Grahamdale and others who are requesting the same principle to be implemented by this minister and by this government so that there is better control of the drainage issue that will provide municipalities that little extra to be able to control how drainage systems are implemented in their own constituencies and in the rural municipalities.
Some of the other issues that Bill 32 addresses--and as I said, Madam Speaker, there are times and places that we support some of the issues that are brought forward and changes to The Municipal Act and hopefully streamline even more the initial act and the initial changes in Bill 54. Certainly, there is support not only from UMM and MAUM and from the communities as a whole and from this side of the House for some of the issues that Bill 32 addresses. We certainly look at some of the main changes that Bill 32 brings into perspective, and that is clarifying procedures from municipalities to amalgamate.
* (1550)
I know that the minister has implemented this portion of Bill 32 as far as amalgamation. He seems to want to see an easier process, or provide an easier process, to clarify if municipalities or jurisdictions want to look at the option of amalgamating in the future. The portion of that, what I approve or what I agree with is that it provides them with more clarified opportunity for them to make that decision as to whether they want to or not, not provide the opportunity for the government of the day or the minister of the day to force municipalities, jurisdictions into amalgamation. If amalgamation is not good for municipalities and jurisdictions that want to consider amalgamation, and if it does not work out for them in their own minds and in their own study about it when it affects them and their infrastructure, when it affects their population and communities and services, we want to see the opportunity that these jurisdictions have that right to be able to deal with the issue of amalgamation, if they so wish, to be able to have that.
It also addresses the issue of PUB approval for anticipated deficits in water or sewer budgets. That portion, too, provides--I hope and believe that it will provide--the jurisdictions with the availability to deal with their infrastructure and deal with the costs that, if sewer and water are an issue in certain municipalities and urban centres, this can be addressed by the jurisdiction, by the municipalities to deal with it and to be able to have the opportunity to speak to it through the PUB. Of course, as we all know in some of the areas now, Madam Speaker, we have the issue where water and sewer is a problem and systems have to be implemented and put in place.
Dealing with this, I know that some of the municipalities would have to be approved for a budget and be approved to have a deficit within their budgets in specifically dealing with the issue of providing a service such as sewer and water to their community.
Again, part of this Bill 32 clarifies the procedures for collection of taxes. As we all know, that at times can be a problem in certain rural communities. We have a problem with being able to collect the taxes and who is responsible for the taxes. In Bill 54, of course, changes were made to the initial bill, and now we are seeing that this amendment and these changes to the procedure for collecting these taxes also has been clarified, hopefully on behalf of the jurisdiction in which it lies.
As I mentioned, in special services and other issues, special services for which reserve funds can be created, Madam Speaker, I think a positive note for this amendment, because what I believe it will do is be able for a municipality or a jurisdiction to be able to plan more for the future of being able to provide services to the communities and be able to plan and have reserved funds implemented and put in place, so that a project such as water to a community, a water treatment plant, or any other special services as we can say will be available hopefully for the best.
We talk about rural communities and changes to The Municipal Act and how it will improve our communities, in which fashion and which direction we are going with rural Manitoba. Without totally accepting this government's proposals to Bill 32, of course, we talk about services. We talk about infrastructure and how this government deals with the needs and wants of local jurisdictions and municipalities, both rural and urban. We talk about services and how important sewer and water, how important Main Street projects, how important roads, how important health care services, and how important education services are available. How important the services of drainage and support for our local people that live in small communities, who want to expand their services, who want to be able to provide and have the opportunity to be able to expand their local area, not only to bring in people but to bring in businesses both local and from outside the areas to be able to expand.
We have to address this, and we have to be able to have the support put in place so that our rural communities can benefit, can be able to go ahead into the 21st Century, so that they are available to provide a good safe economically based community for people to live and to work. We certainly on this side of the House support that, and this side of the House continues to urge the Department of Rural Development to work not only within their own department in dealing with some of these matters but in dealing with the other departments, supporting rural communities and being able to put in place the fact that we do need support not only from rural development but from the other departments to make it viable for a community in rural Manitoba not only to survive but to expand for the future.
So, Madam Speaker, with Bill 32 that we have short of the opportunity and with the request of the UMM, I wonder out loud where the minister is with their request to make available to the municipalities the power to remedy the unlicensed drainage activities that will have a negative impact. I wonder what response the minister has given these municipalities that have presented him with their resolutions and how he has responded to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities in their request for this, and I understand that there are ongoing talks. Certainly I hope the minister is listening to the municipalities.
In our discussions, it seemed that the minister at that time, and hopefully someone has changed his mind--if not us, the municipalities individually through their resolutions or UMM through meetings with the minister, to acknowledge their request and to address their request in being able to provide this amendment to have that availability to control the drainage system in their own constituency and in their own system.
So it will be interesting to hear presentations from UMM and from others that will be attending the committee hearings on Bill 32. I am certainly hopeful that the minister, during those committees, will accept and address any requests, Madam Speaker, either from members on this side of the House or from presenters to acknowledge what UMM is requesting and acknowledge what the municipalities are requesting to address the issue of drainage within their own jurisdictions.
I look forward to the committee hearings and to the presentations and hopefully we will be able to deal with those that are in attendance and work with the minister and encourage the minister to deal with the issues that the hearing and the committee will be bringing forward to us, Madam Speaker, in dealing with Bill 32.
With those short words, again, we would like to just pass Bill 32 on to committee and then we might be able to deal with, in third reading, some of the other issues that this government does not address when it comes to rural Manitoba.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I would also like to make a few comments about Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Of course, my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. C. Evans) has indicated that one of the major issues of this amendment act is the issue of drainage enforcement and the municipalities' jurisdiction over drainage in municipalities, not considered provincial waterways.
For those people who do not live in rural Manitoba, they may not realize how important the issue of proper management of drainage is, but I happen to live in a constituency where there is a lot of drainage that has been done without licences. This kind of drainage causes a lot of heartache for people who live downstream of the land that is being drained but also a lot of heartache for councils who up to this point have not had the ability to deal with this.
* (1600)
You know, Madam Speaker, as you have reduction in staff in various departments by this government, you see that water management becomes a bigger and bigger problem. I can recall trying to get somebody from water management to come and look at a drainage in the Pine River area. The one person was offered a retirement package. He left, and then someone else was not able to do it. The water problems continued to increase.
It shows that there is a lack of commitment on the part of the government to fulfil their responsibilities in controlling drainages. That is why municipalities have requested this responsibility from the province, so that they can start to monitor some of the drainage.
The municipalities have asked for a licence for the ability to close drainages that are unlicensed. Many people have written with regard to that, and I believe that the minister has indicated he is going to address that one. But certainly if municipalities are going to take on this additional power, this responsibility, they have to have some power that goes with it. As I say, this is one section of the bill that is a good section.
I have to say that there is another section of the bill that is causing concern in rural communities. One that has been brought to our attention is the length of office. My understanding is that there is a change. At the present time, when you run for public office, whether it is school board or municipal office, you run for a three-year term. This legislation will change this to a four-year term. This is causing serious concern in many municipalities. First of all, municipalities say that they were not consulted on this and school boards did not even know about it. When they found out about the legislation they were very upset.
I say, Madam Speaker, it is different in rural Manitoba than it is in the city, because when you serve on council or in Winnipeg or on school boards you get a fairly good return in comparison to what you would get in rural areas. So then it is much more difficult to get somebody to make that commitment to serve as a councillor or a school board trustee.
In many cases, I should not say in many cases, but in some cases someone will not even seek to run in a particular area of a municipality and the municipality has to appoint someone. So if you are asking somebody to be appointed for three years, they have not wanted to run, but they will agree to run for three years. To ask them now to run for four years or take on an appointed position for four years, when there is very little remuneration for this responsibility, there are going to be fewer and fewer people that are prepared to take on that responsibility.
I had a call from the school board where they indicated exactly that same thing. They are worried that this change is going to result in people saying, well, I was prepared to give it three years; I am not prepared to do it for four years.
I do not think that there is a recognition that there is a different reimbursement in rural areas. Certainly, the councillors and the school divisions do not have the revenues, particularly the school divisions. Given the offloading that they have had and the cutbacks in funds that they have had, they certainly do not have the extra money to pay school trustees. In municipalities, we have had a tremendous offload by the provincial government onto municipalities, and it has caused a great burden on their budgets. Again, they will not have the money to pay extra for municipal councillors to run, to serve in those positions.
