LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Wednesday, July 14,
1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege as a result
of the conduct in this House yesterday of the honourable member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli). I do not raise questions
of privilege very often, because I think such questions should be reserved for
those matters of extreme importance, not only to the members of this House but
to all Manitobans.
I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker,
from the unedited Hansard for yesterday.
There was an exchange in the House between the honourable member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) with
respect to youth unemployment in
I am quoting from the words of the Premier
yesterday in this House. In reference to
the honourable member for Brandon East the Premier said: "Mr. Speaker, if he has any real
credibility, if he has any real desire to see jobs created in this province,
why does he not speak to his member for Radisson who is trying to kill a
thousand jobs in
"Why does he not tell her to stop
sending around petitions, to stop sending around letters to everybody
encouraging them to stop the Ayerst expansion in
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. A matter of
privilege is always dealt with as a very serious matter in this House.
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, I am continuing to quote from the Premier: " . . . if he really has any credibility
or desire to see jobs in this province?"
Then, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) rose in her place and said: "Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
would ask you to have the Premier clarify his remarks. It is not correct that I
sent out petitions on this issue, and I would ask him to remove that remark
from the record."
Your Honour found there was no point of
order and felt that what was at issue was a dispute about the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the point of order, such as
it was, raised yesterday by the honourable member for Radisson, does not square
with the document I have in my hand. Her
remarks led honourable members in this House to believe she had no involvement
with a petition or work being done against the operations of Ayerst Organics in
the city of
I have in my hand a document which I
propose to table. It is headlined: Update on Action Around PMU Farming and
Estrogen Treatment for Menopausal Women.
I will table that now, Mr. Speaker.
The document says: "Greetings from the MANITOBA ANIMAL
RIGHTS COALITION! My name is ELIZABETH
CARLYLE, and I have been working with Marianne Cerilli on a plan of action that
would address the many destructive aspects of Pregnant Mare Urine (PMU) farming
and its end product, estrogen, used for "treating" menopausal
women. We have addressed the issues from
a number of perspectives and incorporated all of these in brief form in the
enclosed petition. This petition is our
first step in bringing PMU farming and the over‑prescription and
unnecessary prescription of drugs to the public's attention.
"If you would like to participate in
the launching of the campaign, please contact myself, Elizabeth . . . ",
and there is a phone number, " . . . or leave a message . . . ", at
another phone number, " . . . or Marianne at 222‑0074 . . . ",
which, Mr. Speaker, is the honourable member's constituency office, " . .
. or 945‑1567.", which is the honourable member's
I am tabling that document, Mr. Speaker.
* (1335)
All of this was happening yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, with the quiet acquiescence of the honourable member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans) and the Leader of the official opposition, the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer).
There is a larger issue at stake besides
just the parliamentary conduct of the honourable member for Radisson. The destructive policies of the New
Democratic Party and the conduct of the honourable member cannot go
unchallenged. There are a thousand jobs
at stake here. Farm diversification is
at stake here. I suggest the biggest
economic development initiative in 30 years in southwestern
I think the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections ought to be called, because, surely, the point of view
of one Elizabeth Carlyle, either under oath or otherwise, is necessary to bring
the proper light on the denial made by the honourable member for Radisson
yesterday, and perhaps others as well may need to be heard to get to the bottom
of whether we have been lied to in this House or not, Mr. Speaker.
So, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that the subject matter of
yesterday's exchange in Question Period, including the comments of the
honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), be referred to the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, a matter of privilege is a serious matter, as the member
for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) well knows. He
has apologized to this House on a number of occasions.
This, Mr. Speaker, first of all, is
clearly not a matter of privilege. One
of the criteria for a matter of privilege is that it be raised at the first
opportunity. This issue was raised by
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in a rather demeaning manner, from his point of
view. I think it belittles the office of
the Premier, the way the issue was raised.
It certainly was raised yesterday and has
been dealt with. It was dealt with in an honourable way by the member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who rose in her place and said categorically, I did not
send any petitions out, and disassociated herself. In essence, that is what she said. (interjection) Mr. Speaker, I will read
into the record the exact words if the Premier so desires.
Mr. Speaker, members of this House will
recognize that a member's word is to be taken at face value. The fact of the matter is this letter went
out without the approval of the member for Radisson, and she has indicated
that.
Mr. Speaker, every member in this Chamber
has had their names associated with projects, with events, with statements
which have had no bearing in fact. The
Premier, in this House, got up and said, I did not authorize Michael Gobuty to
put my name on a letterhead to raise Immigrant Investor Funds in
Did we stand on a matter of privilege and
ask to have the Privileges and Elections Committee struck so we could question
Mr. Gobuty on whether actually the Premier had authorized it? We took his word for it.
* (1340)
An Honourable Member:
He is not a member of this House.
Mr. Storie:
Neither is the woman whose name is associated with animal rights. (interjection) Is this a debate, Mr.
Speaker?
On the point of order that was raised by
the First Minister, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) rose and said: "Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
would ask you to have the Premier clarify his remarks. It is not correct that I sent out petitions
on this issue, and I would ask him to remove that remark from the record."
That is what she said. That is what I said the member for Radisson
said. This is not a matter of privilege.
But beyond that, this is, in my opinion,
the worst abuse of a matter of privilege in this Chamber. The defeated candidate for the federal
Brandon‑Souris riding is now trying to protect his image.
This is so obviously politically
motivated, so obviously a disgusting abuse of the privilege rules that I
believe, Mr. Speaker, that you should not only rule this issue not a matter of
privilege, but should chastise the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for
having the political audacity to raise this kind of garbage in the Legislature.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second
Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, our rule book, the
Chamber rule book is fairly clear in terms of the integrity of the individuals
who sit inside this Chamber in that we have to take at face value what it is,
in fact, they are saying.
Beauchesne's, and I want to go to Citation
116 which states that: "Should a
question of privilege be based on published material, the article in question
must be submitted and read at the Table."
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the member for
Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) did bring forward a document. The most interesting aspect of this
particular document is that it is third party, that there is nothing the member
for Brandon West has demonstrated that, in fact, the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) has done anything with respect to this.
Mr. Speaker, it is very serious when a
member rises on a matter of privilege.
We do not question individuals in terms of the intent as to why they are
rising on a matter of privilege, but I do not believe the Attorney General has
a matter of privilege in this particular case, and, in fact, at the very least,
the member for Brandon West, if anything, in all likelihood might even owe an
apology to the Chamber.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the member for the NDP party,
the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), says this was not the first
opportunity. It is the first opportunity
after the government, indeed all members of the House have had access to the
unedited version of Hansard.
There is plenty of precedent that the
opportunity we have availed ourselves of today, the member for Brandon East
(sic), is the first opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, at issue here are the words
spoken by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), and, indeed, to what extent
she made herself fully explicit with respect to her point of order. The document that the member for Brandon East
tables today‑‑(interjection)
Pardon me, Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) tables today, raises the prima facie doubt
as to the truth of the remarks made yesterday in the House by the member for
Radisson. Those comments taken at face value would indicate to every listener
that the member had no involvement whatsoever.
The document tabled by the member for Brandon West today proves exactly
the opposite.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as we are told, as
honourable members we accept at face value their words. Indeed, this Chamber cannot work unless we do
that, but when proof is tabled that shows that a member, one of the 57 of us, has
misled the others, it dictates that action has to be taken. The action as requested by the member for
Brandon West, moved by motion, seconded by myself, is that the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections should consider this very, very serious matter.
* (1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I would also, in support of the motion of the member for‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just for clarification, I had
understood on a matter of privilege that one member from each caucus has the
opportunity to speak to the motion of privilege. In fact, just for clarification, any member
inside the Chamber can stand and rise to speak to this particular privilege?
Mr. Speaker:
On the point of order raised by the honourable member for
On a matter of urgent public importance,
there I do allow a spokesperson for the government and either one of the
opposition parties to have five minutes to address the position of their party
respecting the urgency of debating this matter today. Now, that applies specifically to a matter of
urgent public importance.
On a matter of privilege, we deal with it
a little bit differently, where we do allow, and I have allowed it for the
Liberal Party at one time, where I have allowed a member to bring forward his
point and then to have his House leader on his behalf bring forward some other
remarks.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the prima facie
evidence as to whether‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
First Minister does have the floor.
Mr. Filmon: I realize this is very troublesome to the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and his colleagues. I would ask him to please treat this with
seriousness.
In speaking to the prima facie evidence
with respect to whether or not the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) is
involved in the circulation of information and petitions destructive to the
continuing expansion of Ayerst Organics in
The letter is addressed to a Dr. Lavalleur
at the
"Dear Dr. Lavalleur: Thank you for the interest you have expressed
in the issue of the expanding use of hormone replacement therapy for women as
well as the P.M.U. (pregnant mares' urine) plant expansion in
"Enclosed is a paper for your
consideration. Please call if you are
interested in working to do education and organizing work on these issues. Sincerely, Marianne Cerilli."
Mr. Speaker, if I may quote from the paper‑‑(interjection) I am tabling the entire
paper.
The paper is dated February 1993. It is entitled, The Business of Estrogen
Production, the Environment and Women's Health, and it says among other
things: "This is an article dealing
with a
"For 26 years a
It goes on with a great deal of
explanatory information and it says:
"Another person concerned about the long‑term impacts of the
expansion is NDP MLA Marianne Cerilli, the Environment Critic for the Official
Opposition. Cerilli believes that a
federal environmental assessment is in order:
'Ayerst's industrial expansion in
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker, she goes on to say: "As a woman, Cerilli says she also feels
very strongly that a traditional environmental assessment of the production
process is not enough."‑‑not enough. "Noting that the final product of PMU
processing is the hormone drug marketed as "Premarine" which is
widely prescribed . . . "‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Storie:
On a point of order, I understood the Premier to stand to speak on the
relevance of this matter as a matter of privilege. It is not a debate on issues that have been a
matter of public record for a long time, that the member for Radisson is
concerned about estrogen therapy, that the member for Radisson is concerned
about the environment.
Mr. Speaker, those two things are a matter
of record, and we certainly have no dispute with it. The member for Radisson is the Environment
critic, for heaven's sakes.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member does not a have a point of order. I believe the honourable First Minister is
trying to ascertain whether or not there is a prima facie case.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, in addition to all of this, the
criticisms of the member for Radisson with respect to the expansion of the
Ayerst plant in
Mr. Speaker, I think this, without
question, is direct evidence of the fact that not only is the member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) opposed to the expansion of the plant, of Ayerst in
I table this document.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. We will now hear
from the honourable member for Radisson.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. We are dealing with
a matter of privilege. I thought the
honourable member was trying to add to the matter of privilege.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this matter of
privilege.
I want to start off by saying that as the
Environment critic, I have on a number of occasions raised serious concerns,
environmental and health concerns, about a number of projects in this
province. I think that is my job.
I do not think that this project should be
considered as different from those others.
A number of the things the Premier (Mr. Filmon) raises I think are
legitimate concerns about this project.
They are shared by other people in the province.
I want to make it clear that when the
minister spoke yesterday, he raised the issue of material that had my name on
it that went out with petitions, and that is what I said I had no knowledge
of. I did not give the authority for
that to go out with my name on it.
* (1355)
I have spoken with members of the group
that is doing that petition. I knew about
the petition. I made it clear to them
that I was not to be named in that petition at all.
I know other members of my caucus have
made it clear, our position on this facility.
The paper that was written was done before we had full and extensive
caucus discussions on this issue. I know
that for a number of months, I have spoken to members opposite, but I have had
no organizing involvement with these activities.
I continue to have serious concerns, both
in terms of the women's health issues, of the increased prescription of the
drugs that are produced from the estrogen manufactured in
I have at no time said I was opposed to
those jobs. I think we have to bring
this back to the point of the material that was referred to by the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) yesterday, which I said I had no authorization been given to have that
material go out.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker:
I think that I have probably heard sufficient argument. I will take this matter under advisement to
have an opportunity to peruse Hansard. I
think now we should move on.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Verna Greer, Darlyne
Teetaert, Peg Sanders and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Yves Lafreniere, Rene
Dumesnil, Edouard Gagnon and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.
Maloway). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has
already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs
for the City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Student Social
Allowances Program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1400)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Care
Quality of Service
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Today the Manitoba Medical Association has
stated its objection to the government's health care plans and in fact has said
that the government is failing Manitobans when it comes to health care.
I want to ask the Premier, since this is
now such a very serious matter with voices from all over the province, from all
walks of life in
Will he listen to the many professionals
and patients and health care consumers in the
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, the responses of the two
medical practitioners that the member opposite referred to with respect to
changes in the Home Care Program were based on the totally false statements
that were issued by New Democrats that suggested that home care was being wiped
out in this province‑‑totally false statements, irresponsible and
inflammatory statements that were designed to mislead and indeed did mislead
many people.
Those matters, of course, have now been
not only clarified but rectified as a result of the opportunity to address the
falsehoods that New Democrats put on the record, Mr. Speaker.
In respect to the entire issue of health
care reform, as I mentioned last week, I came away from a meeting of First
Ministers in which that topic was raised by Premiers of New Democratic and
Liberal administrations across this country, who not only said that we were
progressing towards health care reform as a necessity and in fact said
complimentary things about taking the initiative in
That is a conclusion that has been arrived
at by Premiers of all political stripes.
The only people who are arguing against reform to health care are the
New Democrats from their irresponsibility of opposition here in this province,
who are misleading the public and who are taking a position that is
indefensible in terms of logic and reason in this country.
Mental Health Services
Government Plans
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question and
table a document leading into that question, a document which is a copy of the
government's Tertiary Care Program Consolidation which contradicts the
minister's plan in March to close psychiatric beds at St. Boniface as well as
the new psych services building at Health Sciences Centre by consolidating
mental health services under the core health program at St. Boniface Hospital.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health
if he will tell the House how the need for acute care for persons requiring
mental health services is being met while the government continues to shuffle
beds, cut beds. Will he clarify once and
for all, what are his plans for mental health services?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend constantly
moves her horizons of understanding ever below.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has
tabled yet another document. That
document is part of, I would have to presume, the literally day‑in and
day‑out consultation with leaders in the health care community by senior
members of my staff and myself.
Now my honourable friend's first statement
said we do not consult with doctors, yet all of the information my honourable
friend and any New Democrat has ever come to this House with has been as a
result of discussion papers put before the health community to try and craft
reasonable programs of change.
My honourable friend made specific
reference to the heads of geriatric services at our two teaching
hospitals. I would like to draw my
honourable friend's attention, before she gets led further down the garden
path: Wednesday, the 8th of July 1992,
heads of geriatric services, better known as HOGS. Dr. Powell welcomed Mr. Maynard and thanked
him for his kind attention.
Mr. Speaker, that started a series of
meetings in July of 1992 which carried on into August and September '92,
November, December of '92, February, April, May of '93, all with the heads of
geriatric services, Dr. Powell being at most of them.
Mr. Speaker, there has never been more
consultation with that group before.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to ask the minister
about mental health services and the fact that we have a report saying one
thing and an announced plan saying another thing. So if the minister will not answer and
account for those kinds of reports‑‑yes, let me ask the minister
about a specific situation.