So, Madam Speaker, I think that is one area of the bill that should be reconsidered. I hope that the minister will recognize that this is a problem, and it is not something that is supported by rural municipalities, and an area that the minister should consider changing and listening. It takes away the ability of people who want to serve in public office, not to be able to do it. The other one is, in many cases in rural Manitoba, that it is the older people that take on the responsibility of serving in these positions. They have a little bit more time, but, again, these people have indicated that they are not prepared to make a commitment of four years. They would prefer to have three years and then, when the three years are up, make that decision.
If they want to have a four-year term within the City of Winnipeg, and that has the support of councillors and City Hall, that is one thing. This certainly does not have the support of people in the rural areas, and, again, I have been told that school boards, for example, did not even know that this change was coming.
So I wanted to put on the record that particular concern. It has been brought to my attention both by municipal councillors and school trustees. I would hope that the minister recognizes this is a concern with this piece of legislation and addresses it when we go to committee; but, with respect to the part of drainages, municipalities, if they are going to take over the responsibility because government is not doing it properly, then have to have the legislation to support them. Hopefully, again, the minister would recognize the concerns brought forward by municipalities, in many letters that have been written, that they have the ability to close drains when they are made illegally and impact on municipal drains.
With those few comments, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to let this bill go to committee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, it was in 1996 that The Municipal Act was virtually completely revised. The amendments for Bill 32 are two-pronged. Some are simply housekeeping measures, while others pave the way for locally initiated municipal reforms the government would ultimately articulate. I am not too sure in terms of whether or not the government has consulted with the many different communities out there with respect to the reforms that they are presenting before us today.
The amendments should enable municipalities to have greater flexibility when it comes to some restructuring. The minister suggest that municipalities could amalgamate, but this should be approached keeping in mind that municipalities should retain a local focus as opposed to becoming regional bodies. I think that is in keeping with the laissez-faire attitude that the government has had with certain issues.
The local municipalities, the number of rural municipalities, the number of rural school divisions are excellent examples of that, where the government seems to be more content on defending the status quo. As they articulate and argue for change in different areas, they completely ignore the need for change at the local governing level. The government has done little, if anything, toward leading any sort of creative dialogue or debate on the needs and the benefits of amalgamation or making life a little bit easier in those rural municipalities.
The member prior, from Swan River, made reference to where we have councillors being appointed because there is no one that was running or seeking a three-year position. I know the same principle also applies for the school divisions in rural communities where we do not see that. The need for change is there; it is very strong. This government, over the years, has chosen to ignore it because ultimately I believe that they believe that their vested interest is the status quo. If they make any sort of changes that rub the wrong way, they feel somewhat threatened and intimidated by the potential support that they could have in the next election.
Municipalities will also be afforded fewer restrictions on how they may use their funds. Municipalities will also have to work with the Public Utilities Board, as an example, in situations where sewer and water systems incur a deficit. There are many other changes that are all bundled into this bill. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) makes reference to the drainages, from the three years to four years, and I think that the government is attempting to be consistent with what is happening with Bill 36 or The City of Winnipeg Act where it is quickly jumping on the bandwagon of fewer elections.
* (1610)
I think one of the things that they are not taking into consideration as much as they should be is that at the local level there is not the organized party structure in the sense that you do not have things like an official opposition per se, that in many of the local municipalities there is a very high sense of co-operation and so forth, which is always encouraging to see.
One of the things at least assists in ensuring the accountabilities, when you go back to the polls. The extension from three years to four years is one of those things that does raise some concern, in addition to what I have just said, what was made referenced to earlier, from a three-year commitment to a four-year commitment when the honorariums or the money you are receiving for that commitment maybe is not anywhere near as could be warranted for the type of commitment that, in particular, municipal reeves put in in fulfilling their obligations.
With those few words, we are prepared to see it go to committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation municipale et modifications corrélatives).
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Just a few comments on Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. I was reading into the record that this Bill 33, and again, part of the process, Madam Speaker, of making sure that Bill 54, parts of Bill 54 are addressed when it comes to the issue of having to streamline or having to make some changes, as openly discussed during committee in 1996 when it came to Bill 54.
Again, the issue was brought up to the minister that when an issue and when an opportunity to bring to the government of the day suggestions and/or concerns about different parts of Bill 54, that they be addressed. Certainly, Bill 33 does address some of the issues, issues that ensure the owners of land are assessed and responsible for the realty taxes when it comes to the landholdings or any holdings within a jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, one of the other issues that Bill 33 addresses, of course, is the assessment on specific air site improvements and the exemption to those improvements such as runways, aprons and fencing. The government of the day has proposed this amendment and certainly being consistent, as the minister had indicated, with other provincial jurisdictions where the airports have been transferred to regional airport authorities. It seems to be a portion of the amendment that certainly municipalities that have airport sites, landing strips in their area, the opportunity to be able to be exempt, and certainly Bill 33 addresses that, that is a portion that I believe is important to the communities and certainly a portion of the amendment that we do support.
Bill 33 addresses the issue of nonprofit organizations being exempt from education taxes. Now, I can certainly understand in one aspect why this provision would be allowed or put in, and certainly I am hoping that the minister is acknowledging these requests and acknowledging what may be needed in situations like this, but certainly I am hoping that the minister and his department undertook to make sure that he had the support of UMM and MAUM in being able to bring this to the amendment and bring this to legislation. [interjection]
Madam Speaker, one of the members indicates that perhaps there has not been any consultation with UMM and MAUM and others that may have reasons to address this specific change and that feel that it is not the way to go, and it is not the type of legislation amendment that they want. I certainly have not heard of anybody making an issue of this amendment. I certainly have not heard from UMM and MAUM as far as this amendment. So given that, I can certainly say here today that, usually, we do get concerns brought to us by these organizations and by people who may have a problem with a certain type of amendment in an act, in legislation, and we will certainly see in committee whether there is any concerns brought to committee before this House, and, of course, maybe perhaps we will be dealing with this in third reading.
A portion of the bill that we find rather, perhaps odd, and it raises the issue of bringing the opportunity of the assessment of MTS. We all remember the MTS issue. Of course, Bill 33 addresses the small portion that takes the assessment of MTS as a former Crown corporation and puts them in a different category when it comes to the assessment of municipalities. As always, the MTS issues--and it still is an issue out in rural Manitoba--
An Honourable Member: No, it is not. Only in your mind.
Mr. C. Evans: The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says that the MTS is not an issue now that it is a private organization, that everything is hunky-dory out in rural Manitoba when it comes to the phone rates, when it comes to the increases that the privatization of MTS has brought in, in the rates to rural Manitobans. I talked about services and infrastructure and how MTS, in providing phone services to rural communities, a service of bringing private lines to rural Manitoba that the former NDP government initiated and we were able to complete it under this government, and when this government completed our initiative to have private lines provided for all rural Manitobans and northern communities across this province, this government decided, lo and behold, now that we have done what we are supposed to do as a Crown corporation, let us get rid of it. It is costing us too much money.
The debates were long and hard about MTS, but I want to point out that people are still, whether it be local people, whether it be municipal councils, whether it be mayors or reeves, whether it be the guy or the person or the people who have businesses, just private citizens, still, in my area and when we go out in meetings, we still hear about the rates. We still hear about the services. We still hear about the MTS issue, and the fact that 67 percent of rural Manitobans did not want to see MTS privatized still points out that, I believe, if that number of 67 percent has not increased as far as saying that MTS should never have been privatized, it is certainly at the same level, if not higher.
Well, Madam Speaker, in Bill 33, the different changes--and the changes are small. The changes are there as the minister has indicated to clarify some portions of The Municipal Act and to make things easier in some aspects of legislation and support from UMM and support from MAUM. Yes, that support is there for Bill 33, so it would be interesting if we have any people address the issue of MTS at committee and down the road, because I know it is still on the minds of many Manitobans in rural areas of the MTS privatization, the rates that have increased for rural Manitobans. If rural Manitobans look at their bills in the past two years, in the past year alone, rates have increased.