Last night at 7:30, a suicidal patient was
taken into care at
I want to ask the Minister of Health if he
will confirm today that, in fact, services are not being co‑ordinated in
the acute care sector of mental health and how can he justify‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, I will be most anxious to follow up on my honourable
friend's allegations. But let me
indicate to my honourable friend that never before in the history of the
Never before in the history of the
province of Manitoba has such a substantial community investment been made,
including crisis stabilization unit beds originally, a unit at Salvation Army
expanded most recently, a second unit and crisis stabilization unit with Sara
Riel, mobile crisis teams to serve those individuals in need of intervention
because of episodic mental illness, case workers, funding to self‑help
groups. Never before, Sir, has there
been more investment in a community‑based mental health system.
Now my honourable friend will be wont,
upon occasion, to bring individual circumstances to light, and I welcome those.
But my honourable friend cannot sit in isolation and make the incorrect and
untrue accusations that this system is not being changed for the betterment of
the citizens of
Health Care Reform
Government Plans
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, one thing is consistent with this
government. No matter what the
criticism, it is the people who offer criticism or suggestions who are wrong
according to this Minister of Health or this Premier (Mr. Filmon). Everyone is wrong but them.
Why does the Manitoba Medical Association
say health care reform is reckless and haphazard and, quote, human costs
escalate as waiting lists grow longer and services deteriorate?
When we opposed and offered alternatives
in pediatrics or obstetrics or home care, this government did not listen. Will this government do the one thing they
have refused to do ever since they started the whole process? Will this government listen to the groups
that are offering suggestions and put their health care "deform" on
hold while they listen?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, there has never been a greater
involvement of professionals in designing changes, consulting with changes in
terms of the health care system ever before.
Mr. Speaker, for instance, with the heads
of geriatric services, there were meetings in August, September, 1992, carrying
right through‑‑a total of some 15, 16, 17 specific meetings on
health care reform.
Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that
physicians across the length and breadth of
Now, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that from
time to time, the union leadership and the MMA are going to want, for their own
agenda reasons, to say nothing is happening.
But the consultation process has never‑‑I repeat‑‑never
been more extensive in the
* (1410)
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, will the government at least‑‑since it is
identified in the MMA's failure grade to the government, and it has been identified
by groups over and over again and by the two heads of the two geriatric units
at the two largest hospitals‑‑put their home care, homemaking
services cutbacks on hold and not initiate the budget cuts at the Winnipeg
Region of Home Care from $31 million to $29 million as proposed this year?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, no matter how many times I
indicate to my honourable friend that the Home Care budget is increasing, that
does not seem to matter to my honourable friend, that home care attendant services
will increase by 11 percent this year in the number of hours provided per
month, that registered nursing services will increase by almost 10 percent by
month in hours purchased for care of Manitobans in their home, Victorian Order
of Nurses, almost 4 percent more this year‑‑an increase, not a
decrease.
Mr. Speaker, what my honourable friend is
suggesting in terms of the domestic services of housecleaning and laundry is to
repudiate the Howard Pawley policy that the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis),
the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) passed at cabinet as good progressive reform policy for the Home Care
Program.
Mr. Speaker, this program of Home Care has
grown consistently ever since we came into government to provide more services,
more health care services, more personal services to individuals to live
independently than ever before in the history of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, the minister did not even listen to the question, never
mind listen to the MMA or listen to the seniors or listen to the disabled.
Health Care Reform
Government Plans
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
My final supplementary to the Premier:
Will the Premier, who has heard these questions raised in the House over
and over again, do the right thing and talk to his Minister of Health, put the
Home Care cutbacks, the maintenance and homekeeping services on hold, and put
on hold the cutbacks as recommended by the MMA, as recommended by seniors, as
recommended by disabled, and as recommended by the people who are in the field
who are delivering or not going to be delivering these services?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty trying to accept the
hypocrisy of the member for Kildonan and all of his colleagues on this issue,
when it is recognized that what is being done in the home care field is the
progressive implementation of a policy that was adopted by the Pawley
government on home care.
It is unbelievable that they would try and
somehow portray this as being a major change.
The fact of the matter is that it is still their ardent desire to grovel
around looking for any cheap politics that they can, no matter what the cost to
their credibility. I will not respond
any further to the member for Kildonan.
Health Care Reform
Medical Community
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party in
I want to just cite two very small quotes,
one from The Characteristics of the Vision, page 3, Health Care Providers,
which said that "physicians, nurses and other care providers understand
the full continuum of services available and will work with Manitobans to
choose effective services."
That report also indicated, in the letter
from the deputy minister, "that health promotion and disease prevention
can only be effectively addressed through initiatives and co‑operation .
. . ."
That is correct. It can only be achieved with those.
What we have seen over the last 14 months
is the systematic alienation and disappointment of every sector in the health
care sector in this province. Nurses and
doctors and occupational therapists and nonprofit organizations and other
health care professionals have consistently, one by one, withdrawn their
support from this minister. They do not
trust him, Mr. Speaker, and they are telling us again and again that they do
not believe that they can work with him towards these goals.
My question for Premier (Mr. Filmon): Given that co‑operation is essential,
as set out in this package, how does this government hope to achieve health
care reform when the major players in the health care sector do not trust, and
tell us they cannot work, with the Minister of Health?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I find the Leader of the Liberal
Party's comments to be rather difficult to accept. I want to indicate to my honourable friend‑‑and
I do not do this to reflect on his presence or absence at Estimates‑‑but
in Estimates this year before the member for The Maples left his role as critic
with the Liberal Party, we got into this exact discussion.
My honourable friend the Leader of the
Liberal Party might check the questions and the comments made by the member for
The Maples wherein he indicated that one year later all organizations who
supported health care reform on May 14, 1992, with this document, still support
the reform of the health care system as envisioned, and there has not been a
single organization that has said, we no longer agree with health reform and
the process of change.
Mr. Speaker, that is even consistent with
my understanding of what the MMA said today as the union bargaining on behalf
of doctors.
My honourable friend is not in tune with
what is happening in the health field.
His former colleague the member for The Maples was and so stated in
Estimates, and I would refer my honourable friend the Liberal Leader to read
the comments of the member for The Maples in Estimates of Health this year.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the major players in the health
care sector support the health care reform package. So do we.
What they do not support is the minister. They do not support the
minister's actions in the last 14 months, and they are telling us again and
again from every sector that they cannot work with him and achieve this health
care reform.
Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) how he hopes to achieve health care reform, which is the single most
important thing that this Minister of Health has done and he has said that
himself, when we have the Manitoba Medical Association, amongst many others,
offering criticism of the government's broken promises to include the medical
profession and other stakeholders, and going on to say that the initial benefit
of doubt given to the action plan has given way to deep mistrust. Lack of
information and understanding about government's true agenda has fuelled their
confusion, anxiety, skepticism and hostility.
How are we going to achieve that, with
this Minister of Health having that kind of reputation in the important sectors
in this field?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, with all the respect I can muster for my honourable friend
the Liberal Leader, physicians in Manitoba are still being consulted with, are
still working on committees studying progressive ways to change the health care
system. They are still making
recommendations to government on terms of change of the health care
system. Physicians are very
significantly involved in all aspects of health care reform.
I gave to members of the opposition‑‑again
the Liberal Leader did not avail himself of Estimates‑‑a list of
physicians who are members of various committees that are studying program
changes and reform as we speak.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
MMA, as the union bargaining‑‑and they are currently bargaining
with government‑‑are saying certain things, but the union of
doctors does not represent the participation of rank and file‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1420)
Mr. Edwards:
This is the problem. The Minister
of Health asks us to believe him and dismiss all others. He says not to worry about the medical association
or the nurses or the occupational therapists or the organizations for the
physically handicapped, all of these other people in the field. That is what he tells us.