* (1620)
The rates of rural Manitobans' phone bills have increased, and I say shame, because that is a tremendously important part of rural Manitoba. Whether they change or make amendments to any part of the legislation, the fact that privatizing MTS has created for rural Manitobans--and we see now CRTC hearings in the North. We see people still referring to the cost of the phone rates and the cost of their phones in their communities, in their council chambers, in their stores, in their garages, an issue that will never go away for rural and northern Manitobans.
I am hoping that this government, now that we see them flip-flopping a bit and saying, well, you know, we have to make presentations to CRTC so that they do not make MTS and the phone rates too high for northern rural Manitobans. Well, they would have been satisfied, and there would not have been a problem with that if we had kept it as a Crown corporation as people in rural Manitoba, as the people in Manitoba have said and said over the years prior to--and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says people from Winnipeg and that is certainly a point well made, and without taking anything away from the member of Inkster, I certainly support what he says that the people of Winnipeg and the larger centres are also saying.
This bill addresses MTS in such a small way, but the fact of the matter is that the issue of rates is important in rural Manitoba, still is important and will always be important. Had this government listened to people in this province, had the promise of not to privatize MTS--broken as it was, I think the Manitobans across this province of ours would be favourable to having services such as MTS, along with good services in our roads, our education and health care services in Manitoba that have been offloaded onto the people in our rural and northern communities, as well as to our larger urban centres such as Winnipeg. So, Madam Speaker, we pass Bill 33 on to committee.
Certainly, I am hoping that people will be in committee to address Bill 33. If there are any requests for changes to make amendments to this legislation, the minister will listen to the people, listen to the presentations and, if changes are requested, let us hope he listens to those changes, not like they did not listen to rural Manitobans when they wanted to privatize MTS. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, this bill, in essence, will result in some minor changes to The Municipal Assessment Act. Among some of those changes is a clause to exempt things such as certain airport-related improvements. It makes reference to the not-for-profit organizations. There are also provisions in place to assist in the process of collecting information in order to make assessments. The formula used to calculate charges to municipalities for assessment services will be taken out of the legislation and will be put in the hands of managers, in essence, in regulations.
Assessments have always been somewhat of a thorny issue at the best of times. I know, critics prior to me, in particular, one that was in a very heated discussion. I can recall the lineups outside of committee rooms when we were making some of these changes back in 1990. There were a lot of ideas, everything from the one-year reassessments to what we currently have today. I have a general feeling that this is going to be one of those ongoing acts that will be changed from time to time.
With that, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see it go to committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading, Bill 38, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et modifications corrélatives).
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, again, a few comments on Bill 38, that we are passing on to committee. Today and hopefully, again, as I have indicated in the previous two comments I have made to Bills 32 and 33, as this goes on to committee, as we go on to committee, we will be able to address the issues that we have here with Bill 38, The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Certainly, in discussions, and certainly long discussions with the minister on this, we certainly want to say that we appreciate the minister's providing us with an inch and a half thick set of notes to deal with, that he would take the opportunity, along with his staff, to bring to our attention. The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) were in attendance along with myself.
This bill is a very important bill. It changes the scope of what has been in the past. Certainly, what the minister addressed to us was that these changes were requested by the advisory committee to the minister for a change that I can see. I have spoken to administrators in my constituency and members of UMM and MAUM, that the minister and his department listened, consulted, and had people from the UMM, MAUM and municipal administrators and members of the planning district, lawyers, private consultants, deal with this act.
Madam Speaker, the minister had indicated that in this bill they were providing discussion and elements in four major areas, and that was streamlining The Planning Act, standardization, flexibility and improved public participation. We certainly support that when it comes to making things a lot easier for communities, and planning now seems to be a very integral part for the future of local communities, rural communities and urban centres. The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act certainly addresses that, but there are some concerns that we have as always when it comes to certain aspects of any bill that this government brings through.
Madam Speaker, provisions have been changed to allow municipalities to regulate an increase in intensity or nonconforming use; as well, councils or boards can now amend a nonconforming use to allow for continuation of such use by variation order rather than having to apply for development plan amendment. That certainly will be something that we will be watching for and being concerned about in the future.
* (1630)
Madam Speaker, another concern that we have is the elimination of required elements to be undertaken for a development plan, such as land use, agriculture, forestry, econ base of the area, transit and communication needs, natural resources capacity, et cetera. This legislation will now give municipalities or planning districts the right to undertake studies the extent of which they determine. Of course, all this and part of Bill 38 does have something to do--and, of course, it does--with the future implementation of The Sustainable Development Act, which we are all looking forward to seeing what this government does and how this government addresses it--perhaps an opportunity to not be able to address this Sustainable Development Act and implement such an act because, by the time that occurs, there could be changes within the Province of Manitoba, big changes when it comes to government and who does run the Province of Manitoba.
Some of the other points that we do support on this, Madam Speaker, one point certainly is that the bill will standardize notice provisions throughout the act to make them consistent with The Municipal Act. Certainly, between these two, The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act and The Municipal Act, we have to have a co-ordination between them so that both can complement each other, and where we see the public notices required, more flexibility in this act and the amendment has been brought in. So the 40- to 7-day window will allow councils or boards the options to advertise for a longer period of time, and this standardizes the advertising, including in remote communities, and it gives opportunities again.
Madam Speaker, as always, we look with apprehension at times when it comes to this government bringing in legislation, and certainly when it comes to rural development. I am always concerned and I think members in this House are as always, I always say to this Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) that it is not just the Department of Rural Development that should be the main concern because the Department of Rural Development is only a small part, I believe, or a lead part but a small part, when it comes into play on a whole scope of how services, infrastructure, and the benefit to all communities in rural and northern Manitoba are brought forward. The Minister of Rural Development, I would hope, would not only through the bills, legislation, that have been brought through but as a whole be the lead department in being able to get all the other departments onside with how important rural Manitoba is, how important economic benefit of rural Manitobans is.
So, Madam Speaker, with those few words, I would just like to say that I look forward to committees for Bills 32, 33 and 38, and, certainly, hopefully, we will be listening to the people of Manitoba who make presentations to us in committee. If there are changes in any one of these bills that are being requested or deemed to be necessary, I certainly hope that this government and this minister respond favourably to the people of Manitoba and to legislation.
So, with those few words, Madam Speaker, again, I look forward to the committees, and we will see what the people of Manitoba have to say. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 38, The Planning Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, well, finally we see the legislation promised three years ago in the election campaign to seize the vehicles of johns.
An Honourable Member: Be patient, be patient.
Mr. Mackintosh: I hear from the members opposite, well, be patient, be patient. The communities and neighbourhoods of Manitoba have been more than patient with this government on this issue. Meanwhile, what we have seen spreading throughout the city of Winnipeg, in particular, is street prostitution. We are seeing condoms lying in the streets, needles in the streets, young girls on their way to and from school or playing in the neighbourhood being propositioned by johns in their vehicles, and this government says, well, be patient.
Madam Speaker, we are fed up. We are not patient on issues like this. Three years ago the government got up during the campaign and made a big to-do about seizing the vehicles of johns, and we know exactly where that idea came from. This government actually, I do not think, had an intention of implementing that promise, but what they heard was that Allan Rock, the federal Minister of Justice, was going around the country, saying: we are going to get serious about johns, and we the federal government, Mr. Rock is quoted as saying, was going to seize the vehicles of johns and forfeit those vehicles on conviction.
So I presume that what the government decided when they were looking at their platform for the last election was a decision to borrow, if you will, that federal idea, no intention to implement it provincially. What they thought would happen was the federal government would, in fact, go along and implement their promise, and they would be off the hook. They would not have to implement it at a provincial level.
Well, a strange thing happened. The federal government decided not to go ahead with their promise to seize the vehicles of johns and forfeit those vehicles, and the members opposite were put in a very embarrassing situation. Here they had made an election promise that they had no intention of fulfilling. In fact, after the federal government had decided not to proceed, the government was left with the thought that perhaps this was not even something within the jurisdiction of the province to enact.
So we asked the government during Question Period a couple of years ago, whatever happened to that promise. The then Justice minister got up and said: well, we wrote to the federal government asking them to act on it. What a ridiculous response given that the election promise certainly was not simply to write the federal government to seize vehicles of johns. This government made that promise.
Well, Madam Speaker, last year we caught the government trying to finagle another way around their election promise. We caught the government even avoiding mentioning legislation to amend The Highway Traffic Act to allow for a program for johns, a one-day seminar. The Minister of Justice then got up in this House, and after he was caught and tried to get around the embarrassment by suggesting that the legislation did, in fact, allow for the seizure of johns vehicles, which, of course, it did not. So this government has a very embarrassing history on this election promise. One of the virtues of an opposition, I think, has been shown here that it holds the government to its campaign promises, and particularly, of course, those promises that are important to communities of Manitoba.
So, finally, we see the legislation before us, and, of course, we support the principle of this bill and are in favour of it at second reading. Indeed, the first time I heard of this approach to dealing with the challenge of prostitution, I thought how important it was that we focus on the johns and not, as we have done, historically, always focus on the prostitutes.
Now, this legislation has been characterized by the government as something wonderfully innovative and unique in North America; to the contrary, Madam Speaker, we are aware of this kind of legislation across North America, south of the border. Usually this kind of legislation, though, in the seizure of johns' vehicles is accompanied by other measures to counter prostitution. So, this is nothing new. Other jurisdictions report somewhat favourably, though, as long as the legislation is used in concert with other kinds of responses to prostitution, but we all recognize, and I would like the government to recognize, that this kind of legislation is enforcement driven. In other words, unless the resources are put in place for the police to enforce this kind of legislation and ensure that johns' vehicles are indeed seized, the legislation will not really serve to counter the challenge of prostitution in Manitoba.
Now, I want the government to start turning its attention to the serious challenge of prostitution, particularly child prostitution in Manitoba. I noted earlier the effects of street prostitution, for one, on the neighbourhoods of Manitoba. We are fed up, and solutions must be brought to bear. Madam Speaker, it really bothers us when we hear the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) when he introduced this legislation by saying that the legislation hoped to address one problem, and that was traffic congestion.
* (1640)
I do not know where the government has been. It just shows you how out of touch they are to the realities of Manitoba today. The real challenge is not just traffic congestion. It is much more serious than that. It includes the issues of the condoms and the needles and the children that are being propositioned; as well, children, in particular, and others seeing prostitution take place in their communities, seeing sexual activity take place in the neighbourhoods. I ask this government when is it going to face the reality of Manitoba and the real challenges, the real damage that is being done to Manitoba neighbourhoods by prostitution?
Indeed, I think the legislation which, of course, only speaks to street prostitution is not accompanied by a more substantive approach to prostitution that is required. Again, that tells me that this is a government that has isolated itself from the needs of Manitobans. You cannot in a real substantive way deal with prostitution in Manitoba in any effective way unless you deal with the challenge of street gangs that is driving much of the prostitution that is taking place.
You cannot provide a real meaningful response to prostitution when a government such as the current government appears to completely ignore the Report of the Working Group on Juvenile Prostitution from the Manitoba Child and Youth Secretariat. This report was completed in June of 1996, almost two years ago. The report contained 23 main recommendations. There are other subsidiary recommendations in that report, and yet this government has seen fit to ignore that report, table it, shelve it, put it in the pile of other reports that this government has hanging around in its closets and drawers.
Finally, I say the government has to get serious about prostitution by providing at least the resources necessary to give this bill real meaning. It is not enough to say to law enforcement agencies, here is another tool, and providing them with no additional resources to adequately use that tool. There are many provisions in this bill that will visit on law enforcement officials a great deal of paperwork and mechanical doings that require more than lip service. It requires the government to put resources where its mouth is.
Now, with regard to the more specific provisions of the bill, we recognize that there is a constitutional issue that comes along with this bill. The legislation, if enforced, likely faces challenges on the basis that it is arguably criminal law, punitive, which is, of course, federal jurisdiction, and that it imposes a significant sanction before conviction when, of course, a person is presumed innocent. We on this side take the view that given the threat to neighbourhoods of street prostitution, we should nonetheless support this effort set out in this bill, and we are prepared to damn the torpedoes.
We also believe that when one abuses the privilege that vehicle licensing and registration allow, when one disregards the proper use of a motor vehicle, it is appropriate for the provincial government, which is after all the licensing authority, to take away that privilege or right. Now that certainly would be extended to licensing and registration, but I think by extension that would apply to the ownership of a motor vehicle where the motor vehicle is used for a criminal purpose and one contrary to the interests of our communities.
So we recognize that there is a pitfall perhaps to be encountered down the road. But that will only happen, of course, if the bill is vigorously enforced, and that is where we have our concern. We find that the impact of the legislation is essentially avoided if a vehicle owner simply consents to go into a program of alternative measures, and that would be the one-day seminar for johns. I understand in the last year there has not been a single john that has turned down the offer to avoid a record and go to john school. By the way, they call it john school, but I am not aware of any school that only lasts a few hours.
No john is expected to reject such an offer, so in law and in this bill, there is the prospect that there will be no more criminal sanctions and records for johns, including, and this is where our greatest concern rests, johns of children and repeaters. Now, I know the minister stated that the bill will help address the plight of child prostitutes. However, the bill does not in any place detail specific sanctions for johns who solicit children. I know the minister has said, well, johns with prior criminal records involving prostitution would not be eligible for john school. However, the bill is silent in that regard.
I wonder, Madam Speaker, for example, if someone who was picked up last year for prostitution and agreed to go to john school thereby not having a record, how a person can ever be a repeat offender since the person never faced conviction, never had a record. So we have the very serious concern that this bill, in effect, decriminalizes johns who solicit child prostitutes and does not provide enhanced sanctions for repeat offenders. It is not enough that there be administrative policy that john school is not available to repeat offenders and johns who solicit child prostitutes. If we are serious about restricting access to the john school and ensuring sanctions for johns of child prostitutes and repeaters, it is important that the legislation reflect that concern. So we will be looking at that very seriously and proposing alternatives and committee in that regard.
It will be important, in our view, Madam Speaker, that the bill specifically provide that there can be no release of a vehicle to johns of child prostitutes and repeat offenders, even if they consent to going to the john program.
We note in the bill that the owner can simply obtain the vehicle back by paying a security to the value of the vehicle. Now that security is forfeited on conviction, but here money talks. Now, is that really getting serious on johns? We think that we can be more effective. We think it is important, if we are going to seriously get cracking on street prostitution, that there be the ability to suspend the drivers licences of these johns on conviction as well.
The bill is weaker than we want it to be, Madam Speaker. So with those thoughts, we are prepared to move the bill to committee. We will raise these concerns with the committee at that time to seek amendment. We look forward to hearing the input of Manitobans on this important challenge of street prostitution, the government's response set out in this bill, as well as our contribution.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 39, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* (1650)
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate, second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), Bill 40, The Domestic Violence and Stalking Prevention, Protection and Compensation and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la violence familiale et la protection, la prévention et l'indemnisation en matière de harcèlement criminel et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Well, Madam Speaker, here is the second bill in a row now that is long awaited. Indeed it was back in December of 1995 that the NDP caucus Task Force on Violence Against Women recommended such legislation.
This kind of legislation was first introduced in the province of Saskatchewan and was found to be very effective in dealing with many aspects of the tragedy of domestic violence. Subsequently, Prince Edward Island and Alberta have brought in legislation modelled on the Saskatchewan law, and, finally, Manitoba is bringing in legislation. Unfortunately, it took this government the tragedy in the deaths of Rhonda and Roy Lavoie and the report of the commission of inquiry into domestic violence by Mr. Justice Perry Schulman to act and get serious about domestic violence in this regard and bring in this kind of legislation.
I think that is very unfortunate. It certainly speaks very loudly about this government's lack of real commitment to dealing with this justice issue. When the NDP caucus Task Force on Violence Against Women travelled around Manitoba, it heard of how many shortcomings there were to protect women, in particular, who were victims of domestic violence.
For example, in Dauphin we were told that the current kind of protection orders and restraining orders take a long time to get--weeks--and they cost a lot. We were told that not only a swifter but a meatier order for the protection of victims was necessary.
Now we know that a restraining order is often needed on an emergency basis. It requires legal documents, indeed, is costly, and an order can only protect a victim and her child, but the victim's family and friends are often subjected to ongoing harassment by the abuser. Neither restraining orders nor breaches of bail conditions appear meaningfully to protect the victim. The women are inundated constantly with media stories about battered spouses who have been beaten or murdered by an abuser. The abuser often was on a restraining order or recognizance which had already been breached a number of times.