Mr. Speaker, this is not about laying
blame.
My question to the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): How is he going to achieve
health care reform when everyone else out there who can really achieve this
does not trust this minister?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we can trust my honourable friend's
questions, because my honourable friend says that doctors are not consulted
with.
I can show my honourable friend, and I
will lead him through it. I will read
him the dates, but that would consume time of Question Period‑‑but
with the heads of geriatric services, Dr. Powell, Dr. Kirschen. Those individuals have been involved in I do
not know how many meetings, but it is at least a dozen and a half, and as
recently as yesterday with senior members of the department.
Now my honourable friend presumes
knowledge wherein he says they do not trust government. My goodness, my honourable friend is out of
touch with reality, and how desperate one becomes so quickly to create an issue
in such a fresh young leadership bid, Sir.
Year of Indigenous
People
Funding Request
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that this is the Year of Indigenous
People. It has been said on many
occasions that the government has done precious little to recognize this year.
Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal leaders in our
province are making a bid to host the North American Indigenous Games. Part of that bid is to send athletes this
year to
Mr. Speaker, in June of this year
aboriginal leaders sent a proposal to, I believe, the Premier's Office,
requesting support to send some 700 athletes to
My question is to the First Minister. Can he tell this House how the government
responded to that request?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the
Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey).
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the First Minister would care to tell this House
why this week a member of the Premier's staff phoned one of the principals,
Chief Rod Bushie, and offered $10,000 to this venture and asked in the same
conversation whether this individual would run for the Conservatives in
Rupertsland.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member this, that
Chief Bushie came to see me something like four or five weeks ago to meet and
discuss with me the prospect of running for us in Rupertsland. So I am not surprised that would have come up
in the conversation.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, the offer of $10,000 and the question, will you be a
candidate, from the Premier's Office is clearly unacceptable.
From a government that just put on a
performance about ethics, I want to table a letter from Chief Rod Bushie which
says: "I was disappointed that the
government has chosen to offer only a token gesture of financial support, in
this the International Year of Indigenous People.
"I was even more offended when Mr. Sokolyk
proceeded to ask me whether I was interested in running as a Progressive
Conservative candidate in Rupertsland."
Mr. Speaker, is this the ethics of this
government?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the point of
the member is. It is absolutely
foolish. The offer of the money on the
proposal had absolutely nothing to do with it.
An Honourable Member:
All of a sudden, you know about it.
Who is being truthful now,
Mr. Filmon: All you said was, it was in the same conversation.
You did not say, nor did Chief Bushie say, that one was conditional on the
other, Mr. Speaker.
Continental Barley
Market
Government Action
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Premier if he will admit
that the action taken by federal minister Charlie Mayer was a wrong decision
and that it is going to have a negative impact on
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice on behalf of the
Minister of Agriculture.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, since Saskatchewan Pool and Manitoba Pool have now turned
to the courts for a ruling as to whether the federal government has the
authority to change the rules of barley marketing, will the Premier contact the
federal Minister of Agriculture and will he contact Prime Minister Kim
Campbell, and ask them to delay the move to a continental barley market because
of the negative impacts this will have on Manitoba farmers?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) has responded to that question on many occasions in the past.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, since he pretends to be
supporting people in rural Manitoba, if he understands the concept of orderly
marketing, if he understands the concept of single‑desk selling and the
value of this to farmers and the equity that is going to be lost because of
this move to the continental barley market and if he is concerned about the‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question. The
honourable member for
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member for Swan River has a
lot of nerve talking about support for rural Manitobans when her member in her
party is attempting to destroy an industry that represents an annual cash crop
to Manitoba farmers of almost $100 million and a thousand jobs in that
industry, and she does not have the nerve to talk against it. She sits there and silently supports her
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). She
has a lot of nerve.
Point of Order
Ms. Wowchuk:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to apologize
for those comments, since, if he will look at the records, he is misleading the
House when he is saying that we are not in support of PMU producers. Look at the record. Look at the resolutions‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member clearly does not have a point of order.
Pharmacare
Claims Backlog
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, the Pharmacare office has confirmed that once again the
waiting lists for Pharmacare refunds is 10 weeks. We know that Blue Cross turnaround time is
one to two weeks. This delay is
unacceptable, as I know the Minister of Health agrees because he stated that in
July of 1991.
Can the minister tell this House, what is
he doing about the backlog?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Since approximately the beginning of this
fiscal year, knowing that most of our claims come in in April, we have had
additional term staff processing claims.
At this time of the year, with the backlog of claims, it often will take
eight weeks. As of last week that had
expanded to 10 weeks, and staff are working diligently to clear the backlog and
to get those refunds back to Manitobans.
Ms. Gray:
Can the minister tell us is he utilizing staff on a term basis and at
the same time having the regular staff take off the 10 unpaid days? Is that what his department is doing?
Mr. Orchard:
All staff in the Ministry of Health that are part of the MGEA contract
are required to comply with the 10 days off which commenced Friday, the 2nd of
July. The term staff, I cannot
indicate. We bring term staff in and
part‑time staff in on an as‑required basis for as lengthy a period
of time as we need to clear up the backlog.
* (1430)
Ms. Gray:
It is a great management system in the Department of Health, but with
the final supplementary to the minister:
Can he tell us, so that we can tell our constituents and other people
who are calling our offices, when can we expect that this backlog will be
cleared up, and when will we see a turnaround time of under three weeks which
the minister had promised us last year?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the attempted agenda that my senior
officials and my staff in the Pharmacare refund department are working
diligently toward.
I repeat, as my honourable friend well
knows, that the majority of the claims in Pharmacare are still made prior to
April 30, and there is an exceptionally large number of claims still received.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what I have not received
to date is the numbers to indicate whether that request for refund this year
was significantly different from previous years, but I can give my honourable
friend the assurance that staff, the ministry and this government are very
anxious to have refunds processed as quickly as possible.
Effect on Existing
Divisions
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, last night in committee, the
Francophone school division legislation received passage at committee
stage. At that time, I repeatedly asked
the Minister of Education for assurances that existing school divisions would
be compensated for any negative impacts they will suffer as a result of
students and funding being transferred from existing divisions to the new
Francophone division.
With other sources now supporting our
contention that there will be cost implications impacting on the quality of
education in existing divisions, will the minister now state to this House
clearly that she will not allow existing public education systems to suffer as
a result of the formation of the Francophone division and that there will be
full compensation for cost implications to existing divisions?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Yesterday, we did have a number of public presentations regarding the
Francophone school division. I will
remind the member that each of those presentations was in support of the
formation of the Francophone school division.
We will be looking at the number of
students who will be transferring from existing divisions into the new
Francophone division. At that time, we
will then be able to assess with school divisions exactly if there are any
costs.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister need not talk about if.
It is the amount of those costs.
School Boundaries
Review
Government Plans
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): The minister talked about another initiative
in the context of the Francophone division.
I want to ask the minister today if it is her intention to impose a
major reduction in the number of school divisions in this province, four in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education
and Training): The member attempts to fearmonger‑‑the
only word I can consider‑‑when he puts forward information such as
that and puts it on the record.
I have, however, made it very clear I will
be making an announcement regarding the issue of school boundary review very
shortly.