In Brandon, we heard an in camera presentation where the woman said, and I quote: "My ex had five breaches of recognizance orders for noncommunication, and he was let out every time within hours."
The caucus task force found that it is particularly difficult for women to remove themselves from a situation of spousal abuse as this often means leaving home. Many women are in situations where their children are enrolled in schools, where they have personal property in their homes which they fear will be sold or damaged, or where the sheer inertia of battered-women syndrome might mitigate against taking such a step.
The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report spoke very loudly when it said, and I quote: "The emphasis in the past seems to have been to encourage an abused woman to go to a shelter. It is the abuser who should leave, if anyone has to."
So, Madam Speaker, when the Lavoie commission recommended the Saskatchewan model, we were heartened. Indeed, we came into this Legislature shortly after the report was released asking for the government to immediately assure us that it would bring in the necessary legislation. A rather cryptic response followed, but nonetheless we are certainly pleased that the legislation has been introduced. As this is second reading, we certainly will support, in principle, the bill, but we want to say this bill is not going to get a free ride in this House or in committee.
As I said earlier, this is the fourth bill to be introduced to deal with victims of domestic violence in Canada in this way, and it is the weakest of its kind. Here, after three other jurisdictions have introduced this kind of legislation, one would think that Manitoba would have learned from the shortcomings of the other legislation, would have by now been able to rally itself to be the best and strongest legislation in Canada. But, no, Madam Speaker, it is the weakest of its kind, and that is with regard to the protection orders.
The provisions dealing with stalking, in particular, are even weaker than the Law Reform Commission recommended in this regard. We acknowledge that the legislation which deals with stalking in this bill is the first of its kind in Canada, thanks to the Law Reform Commission, by the way, a body which this government has, in effect, almost killed, but even with the recommendations from the commission on stalking, the government has taken a very restrictive view of those recommendations and could have done better.
Now, the provinces of Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Alberta have all brought forward legislation on the domestic violence part and have all included a provision to grant exclusive occupation of the residences to the victim through emergency orders. Manitoba is the only jurisdiction that seemed fit to leave this protective provision out of its legislation.
I know from reading the Lavoie report that Mr. Justice Schulman was not convinced that that kind of power was necessary in Manitoba. However, it is our view that there is a very strong reason to indeed include this kind of order. The main reason is that it is very important that the courts be given the ability to allow the victim of abuse to remain in the family home even if the victim's name is not on the lease. That kind of provision only follows the main provision of allowing exclusive occupation of the residence. The NDP caucus Task Force on Violence Against Women indeed recommended that an order be available for exclusive occupancy of the residence.
Madam Speaker, the other three provincial acts all have an emergency provision allowing a magistrate to make any additional order in addition to the kinds of orders set out in the legislation as may be appropriate under the circumstances. Domestic violence circumstances can vary greatly as much as individuals are different from one another and different circumstances present themselves. So such a provision is essential to fully protect women and other family members in our view. It is present in both the emergency and the longer-term orders in the other
legislation, but it is missing in respect of both those orders in this government's legislation.
As I said, in the other legislation where temporary possession of personal property is assigned, it is understood that, again, circumstances vary. Classification of personal effects which may be important for emotional or financial reasons will differ from one person to another. For that reason, the other provinces have left the provision regarding temporary possession open-ended. In Manitoba, this government has closed off this provision so that, if the type of property a victim is concerned about does not come within this government's narrow classifications, the victim is out of luck and will not be entitled to take that personal possession with her.
* (1700)
The other provinces have provided not only for counselling for the primary victim of domestic violence, that is, the abused spouse but also for secondary victims, that is, the children. As witnessing domestic violence has been linked as a strong predictor to subsequent depression, suicidal tendencies, and youth violence, this is an important aspect, but the government here in Manitoba has seen fit to leave children out of the picture and does not provide for their counselling within this act.
The bill also does not deal with situations where the abusive spouse or a stalker uses an accomplice, a third party, to harass the victim spouse or stalking subject. This government, again, stands alone in its omission. Generally, in terms of the protection of women and children, as I have stated, the bill is the weakest of its kind in Canada, although we acknowledge that the stalking provision is new. The domestic violence part ignores existing legislation which has been proven viable and effective in reducing domestic violence. It weakens, of course, the Law Reform Commission recommendations on stalking, and interestingly, and I do not know the reason exactly why, the government has seen fit to place both the stalking and domestic violence aspects into the same bill. In many senses that is like mixing apples and oranges. It appears to us in certain parts of the bill that the result of this mixing of these two areas is that the legislation does not protect victims of either stalking or spousal assault to the extent that it otherwise could.
So, with those concerns, I can tell the House that we are looking at amendments to correct what we see as significant deficiencies in the bill as I have outlined. We are therefore prepared to see the bill go to committee in short order, although I understand that there are other contributions to the debate from members on this side.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, initially my speech on this particular bill was going to be somewhat brief. It still will be short, but I did find it interesting that many of the comments the member for St. Johns has put forward, anticipate that maybe he might even be able to provide a copy of some of the amendments in advance that he has made reference to and some of the shortcomings of Bill 40.
Madam Speaker, I look at Bill 40 as a bill that is movement in the right direction. Today, I think very little is there for the victims, and I think this is the type of legislation that we might have been able to see years prior in order to address the very serious issue of stalking. One can only be sympathetic, as opposed to let us say empathetic, to individuals that have been a victim of a stalking and only imagine, in terms of the type of terror, horror that one has to live through as a result of a former ex or individual that has chosen not to end a relationship on a positive note, but rather gets gratification, for whatever reason, out of stalking a person. I think, in most cases, this particular victim is in need of some sort of assistance socially in order to try to get his, or, in the odd case, her mind back on the right track.
But having said that, I think it is absolutely critical that government do what it can to ensure that the victim, in particular the victim in this case, Madam Speaker--in her rights and in the odd case, possibly his rights are, in fact, being respected. We all expect to live in harmony and in peace and not have to fear having to look over one's shoulder to see whether or not someone is out there observing every move that he or she takes. I appreciate the fact that really what might be necessary here is stronger criminal legislation from Ottawa. Actually, I think to a certain degree there has been some movement from Ottawa in this area, as now it is classified, for example, as a criminal offence. It was only a number of years ago that, in fact, that was not the case.
What I like about the legislation is it does open a new door, a new door of civil suits. So we have our courts in the province of Manitoba which will now have the opportunity they did not have before of allowing the victim, through tort law, the opportunity to recover some of the financial hardships that have been caused as a direct result of them being stalked. It will be very interesting to follow and see what actually comes of some of these cases, as no doubt it is only a question of time before we see it in court, and we will be monitoring very closely as to what actually does take place.
So, the expansion or the enabling, if you like, of courts to look for civil remedies I think is a very strong positive. There are other things that are done, such as the protection orders, which are further enhanced; availability, for example, which again one can be fairly supportive. I think the only thing in which the government could be criticized with respect to Bill 40 would possibly be actions that they could have taken into consideration prior to bringing this bill into being.
But I would caution that, Madam Speaker, in the sense that there are, no doubt, additional things that could take place, or that could be brought in, in this particular bill to make it even that much stronger or that much better, but the only concern I would have is at what potential cost. If it would have meant the not bringing in of this particular--or the government not bringing this legislation in this session, I believe that cost would have been too great. At the very least, we have some legislation which is, to a certain degree, groundbreaking. Other provinces, a few other provinces have moved in some direction of addressing the issue of stalking.
This is Manitoba's, in my opinion, real first attempt at trying to address or to do what it can at the provincial level at trying to look at the victim in particular. I think that action should at least be, to a certain degree, applauded. It is not to say that there are not other things that can be done, and that is why I found the member for St. Johns' (Mr. Mackintosh) comments most interesting and would like to see a copy of the amendments. I am not sure if I am going to be able to make it to the committee when it is actually there, but would be interested in receiving the amendments.
If it is at all possible, even for government--I noticed today in Question Period, for example, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) seemed to be somewhat open-minded, seemed to be, Madam Speaker, to the mayor and the double vote issue. Well, maybe the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) can be open-minded to some of the amendments that the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) might have to introduce to the committee, in hopes that it would even give more strength to, in particular, the victim, because I do believe very firmly that stalking is one of those horrific crimes that are out there. We, as legislators, should do what we can to ensure that the victim has some tools to be able to access in order to make the experience not quite as brutal as it can be.