Mr. Plohman:
Sounds like school board boundaries is a fearsome issue for this
minister.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister now come
straight with this Legislature, since the Public Schools Finance Board is indicating
there will be 14 divisions in rural
I want to ask the minister now to come
straight with this Legislature and tell us what she is imposing with regard to
these regions.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member becomes so agitated when he speaks
about this issue.
I will tell him that any announcements I
will be making regarding school boundary review will be made as soon as
possible. The issue he is referring to
is an issue that relates to the Public Schools Finance Board and has not
anything to do with any announcement I will be making in regard to school
boundary review.
Bill 30‑Vulnerable
Persons Amendments
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, after extensive consultation in the community and the
Minister of Family Services appointing a review committee, and the review
committee bringing 46 recommendations to him, we have The Vulnerable Persons
Act. It went to committee last night.
To the minister's credit, he made some
minor amendments to this bill. However,
there were a number of recommendations in the review committee which were made
by presenters which I moved as amendments, which the government defeated.
I would like to ask the minister, since it
is not too late, if he would reconsider his decision of last night and consider
making amendments at third reading to require the Vulnerable Persons'
Commissioner to report to the Legislative Assembly and to put the preamble as
principles into the bill.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I genuinely appreciate the
recognition that the member gives to the department and the process that we
embarked on a couple of years ago, the tremendous consultation we did with the
community over this issue. I think,
while the numbers of presenters were very few last night, they offered a lot of
good suggestions which have been incorporated into the legislation. I praise the staff and the review committee
for the tremendous work they did.
I am pleased that the member of the
official opposition was there to hear all of the presentations and get a better
understanding for the legislation. We
have tried to give him and members of the Liberal Party adequate briefings to
give them that understanding. I note
that only he and one other member in the House spoke to the legislation.
We did accept some amendments yesterday to
that legislation. Unfortunately, the hastily put together amendments that the
member brought forward last night we were not able to accept.
Mr. Martindale:
Mr. Speaker, my amendments were not hasty, and they were the same as the
recommendations of the review committee.
I appreciate the briefing that this minister gave me. That is true.
I would like to ask the minister if at
third reading he would consider amending this bill to require that there be a
review of this new and comprehensive legislation. It is very long, it is very complex and there
is a need to have a review in place as part of the bill. Would the minister consider doing that at
third reading?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, I think the time to give consideration to amendments was
during the public presentations. Afterwards, we spent many, many hours last
night listening to presenters and considering amendments to the
legislation. This follows many months,
in fact years of consultation with the major players in the whole community
living area.
I regret that the amendments brought
forward by the member for Burrows were not accepted by the committee last
night. I can tell you that those who
stayed afterwards to speak after they made their presentations reflected well
on the process and on the legislation, and there is a genuine understanding
that this is a landmark piece of legislation that is very progressive.
Mr. Martindale:
Will the Minister of Family Services amend the vulnerable persons bill
in order to define the role of advocates, another recommendation of the review
committee and many of the presenters last night, that advocates be included in
this bill and that their role be clearly defined? Would the minister consider that for third
reading?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that consideration to amendments
was made last evening. We did make
amendments to give further clarity and enhancement to the support network that
vulnerable people have. I think that
really addressed a number of the concerns raised by presenters last evening.
Flood/Rail Damage
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Mr. Speaker, we are receiving calls in our office from concerned
residents in the
My colleague the member for
I want to ask the Minister of Highways and
Transportation if he has received any assurances from the Canadian National
Railways that they will be replacing that structure to allow the rail
operations to continue into that area.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of
Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that they are going to be
repairing the structures and make provisions for the grain based on the quota
that is available to be moved as soon as possible.
I want to at the same time indicate that
most of the structures have now been replaced, with the exception of two. We have the major structure on
* (1440)
Mr. Reid:
Mr. Speaker, the question was about the railway and the service for the
producers of the area.
Will the minister indicate for the
residents of that area what communications he has had with Canadian National
Railways to give assurances that rail service will be once again restored to
that area and that those producers can receive the level of service to allow
them to have their product moved to markets? What contact has he had with CN to
establish that information?
Mr. Driedger:
Mr. Speaker, staff have been in conversation with the railway to find
out exactly what their plans are, how soon they will be operational out
there. I do not have the definite
information on that now. I hope to have
it by tomorrow, and I will try and give a more definitive answer by tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker:
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills 37, 27 and
36.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr. Cummings), Bill 37, The Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on
Bill 37. It is quite a complex bill, The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act. (interjection) No. The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
asked me if I was going to support it, and I told him no, because it is too
controversial at this stage to support it.
On May 6, the minister unveiled his plan
for the no‑fault compensation for injuries sustained as a result of an
automobile accident. (interjection) I
do not think so. I think it is the
community at large. It is not the
lawyers. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am
not the expert on this bill, but our critic will speak at length on this bill
to bring out the issues that are not addressed in this bill. The presentation that was included‑‑when
the presentation was made, there were sophisticated graphs which projected the
personal injury claim costs, and it indicated very clearly that it will go
through the roof if something is not done to stop that.
The government has also spent an amount of
$200,000 on an advertising campaign trying to convince Manitobans that pure no‑fault
is the way to go. I do not know whether
it is true or not, but the fact that I think we go back to the election of
1988. It was an election issue where the
Conservatives, the Tories came into power at that time because of the Autopac.
Maybe I think what they are trying to do again, just prior to an election‑‑we
do not know when it is going to be.
Could it be this fall? Could it
be next year? Maybe they want to call it
right away, so we will be pleased to go to an election. Right?
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Anytime. I am prepared anytime.
Mr. Gaudry:
The member for Osborne said he is prepared to do it anytime. (interjection)
No, I did not talk to any lawyers. I will listen to the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) maybe.
An Honourable Member:
Do you talk to your Leader?
Mr. Gaudry:
Oh, sure, I talk to my Leader all the time, because he is a good Leader. He is one of the best. (interjection)
The member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik)
last night mentioned when we were in the bill for Francophone‑‑I
asked that question about St. George asking why the school divisions. Under his breath he said: They are all Liberals. I do not think‑‑
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of
Labour): I never said that.
Mr. Gaudry:
Yes, you did. That is why I said
at that time that we should not politicize the issue.
Point of Order
Mr. Praznik:
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member, I think his memory may
fail him. At no time yesterday did I
imply that all the people there were Liberals, because I know from the results
of the last election that the Liberal Party came second in that area, and there
is no way‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
deputy government House leader clearly does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Gaudry:
Mr. Speaker, the literature which the government has been distributing
has been emphasizing that this new scheme will mean lower Autopac rates. Well, they will have to show that. What this
propaganda fails to mention is that it also means less benefit. In this case it means that there is no free
lunch for anybody.
Mr. Speaker, the government says that this
is because of lawyers' fees and personal injury claims and court awards. Their solution is no‑fault. Our party, the Liberal Party of Manitoba,
does not agree that costs have risen only due to rising personal injury
claims. The Liberal Party of Manitoba
also does not agree with the government's projected cost, because there is no
evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of issues
like the problem with the rising cost.
What the Liberal Party has been calling for from the beginning of this
is personal injury compensation in Manitoba should be reviewed by the Public
Utilities Board so that we have a made‑in‑Manitoba solution to
rising personal injury claim costs.
We agree that these make up a large part
of the
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the minister
and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have indicated that we will be adopting a Quebec‑style
approach to no‑fault, but they have not released the regulations which
will accompany the act and which will contain plain procedures, treatment of
claimants benefits, charts, et cetera. The substantive part of this scheme, the
part that will affect Manitobans, will be contained in the regulations‑‑(interjection)
No, I will keep on. I think I will go on for the 40 minutes so I
will educate the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) a little bit this
afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the regulations should be
released before the act is passed so that the complete compensation scheme can
be examined openly by members of the public, interest groups and health care
professionals.
In
When we asked the minister in the House
whether the government's intention was to use this scheme to bring down its
deficit, the government denied it very clearly.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) pointed to the current act which contains a
provision which prohibits the government from allowing MPIC profits to general
revenue.
Mr. Speaker, the
What is wrong with diverting funds into
general revenue as long as benefits received under the act adequately
compensate injured people so that they can maintain the same lifestyle which
they had prior to an accident? These
profits should be used to lower premiums.
Also to the extent that the government is creating fear of the future
costs, by distorting the facts and so creating a climate of acceptance for no‑fault,
it is doing the people of
It has been said that the tort system
encourages good driving because it punishes at‑fault drivers by making
them financially responsible for their accidents. In
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of other
things that I would like to put on the record, but I feel that the member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock), who is our critic, would be prepared to speak at length
on this issue. I am sure we would like
to see it to committee after and then let the public come out and give their
opinions and request or propose amendments so that we are satisfied with what
the government has proposed in this bill. Thank you very much.
* (1450)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, this I think will certainly prove to be one of the most
important bills that we deal with this session.
We on this side, and I in particular have been a long‑time
supporter of the principle of no‑fault insurance.
I find it more than a little ironic that
we have the government of the day introducing no‑fault insurance,
particularly because the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation (Mr. Cummings) at one time said, you will certainly not see no‑fault
insurance proposed while I am the minister.
Those were his almost exact words.
Now I can only assume that the conversion on the road to
An Honourable Member:
Political opportunism.
Mr. Storie:
Political opportunism, my ethical colleague from‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Broadway.
Mr. Storie:
Broadway. How could I
forget? The singer on Broadway. My dear, personal friend and close colleague,
what's‑his‑name.
I had to chuckle when I first learned that
the government was actually intending to introduce this legislation, because it
certainly is not consistent with what the minister had said and what the
government actions have been over the past few years. I would have predicted that rather than
introduce no‑fault insurance, the government would have been working to
continue the privatization of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation,
because that is their ultimate objective.
There are very few members on the government side who fundamentally
believe that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation should exist in the
My colleague the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans), who is amongst the only members in this Chamber who were
here during those years and during that debate, can testify that there is not
and there was not a single Conservative member or Liberal member who supported
the introduction of public insurance. (interjection)
Mr. Speaker, the member for
If I have any regret about the actions of
the Rae government in Ontario, it is that they did not proceed with the
introduction of a public auto insurance as we have in British Columbia, as we
have in Saskatchewan, as we have in Quebec, as we have in Manitoba, but what
the member for Inkster does not know is that one of the reasons why the Ontario
government did not feel it prudent to proceed with the introduction of Autopac
in Ontario was a legal opinion supported by the federal Department of Justice
that if they had gone ahead and nationalized the insurance industry in Ontario,
they would have been subject to a $700‑million bill because of the Free
Trade Agreement, because the Free Trade Agreement provides for right‑‑(interjection) absolutely true. Well, the member for
The fact of the matter is that one of the
articles in the Free Trade Agreement provides for compensation where the
government creates a monopoly. The
insurance industry obviously in Ontario‑‑there are many
headquarters of insurance companies in Ontario‑‑would have been
sued under the agreement. There would
have either been compensation paid or the
So, Mr. Speaker, coming back to Bill 37
and the government's intention, I have no doubt that Bill 37 is before us,
because the government of the day failed to do what it said it would do in
1988. The Minister responsible for the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation was one of the facilitators of the
protest in
I regret very much that we had to make a
decision to begin to increase Autopac rates.
I regret that we did not revise the revenue coming into MPIC beginning
in the '70s. I think everyone in the
House will recognize that the deductible that people paid in 1988 was the same
deductible as what was introduced in 1972. If the inflation rate alone had been
applied to the deductible, the deductible would have been more than $600 in
1988. We made some mistakes. The corporation made some mistakes in terms
of adjusting its policies to reflect reality, but the member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings), who was then the critic for Autopac, said that the reason that the
rates increased so dramatically were simply because of mismanagement.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, what the minister
did subsequently, not only did the newly elected government when they assumed
responsibility for MPIC take the increase that the NDP government had already
authorized‑‑they took that increase, and in every subsequent year
they have raised the rates‑‑last year, for some people 13 percent
additional‑‑every single year.
So the fact of the matter is that
management alone was not the issue. We
were facing in 1985, in 1986 and 1987‑‑(interjection) The Minister
responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) wants to talk about skulduggery. We will talk about Bill 37 because,
fundamentally, the minister who is introducing it does not believe it, has said
so on many occasions. He does not
believe in no‑fault insurance. So
why, I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the government proceeding with no‑fault‑‑
politics, pure and simple politics?
It is only a slight coincidence, I
believe, only a slight coincidence that the government, having already told
MPIC to proceed with a rate increase request of some 10 percent this year, is
going to be able, if we should pass this legislation, I believe, to say: No rate increase this year; we are not going
to need it‑‑and attempt to say, we have managed MPIC. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is political
poppycock. There is not a member over
there that believes fundamentally in MPIC, let alone, no‑fault insurance.
This is political opportunism at its best,
but you will be surprised to learn that notwithstanding the motives of members
opposite, I believe that this is a reasonable approach. Notwithstanding the
government's intention, notwithstanding the political motivation for this act,
notwithstanding the fact that no one really believes what they are doing, they
are doing it for political reasons because they want to save their political
heinies. I think that is a parliamentary
term, political heinies. Madam Deputy
Speaker, if that is not the political term, then I will rephrase it. They want to protect their political, en
francaise, derrieres.
Having said that, I want to deal with the
principles of no‑fault insurance.
I want to go over what this bill actually does for the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are serious,
serious shortcomings with our current "no‑fault system." I think everyone in this House understands,
and MPIC has given us ample evidence to suggest, that the tort system is not
working in the best interests of either the corporation, the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation, or average Manitobans.
It is absolutely true that the tort system tends to work best for those
who can afford to pay the legal fees, the costs incurred in fighting a long and
protracted battle with an insurance company, whether that insurance company is
MPIC or some other insurance company.
The fact of the matter is that under the
current system, when someone is injured, particularly if that person is at
fault, or 50 percent at fault, only partially at fault, the fact of the matter
is that MPIC becomes an adversary. MPIC
is, in effect, the adversary even though it is a public insurance corporation.
Even though it was created to support the interests of Manitobans in protecting
themselves while they were driving automobiles, it is an adversarial situation.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, what no‑fault
does is, in effect, remove the adversarial nature of much of it. That is not to say there are not going to be
disputes. That does not mean there are
not going to be disputes over the nature of the compensation provided, the
amount of compensation provided, the adequacy of the compensation provided. There are going to be disputes, and those
obviously are going to need dispute‑settlement mechanisms, and I will get
to that in a minute.
But the fact of the matter is that, on
balance, more Manitobans will receive coverage and better security under a no‑fault
system. So Madam Deputy Speaker, let us
start by suggesting that the principle is right. Certainly as a social democrat I believe that
principle is sound. I think that anyone
who is involved in a group insurance program of any kind recognizes the benefit
of spreading the risk and maximizing the benefits to the individual.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we start with
that principle. The particulars of the
legislation and the implementation of this particular no‑fault scheme are
going to be the prime concern, and I think most members on this side are going
to talk about particular concerns with the implementation, how we are actually
going to achieve this improved insurance scheme for the average Manitoban.