* (1710)
Having said that, I understand that the legislation also allows for some form of recourse for the assailant or the respondent, and even though the natural instinct is to come down hard, I think that you also have to build in something that allows for the respondent, their day in court, if you like. I believe that the legislation does accommodate that also. But all in all, Bill 40 is a positive, or would appear to be a very positive piece of legislation, and we look forward to it going to committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. It is also standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who has 34 minutes remaining. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, before we pass Bill 45, I did want to get on the record with respect to it. It is interesting, at the time when--is it PIPP, the Personal Injury Protection Program which was what we are actually amending was brought in, the Leader of the Liberal Party, at the time, raised a number of concerns. At least, in part, these amendments are addressing a couple of those concerns, the biggest one, of course, being that of age, lifetime retirement income benefit and how that was being taken off.
So it is encouraging to see that the government is, albeit, somewhat late, I believe this is something in which, as I say, Mr. Edwards had brought up to the government at the time as something that was not fair and not right, and finally the government has seen fit to make some of those changes, Madam Speaker.
The minister also made reference to, I believe it was in reading a speech, something in the neighbourhood of $200, an average of $200 per policy holder has been saved since the bringing in of the no-fault insurance program, and that is because at the time I had very strong personal feelings with respect to no-fault, but abided by the party line, if you like, in opposition to the no-fault.
But having said that, there is a need today very strongly for MPIC to be more arm's length from the government. You give it its mandate, and the mandate is quite simple. It is to provide automobile insurance, a basic package which would, in fact, be affordable to all Manitobans. We should be leaving it up to the board to do its job in the best way that it can. I believe MPIC has been manipulated politically in the past and, to a certain degree, even today. I have asked questions in QP with respect to it, how you tend to see a graph, and that graph somewhat coincides with the election cycle, with the one exception.
The one exception was the year in which I was fortunate enough to have gotten elected and might not have gotten elected had it not been for that particular election. Actually, I am probably being a little bit modest there, Madam Speaker. I should not say probably--I would not have gotten elected back then, so I take this issue very seriously in the sense that had it not been for the politicization of MPIC, I would not be here today.
But having seen that, I do believe that the government should be depoliticizing where it can at MPIC, and that means--[interjection] The minister says "done." That means we do not need to have a government MLA sitting on the MPIC board. It was shortly--[interjection] Nor do I want that job. What I believe is that you need to have that arm's-length distance. It is funny that I had asked the question I think about two weeks ago about if I had a crystal ball, my projection would be that we would be seeing no increase next year.
Well, Madam Speaker, it was only a week or two after I had posed the question that we, in fact, found out that there would not be an increase. Was I surprised? Well, of course not, not even a bit. I can recall a couple of years ago asking the question about MPIC, and I presented a Crown report, I can recall, in which in the Crown's annual report they were saying that MPIC needs to build up a reserve fund. Well, here we have some years of zero percent increase while MPIC could have and should have been building up on that reserve fund.
Madam Speaker, as long as--[interjection] To the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), I was going to be sitting down, but now you are prodding me to stand, and I do not necessarily care for the implications which he is implying, so I am somewhat at tiffs on whether or not maybe I should sit down and respond just to say I told you so to the member for St. Norbert, or to continue on.
Well, Madam Speaker, I would like to think that I am not necessarily a filibusterer per se, unless, of course, there is a good reason to extend a discussion or a debate, but suffice to say it is good to see that the government is finally seeing some of the wrongs in what it did. Mr. Edwards could have saved a good deal of time and money if the minister would have listened to at least some of the things that he was saying with respect to this being brought in. But having said that, we are glad to see it go to committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 45, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer), Bill 54, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les ingénieurs et les géoscientifiques et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Speaker: Leave? Leave has been granted.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments to Bill 54, The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions and Consequential Amendments Act. I note that we have received some correspondence on this particular piece of legislation. I believe all members of the Assembly did from the Association of Professional Engineers of Manitoba dealing with this particular piece of legislation.
This bill appears to be supported in large part by the geoscientists, who apparently responded to a survey that was conducted by the Department of Labour, and they reference in their letter that 73 percent of their members who responded, however many that may have been, because they do not tell us, seemed to be in favour of this particular piece of legislation.
* (1720)
Now, we do know that in past years, in fact, we raised this issue with the minister in Labour Estimates I believe it was last year dealing with this matter, because at that time there was a dispute between the landscape architects and the other engineers who deal with similar matters. At that time the minister, if I recall correctly, indicated that the issue itself had not worked its way through the process towards a consensus between the parties or the stakeholders that were involved and that the minister was going to delay making any changes in that regard until perhaps the parties arrived at a consensus.
If my understanding of this is correct, the minister has now received that consensus, and from our understanding with the people who had raised the matter with us earlier, they just very recently arrived at an agreement with the Association of Professional Engineers from some separation in their responsibilities and duties that they legally perform under their various employments. So I am happy to learn that the two parties are now in agreement and that they have now come to an understanding or a consensus on what rules will apply to their two organizations and the members involved.
This particular bill applies to professional engineers, and I think is probably best described as being part of or joint with Bill 55, which we will deal with in a few moments, because I think the two of them are linked in the definitions that they have in the sense of describing rules of conduct and codes of practice and ethics and other matters affecting those particular professions.
This particular bill that we are dealing with here today, Bill 54, deals with the professional engineers in our province. It will cover geoscientists, including geologists and geophysicists and geochemists. I believe, Madam Speaker, this bill will establish new rules and standards for these professions and that the minister's department has come to an understanding with them. Otherwise I believe they probably would not have come forward with the legislation at this time. It no doubt was developed in conjunction with the affected professions.
As I have already indicated, the department has surveyed or apparently has surveyed the members, and I hope that there was a large number of people who responded to the survey. Perhaps when we move into committee the minister can indicate on his department's behalf the number of respondents, people who responded or members of the association who responded to the survey that went out, if 73 percent of those returning their survey were in favour of this new act.
It makes a very strong claim in this letter that we received from the APEM indicating that this particular legislation will go a fair way to protecting against occurrences involving the Westray mine disaster and Bre-X. That is a pretty strong claim to make, knowing the circumstances involved with the Westray mines more closely related to my own critic responsibilities.
Perhaps it would have helped to have a code of practice or ethics or standards in place but from what we read in the Westray report, the judicial report that came out, there was much more than just codes of practice that were involved. There was much more by way of coercion and intimidation that was involved in that particular scandal as well. While I am not a person who has a geological or geophysicist experience, the Bre-X gold fraud or scandal was something that the APEM are saying that now they can protect against by way of this act. Again, I am not really sure how you can make that claim, but perhaps, I guess, if everybody adheres to codes of practice or standards of conduct, then we would expect 100 percent compliance, but since as we see in various situations in our own personal lives experiences not everyone adheres to codes of practice.
I am not sure how the APEM can make that claim at this time and it would be interesting to hear, should they come forward in committee, how they can describe their abilities to prevent against the Westray mine disaster and the Bre-X fraud. This bill will introduce new definitions of practice of engineering and the practice of geoscience consistent with those adopted by the national body. I guess the first question that comes to mind with respect to that: has the Department of Labour looked at the standards or the codes of practice that are in place by the national body, and does the province subscribe to all of those codes of practice; what role will the province play in ensuring that they are kept informed of those changes in codes of practices and whether or not they have some say in how they are brought forward and how they are implemented?
This act will also consolidate the regulation of engineering and geoscience under a single association. I take it that there was some consensus with the parties, the stakeholder groups that were involved in that area as well. As I have already indicated, this legislation will establish rules of practice and codes of ethics and also have the ability to utilize disciplinary measures for those geoscientific activities for the stakeholder groups, although it is not quite clear what disciplining measures will be available to utilize.
One of the things that I have never been quite comfortable with in my own life is the ability of group--[interjection] Well, confession is good for the soul. One of the things--and perhaps the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) will one day rise and make a confession in this House as well. One of the things I have had some discomfort with in my life is having groups being able to be self-regulatory in the sense of only the people working within those trades or professions would be able to regulate themselves and pass judgment on themselves.