I am told by MPIC officials that the
$55,000 income ceiling that will be used for income replacement under this
piece of legislation represents the maximum income for some 85 to 90 percent of
Manitobans. Clearly we are already
acknowledging in this House, and this is what surprised me about the government
introducing it, that the top 10 percent of income earners in this province are
going to be penalized by this legislation.
In one way or another, if they are in an
accident, whether they are at fault or not at fault, income earners who have
income beyond $55,000 stand to have their style of life, their quality of life,
jeopardized by this legislation. So I am
surprised that members opposite are doing that.
It certainly is not fitting with the Conservative philosophy of individual
rights and individual responsibilities that we have come to hear from members
opposite on most occasions, which leads me to conclude once more that this is a
political opportunistic bill rather than any bill of principle.
But be that as it may, I am glad to see
it, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am glad that
we are having a chance to debate it. There are two other issues that I think
require very careful consideration, and one of them is the issue of appeal. It seems to me that in this legislation there
is no more important element than the question of how someone who feels they
have been wrongly judged, that their compensation, their income replacement has
been wrongly assessed, gets redress. We
have too many examples in this society of supposed appeal mechanisms which do
not work, which are not fair, quite frankly, and we are very concerned that we
not establish under this legislation another appeal mechanism which appears to
be tainted by the political process, the government appointment of members,
that appears to be a front for the corporation itself. I use the Workers Compensation system as an
example.
The fact of the matter is that the appeal
of individuals that have been turned down by the compensation system is to the
compensation system itself. Now, I think
there are very few people who have gone to appeal under the Workers
Compensation system who feel that the corporation, the Compensation Board, has
given them a fair appeal.
I am not saying that all appeals are
turned down by any means. But,
certainly, there are those where it is clearly in the Compensation Board's
interest not to approve an appeal. I
think that puts the appeal board, the appeal review panel, in a difficult
position.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe, and we
said when the government introduced this legislation, that there needs to be a
completely independent appeal process.
There are ways to structure that appeal process that I think we could
devise very quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in this province we
appoint a provincial Ombudsman collectively as a Legislature. The provincial Ombudsman reports to the
Legislature, does not report to an individual minister or the government of the
day, does not report to a Crown corporation.
The fact of the matter is that if we were
to establish a completely independent appeal mechanism that was arm's length
from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, an arm's length from the
minister's office, I think we would have an appeal system that would be truly independent.
Now, I do not know why the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) is nodding off.
This is an important debate, and I am trying to stick to the topic.
I think that we have a mechanism that
could work. The fact of the matter is
that, particularly for individuals who have unique circumstances, I think the
only fair process is one where the commission is completely independent and the
government has an opportunity to, I think, amend the legislation to make sure
that that happens.
Madam Deputy Speaker, apart from the
appeal process and the appeal mechanism, I think that there are some legitimate
concerns about individual groups of insurers.
I think that, for example, farmers and small‑business people are
going to find it very difficult to protect their interests through this
legislation.
I think that any, particularly, farmers,
perhaps fishermen, anyone whose income fluctuates dramatically from year to
year, anyone who is the sole proprietor of an enterprise where it is not only a
question of their income that they need to protect, that they also need to
protect their ability to raise revenue in their enterprise.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand from
MPIC officials, again, that the income as it is to be determined under this
legislation is going to be net income minus depreciation. In other words, the depreciation that
normally is allowed and is used to reduce your income will not be implemented,
so that it is a modified form of net income that will be used.
But for the small‑business person or
the farmer who not only needs to replace their income but needs to replace
themselves and their place of business, this is a serious issue. We could use a farmer as an example, who is a
sole proprietor and works the land himself, and their net income may be $15,000
last year. Well, the $15,000 that they
may be entitled to as income replacement is not going to allow them to live and
to have someone to look after the farm.
So, what they are going to lose is
everything. I think there is a genuine
concern under this legislation that‑‑(interjection) Well, minus depreciation or plus depreciation. The fact of the matter is, though, over the
long term, and in some cases perhaps we are talking about two or three years, I
think there is serious repercussions for those people.
* (1510)
So I think we need to make sure, and I do
not claim to be an expert on how MPIC is going to manage this particular
section. I know they have attempted to,
but I think that there are some problems there.
Again, it raises the issue of an appeal process, that we need to have a
fair and independent appeal process, one that can judge the individual
circumstances.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know how
many seriously injured people we have in the
It seems to me, however, that the vast
majority of injuries do not require anything like six months income
replacement. It seems to me that we
should be able to devise a system that will compensate people fairly and an
appeal process that will look after unique circumstances for that number of
people, however many it is.
I understand that there were 20,000 people
who received some form of bodily injury compensation last year, 20,000
people. I would expect, given that the
vast number of claims are in the $1,000, $2,000, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 range,
that the actual amount, the number of people that received income replacement
or would receive under this scheme income replacement for six months are very
few.
We may be talking about a few hundred or
few hundreds at most, and it seems to me that we could develop a system where
individuals, their unique circumstances would be reviewed by some sort of
appeal process so that you could be more flexible in the awarding of income
replacement than you might otherwise be.
It seems to me, we should look at that.
If we are going to do a no‑fault system, we should make sure that
to the extent possible, everyone's circumstances are reviewed, at least.
Now, we do not even have to change the
maximum income replacement level. I
understand from MPIC that that is an indexed number which, I think, is good as
well, but I think we want to, if we are going to be serious about this, make
sure that we protect the interests of as many people as we can in this process.
As I said, I think there may be a concern
on the part of some Manitobans, those whose income is beyond $55,000, that 10
percent of Manitobans who may see this as the penalty that they are going to
have to pay because of legislation. That
may be a legitimate perception, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have another concern, generally, about
our ability at some point to amend and to modify, and our willingness to
modify, this no‑fault program. We
have another no‑fault system in operation in the province. It is called the Workers Compensation system.
Since this government assumed responsibility for Workers Compensation, the
number of cases, the number of people who are coming to my office in
desperation because of the way they have been treated by that no‑fault
system has escalated dramatically.
I would say quite easily that I am
getting, currently, three or four times the number of compensation cases as I
did three years ago‑‑three or four times as many.
I will explain some of the problems that
we have with that no‑fault system.
One, for example, is the question of collateral benefits, and this is an
issue that is mentioned in this legislation, the collateral benefits
issue. Here is what happens in the
compensation system, and I raise this only because I am afraid that as we
implement this and over a period of time the same mentality will begin to work
in the corporation as currently works in the Compensation Board, that we no
longer remember that the principle of the bill was to provide protection.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the principle behind
the bill is to protect the interests of claimants, and that is what we are here
to do. Over time, however, the
corporation who manages this system, although it has to operate within the
legislation, has administrative and operational control over what actually gets
paid out and how and the process the claimants have to follow to get
compensation. Their concern begins to be
control of costs, not concern about the claimants but control of costs.
I will explain what happens in the compensation
system. At one time, for example,
workers in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, what the Workers
Compensation Board has done, as a result of Bill 59 that was passed by this
government only a short while ago, is make sure that no one who buys private
insurance privately with their own money receives any benefit from it. What the corporation does now‑‑absolutely
true‑‑is deduct any private disability payment that you receive
from whatever the Compensation Board pays you.
That goes even further. They
deduct virtually every form of income including, at one point, child income
support payments from the federal government, from the compensation payments
that are payable by the Workers Compensation Board. So that is why I raise this issue in terms of
this particular bill.
No‑fault insurance and the legislation
we are about to pass, if the government certainly has its way, is giving the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation tremendous power. I believe the act has the potential for
tremendous good, but if the corporation is allowed to manage this system over a
period of time, it will be more concerned with the controlling of costs than
the provision of benefits. Therein lies
the danger for all of us.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, again, this
leads me back to my point that I had made originally, that the overriding
concern of members on this side, and certainly myself, is not with the concept
but it is with the ability of individuals who are affected by this legislation
to get a unique and personal hearing about their circumstances. The need, therefore, for a completely
independent appeals process is paramount.