We have that quite often for lawyers, for example, with the Law Society, where they have hearings, and perhaps if my understanding is correct, can conduct those hearings behind closed doors. I am not sure that is in the best interests of the public to have that. Doctors, through the College of Physicians and Surgeons, have that power to pass judgment on their own peers. Engineers, I guess, are now under this new legislation going to have that power to pass judgment on their peers.
I am not sure that is in the best interests of the public, and perhaps if I was to give any advice to the minister in regard to these two bills it is that we may want to consider having some member of the public or members of the public, plural, be involved in such panels or groups where we sit in judgment of people that are involved in those particular professions. We do not necessarily have to do it from a technical or a professional point of view, but we can do it from a public interest or public safety point of view. Perhaps the minister might want to take that into consideration for Bill 54 and Bill 55.
It is my understanding that the association, by way of this legislation, will have the ability to make professional development compulsory and will have the ability to do monitoring of quality assurance, in other words, of the operations of people that are working within these particular professions wherever they may be in our province. The association will also have the ability to discipline members, current or past, through this legislation and be able to levy fines up to $25,000, although that is not what I would consider to be a steep level of fines. Looking at, if we can use the example of Workplace Safety and Health, where we have had $15,000 fines and we never even come close to the maximum, never even been requested in this province. I am not sure whether that maximum is applicable even in a case like this, if there is not a will, and, if there are not members of the public involved on those bodies to ascertain the seriousness of any charges that may come forward and to pass judgment on behalf of public safety and public interest.
This bill also allows for the granting of temporary licences to foreign-trained professionals. I am not exactly sure what standards the association is going to attach and whether or not they are going to have people, who are coming as new immigrants into our country and into our province, that have the ability to challenge any kind of test or standards examinations that may be applicable to this particular trade, or profession, I should say. But I would think it would be in the best interests of the province and the association itself to make sure there are some type of standards available in the tests that they have, and that the province, through the Department of Labour, is aware of what those standards are. If it does meet, perhaps in a general way, acceptance by the province, to make sure that we are not allowing a body that is now becoming the judge and jury of people that are working within that profession, to pass judgment on people coming into the province to work in that particular chosen profession.
We want to make sure there are standards in there that meet our criteria as representatives of the province, to make sure that the public is protected but, also, to give new immigrants to our province the opportunity to work in their chosen profession. So I think we would want to make sure what rules and regulations would be in place to provide some criteria for those people coming into this profession.
I am not sure how many members of the public are coming forward to speak on this bill but, when this bill does go through to committee, we are prepared to listen to any public comment that may be made. If there are any recommendations, perhaps we can propose some amendments at that time.
Madam Speaker, with those few words I thank you for the opportunity to add my comments on Bill 54.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
* (1730)
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments on Bill 55, The Certified Applied Science Technologists Act. These perhaps are good acts, as the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) indicates. I hope that he has read these pieces of legislation, so that he is fully aware of them. I know it took a fair amount of reading to go through them, and it is somewhat technical in nature. Dealing with professions, they are outside of my realm of experience.
But we have received correspondence once again from the Certified Technicians and Technologists Association of Manitoba dealing with Bill 55. We do note that, once again, as there was by way of Bill 54, a component dealing with public safety that this particular association references, as did the previous one dealing with the Association of Professional Engineers of Manitoba.
The Certified Technicians and Technologists Association or Manitoba Society of Certified Engineering Technicians or Technologists is comprised of over 2,000 members in the province of Manitoba. It is my understanding that the CTTAM is a nonprofit, self-governing association, so my comments from Bill 54 dealing with self-governing bodies can also apply to this particular piece of legislation. I hope that the minister will add my comments that I made on Bill 54 to this one dealing with self-governing bodies again.
This one has procedures in place to provide for recognition of foreign academic credentials of immigrants to Canada. My comments on Bill 54 from the APEM side, where we have new immigrants coming to our province that perhaps have credentials in those areas, that there should be in place some types of standards, or testing, or the ability to challenge for certification or licensing in this province for these people. Therefore, my comments from Bill 54 would apply to this particular piece of legislation as well.
It is my understanding that this legislation is not new in Canada and that there are perhaps four or five other jurisdictions, other provinces, in Canada that do have similar legislation, and that this was done in conjunction with the Association of Professional Engineers, and there is a separation of their duties or responsibilities as is now identified or laid out clearly between the two bills.
They do reference in their correspondence to us that the two organizations, the CTTAM and the APEM, have reached a new level of accord or consensus amongst the organizations, something that we referenced with the minister, I believe, when we were in Estimates last year, that they have now developed, they say for the benefit of Manitobans and our economy and the people working here, recognizable standards of applied science technicians and technologists, people who are working in the industry in our province, that they have brought forward enhanced quality-assurance programs for the certified practitioners working in that particular profession, that they have increased choices, they say, and protection for consumers, and that they have also built in, as the APEM did in Bill 54, a code of ethics that holds paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.
The same thing applies to this bill as it did for Bill 54 with the engineers, where you have a national body of people that are involved here, self-regulating bodies of people, that perhaps the province would want to make itself aware of the standards and the code of ethics that are in place and the standards under which these organizations function. Perhaps it may be applicable here, as well, to have members of the public sit in on those bodies to make sure that the public interest is indeed represented.
It is my understanding that under this bill, because it does have two parts of it--you have the technologists' duties and responsibilities, certification, et cetera--that technologists are responsible for equipment design and for processes and systems, and can do testing and development of prototypes, trouble shooting, et cetera. They supervise, train and co-ordinate activities in their part of the field where the technician--now his duties and responsibilities seem to be somewhat subordinate to the technologists' particular criteria. So it is laid out fairly clearly in their correspondence to us, and if the areas that are identified in their correspondence with us, and the comments made by the minister, are indicative of the intent of the legislation, we would be supportive of this particular piece of legislation as the parties that were involved, the stakeholder groups that were involved now for some time, have tried to work towards a consensus and appear to have achieved that by information brought to our attention.
Madam Speaker, we hope that this spirit of good will will continue amongst these parties, and that they can work together to achieve the goals of their particular associations and the people they represent, and to the best interests of the public. So with those few words, we are prepared to see Bill 55 move through to a committee and allow members of the public the opportunity to add their comment as well. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 55. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I understand debate has proceeded on the bills that I have already asked you to call. It appears we will not proceed this afternoon to consideration of concurrence.
I would like, though, if you would call Bill 2, and after that, if there would be leave of the House--how this works exactly, Madam Speaker, but the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has expressed a wish to speak briefly about Bill 39 which has already passed at second reading stage. I do not know if there is--I seek the guidance of the House on that one. I certainly have no problems if it does not change the status of the bill. If there is any kind of leave as required, I would grant it. But after Bill 39, then we would ask that Bill 13 be called once we settle up on what the rules are with respect to Bill 39. Let us hear from Steve on this.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I was going to suggest that if the member has some comments to put on the record, concurrence allows for open discussion debate. I would suggest that that would be the proper way. There are actually quite a few bills we would like to go back and revisit the second reading, but I think it is a precedent that might be somewhat dangerous. I think if we finish Bill 2 and go straight into concurrence, we will make sure the member for Inkster is recognized.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, that is certainly acceptable to me, if it is to the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It is somewhat unusual, but we could go with Bill 2, and then I would move a motion to move us into concurrence.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 2, The Elections Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi électorale), standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Yes. Leave has been granted.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I did want to put a few words on Bill 2. It is one of those pieces of legislation in which it is very rarely where there are actually amendments. I know in Bill 2 the government did, after consulting with Elections Manitoba, make some amendments. I understand as the result of those amendments there will have to be some further amendments to Bill 2, and I hope I have the order of those numbers correct there.
Bill 3 was amended in committee. As a result of the amendments in Bill 3 in committee, I understand that there might have to be some amendments to Bill 2 also, but I wanted to comment on Bill 2 prior to it going to committee. I think there are a number of positive things that are actually happening through Bill 2.
* (1740)
For a long time, we have talked about the automation of a voters list. This bill allows for that to take place, something that is long overdue. I know the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), in particular, recalling what has happened in LAMC. We have talked quite extensively in the past about the need to become more computerized. It allows options for the voter to put the ballot in the ballot box, and I think that that is a very strong positive. I know I have witnessed where I have gone in to do what most other politicians do to say hi on election day and thank volunteers that are out there.
You always get some individuals that really question why it is, after they received the ballot, that they actually have to go back and hand the ballot over. A good number of them, I would suggest to you, would feel much more comfortable if they were the ones that were putting the ballot actually in the box. I think this is something, as I see it, positive.
Madam Speaker, there are a number of positives, but my concern is a couple of the things that I think that are missing that could have and should have been taken into account. What I argue is the need to get people involved in the political process. I am sure each and every one of us have had constituents that become somewhat apathetic, that are more upset that they do not want to vote for any of the candidates that are running.
This is the reason why I would have liked to have seen on the ballot itself a box that would allow you to tick off a declined ballot, so then it is not making any show of it in front of other individuals. It is not a show in the sense that you walk into the voting booth and say to the returning officer, well, I want to decline my ballot after getting it and then just handing it back to the returning officer, because even that to a certain degree will discourage. I would like--and I believe that it is, in fact, very democratic--the opportunity to be able to say even to the person that is completely disinterested, that has been frustrated through elections, maybe because of voting in the past, that want to be able to express that frustration.
To me, it is more important for someone to go and vote and put an X on the "decline the ballot" than not to vote at all. I think that whatever we can do to encourage participation, which has to be first and foremost in our minds when we go into elections--we try to tell people in the best way we can to go up and vote. I think this is just another tool that would assist campaigners of all political stripes. They should be able to say to their constituent: look, it is a viable option, that, if you do not like any of the names that are there, you can go and you can put an X on the decline and decline the ballot.
I think that is important. I had Legislative Counsel draft a couple of amendments. One of them, Madam Speaker, was to take the logo off the ballot because I did not think it was appropriate, given that you already have the name of the party on it, and after doing some consulting, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did move that amendment. I applaud the Premier, after consulting with Elections Manitoba, that that amendment was moved.
Well, Madam Speaker, that was the little step. I would suggest to you that the larger step is to put, if you like, on the ballot itself, decline a vote, and those amendments are there. I have the amendments. They are both in English and French, and what I would look to is the Premier or the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) to adopt the need to recognize that it is important to allow all individuals to express themselves, and I think that this is a venue in which would allow for more participation, overall more participation in the democratic process, and would suggest that all members should be supportive of it. I do not believe for a moment that it takes anything away from the current candidates. I do not believe, as some have suggested, you should write down none of the above. Well, I think just a proper decline of ballot is appropriate. I think constituents or Manitobans would, in fact, take it seriously and it would be most interesting to see if, in fact, it does assist in getting more people participating in the process.
Madam Speaker, there is an obligation through the Elections Manitoba, and there are a number of things that were not accepted by the government in bringing in this legislation. One of the things that I think has always been unfair or not appropriate for Elections Manitoba is the way in which we appoint returning officers. I have had the opportunity to discuss issues, and this is one of those issues that I have had with the members from Elections Manitoba. I am not going to necessarily name the specific individuals, but, suffice to say, you have to look at the way in which returning officers are being selected. Quite often it is just a list of names that is provided, and the returning officer, the chief returning officer, has to accept those names.
What we should be doing at the very least is acknowledging that there are certain criteria that need to be met, that these individuals have certain abilities, that you just do not take a party person from the street and say, well, you would be a great returning officer. It has caused problems for Elections Manitoba. If the government was to at the very least establish whether it is job descriptions or some sort of criteria for being a returning officer and maybe look at even allowing it to be more of a permanent thing, Madam Speaker, I think that would be a positive.
I was quite involved in the last federal election at the organizational level. What really impressed me was with the way in which Elections Canada, for example, operates on some of its polling officers, where you have the incumbent actually make some of the appointments, and the opposition members, opposition candidates, if you like, opposition candidates to the incumbent that is, also get to make some of the appointments. I think that is something that is worthwhile in terms of us to explore.
In speaking to Bill 2, one of the unfortunate mishaps that I had, because I did want to also put some remarks on the record with respect to Bill 3, which concentrates more on the finances, I will put some words on the record because both of them are so tightly knit together, the whole way in which we finance campaigns to the way in which they are actually reported. Some of the discussions that I have had talk about the whole third-party advertising, and we have had lots of political discussion amongst political parties. We have had discussions or we have seen discussions even take place or court decisions taking place on third-party advertising.
I would suggest to you that something needs to happen in that whole area, that it is not appropriate to leave it so wide open. You know, in opposition, it is to my advantage to see that third-party expenditures, at least in part, because, generally speaking, it is not necessarily favourable toward the government. [interjection] The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) points out some of those experiences. But having said that, I do believe it takes away from the principles of trying to get controls over the way in which a political party might be able to finance a campaign, where we see outside organizations outside of the major political party paying huge dollars towards advertising campaigns, and it can be from formal, very formalized organizations to not as formal organizations.
* (1750)
I will go back to the federal election, where there was an experience with respect to the gun lobbying groups. You have gun lobbying groups that are quite often American-based that have just phenomenal resources, to the types of resources even here in the province of Manitoba. So where you have local candidates at the local level having to live within certain financial constraints, there are outside potential third parties that can have a very dramatic and profound impact on a local campaign if, in fact, you have a third-party group wanting to have an impact to those third-party organizations.
For example, I would suggest, and I am going to say that it is being hypothetical, but I think the people can somewhat relate to it, if you have an outside group, for example, that is prepared to invest substantial dollars in a particular riding, the candidate in that area, if, in fact, that candidate is being focused against, has very strong limitations in terms of the type of money he or she can actually spend in that local campaign.
So if you have opposition candidates, whether they are of the governing body or they are not of the governing body, having to compete against those third parties, I think that it is not fair, for the simple reason that you have unlimited resources then that could be used to campaign against that local candidate, while at the same time a very finite amount of dollars that candidate can actually spend. I know for myself, it is quite the challenge in terms of getting the monies required in order to even meet my limit.
So if I was one of those targeted individuals, whether it is in the next election or the one following, it can have an impact. I think that is something in which the government, or Elections Manitoba, more so, needs to look at, Madam Speaker.
An Honourable Member: In the way that the Liberals have been targeted.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, which is another point in itself that I probably should stay away from.
Madam Speaker, I do not know, I think it was Sid Green who talked about the way in which political parties are funded. I do not necessarily agree with some of the extremes. I think that public assistance through compensation, 50 percent return and so forth, is a positive thing. It assists other people in being able to participate in a democratic process. I, for one, could not have been successful had it not been for some of the compensation that was being provided for candidates to be able to run, because I just financially would never have been able to have afforded it.
Well, I think that there are still some changes in areas that could take place, and Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that Elections Manitoba is not naive, that, in fact, that they are aware of the number of things that take place that are somewhat questionable. I have learned in my time that you do not throw rocks in a glasshouse type thing. So I want to be somewhat careful with making any sort of allegations of things that maybe were not done aboveboard, but suffice to say that that whole area of the way in which financial claims are submitted, the way in which the public subsidize the political parties, does need to be revisited. I think that there are more benefits if you see to a certain degree more money coming back in the form of rebates with smaller spending limits. So there is no direct or additional cost per se to the taxpayer, but there is going to be a higher sense of accountability for the ways in which claims are ultimately processed.
Madam Speaker, I think that because this whole area of Elections Manitoba is nonpolitical, and I have a deep amount of respect for the work that the Elections Manitoba does, I would like to see more reforms, in particular in that financial area, come out from Elections Manitoba. That is the body that ultimately has to lead as we should in that area follow, because we would not necessarily want to be causing--at least I--a political interference.
If I was to conclude, I am sure all members are very much aware of the redistribution of boundaries. From what I understand, the proposed boundaries are going to be coming out at the end of the month, the beginning of July. I think the government has a responsibility to look at what the intent of the law was. The government might want to take into consideration the need to coming back, let us say, for example, in the fall time in order to accommodate, because the last thing that I would want to see is if you have new boundaries that come forward and then there is an election that is based strictly on old boundaries when the government had the opportunity to base it on the new boundaries. Ultimately, the new boundaries will prevail and it does have an impact, the new boundaries on representation, whether or not elected officials want to acknowledge that or not.
Madam Speaker, with those few words, I will just take it that I have spoken on both Bill 2 and Bill 3. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer).
An Honourable Member: Six o'clock.
Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).