It is paramount. We have to have
someone who is not looking at the corporation's bottom line or the fees or the
premiums that are going to be charged in the next round of Autopac rate
increases or election planning, whatever.
We have to have that kind of independence.
An Honourable Member:
Why do you support it?
Mr. Storie:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) says why do I
support it? I have said since I began my
remarks that, in principle, this is worthy of support. It is working in other jurisdictions. In fact, my question could be to the member
for Osborne, why is he not supporting it?
The Liberal government in
An Honourable Member:
They also support Mulroney.
Mr. Storie:
Well, the member has got me there.
That does show that they are a stupid Liberal government, but other than
that, he has proved nothing. Actually,
what it does show is that they are a liberal government. They support the Conservatives and they
support the left wing. They do not know
what the heck they support. I thank the
member for Osborne for making my point.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to get back
to the fact that, in my experience, I have not heard nor received any
expression of concern from the Consumers' Association in
I mentioned a couple of particular
business groups, the farmers and small‑business people, who I am
concerned their livelihood and their quality of life may be at jeopardy as a
result of an accident, if we implement this particular legislation. I am also concerned about the treatment that
seniors, part‑time workers and students may receive under this
legislation.
I have had some explanation from Autopac
officials, again, about how students would be treated, how people who interrupt
their work years to take education‑‑(interjection) I am sorry. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister
responsible says the officials have been forthcoming and frank. No, it was actually John and Frank.
They have indeed been forthcoming. I am concerned, however, that what we are
getting from MPIC officials is MPIC line.
They have their own interests in this, and our job as legislators and
mine as an individual MLA is to make sure that the interests of the public are
protected in this, not just the interests of MPIC, and certainly not the
political interests of the government.
* (1520)
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, that leads me to
another group that may have been neglected in this legislation and again
reflects the need for an independent appeal process and that is
northerners. A $55,000 income replacement
program may be a fair number for someone who lives in the city of
So I am going to call on the government,
if we pass this legislation, to establish a territorial income replacement
scheme that recognizes that different areas of the province require different
income levels to maintain the status line.
I make the case here for all members to
consider that a $55,000 income we can say is a $55,000 income in Winnipeg, but
that same $55,000 goes to about $35,000 to $37,000 or $40,000 if you live in
northern Manitoba and maybe even less if you live in a more remote part of
Manitoba. I think we have to recognize
that there is an inequity in that number.
Maybe that would not matter if we understood that the Appeals Commission
could take those things into consideration, and I think we need to make sure
that there is a way to accommodate the uniqueness of our province and the
unique circumstances that every individual may face.
How much more time do I have, Madam Deputy
Speaker? I have put her to sleep. Seven minutes? I know that I would get leave to continue my
discourse if I requested it, but I did want to finish in my allotted time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the over‑arching
question that we have to ask ourselves as opposition members is the question of
whether this meets the test of fairness, whether this bill, if it is
implemented properly and consistently, will achieve the goal of protecting the
Manitobans who are injured in automobile accidents and protecting their income
and protecting their quality of life which we believe are the goals. Obviously, there are many, many questions in
a bill that is this far‑reaching that need to be addressed. We need to be certain about its fairness
before we implement it, and that is going to be one of the tests that members
opposite have to use in deciding whether we are going to support the
legislation.
I think I can say on a personal level that
I am inclined to support this legislation, but I have reservations, and those
reservations exist because of the lingering doubt that I have about the
government's commitment to fairness, the government's intentions when it comes
to this legislation, and our current ability within the legislation to have a
fair appeal process. I think those are
some of the reasons why members opposite are exercising some caution when
debating this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that there
are some additional support mechanisms that the government could implement to
assist people to make sure this legislation is workable. One of the innovations in the Workers
Compensation system was the introduction of worker advisors. Worker advisors were put in place because in
many instances the people who are injured in the workplace simply do not know
the process that needs to be followed to get adequate compensation, to get fair
compensation.
It is a system that we put in place when
we were government some eight years ago, and it is a system that served injured
workers quite well. That is
notwithstanding the decline in the interest of the Workers Compensation Board
to compensate injured workers. I think
we also could put in place here a system of claimant advocates, advocates for
people who are injured, that would indicate to people quite clearly that we are
interested in their welfare and not just the welfare of the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bottom line for
the people of
Bill 37 is a very extensive piece of
legislation. It is fraught with many
difficulties. It is without question
going to create inequities and it is going to create hardship for some people
as we work through the implementation process.
I would recommend that we slow this
process down. I do not think we have had
adequate time for debate. I have not had
an opportunity to meet with some of the groups who may want to discuss this
legislation. I know that the MPIC critic
has not had an opportunity to meet with all of the people who may have some
view on this legislation. Given the
important nature of the legislation, given the significant change that it is
going to create for Manitoba motorists, I think there is an argument that can be
made for slowing this process down, for having the standing committee hearings
intersessionally. We could slow this
down and make sure what we end up with is of consistent, high quality and is
actually going to meet the needs of
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think those
are the issues. I think that if the
government is listening, we on this side may in fact be able to support this
legislation, if the government is listening‑‑(interjection) Well, now they are listening. I mentioned we might support it and now they
are listening. I should have said that
first I guess.
I want to reiterate then for the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) that the principles are these. The concept of no‑fault insurance is a
good idea. It is workable. It has worked in the
* (1530)
There are legitimate concerns about the
government's willingness to implement an appeal process. There are concerns about the government's
ability to disassociate the appeal process from the corporation, which I
believe is absolutely necessary. There are many, many individual flaws in the
bill dealing with the coverage for students, for seniors, for farmers, for
small‑business people, for high‑income earners and for those with
exceptional talents.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a danger
long term that a no‑fault system governed by‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Storie:
Well, that is a pity. Could I
have leave to spend the last minute summing up?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Flin Flon have
leave to conclude his remarks? He has
requested two additional minutes. (agreed)
Mr. Storie:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was simply enumerating the number of groups that
I think need to be protected by this legislation. They can stand to be harmed because of their
unique circumstances, and I mentioned students, part‑time workers, and
small businesses and farmers. I also
mention, and I am quite serious about this, people with exceptional talents,
that there are many artists and artisans and musicians and artists of one form
or another who have exceptional talent.
Unfortunately, in our society, their talents and their skills are not
always recognized, nor are they always remunerated in a fashion which they
would like and we believe would be necessary.
So I think this system has to be flexible, and it will receive support
from this side of the House and from Manitobans if it is done fairly. That is
the issue.
Thank you for the additional time.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
37 and appreciate the opportunity to do so because it is one of the most
significant changes in
I think there is no doubt that we have
seen major premium increases, not only under previous governments but also
under this government, over the last number of years, although they have not
reached the same political intensity insofar as debate over them. They are still there, and they have been
rather substantial increases. With the
increase in the deductible that has taken place and the penalties for being
involved in accidents and so on, the benefits are being eroded. The coverage is being eroded. The services are being eroded in an attempt
to keep those premiums down, so I believe that this decision by the government
is one that was necessary.
One has to ask, of course, why it took
this long for them to come to the conclusion that no‑fault was a concept
that had to be adopted in this province.
They have been in government five years and have ruled it out
conclusively, even in recent years, said, no way we are going to do that. There is no way we will be caught putting in
place a no‑fault scheme or a total no‑fault scheme in this
province. Now, they are doing it
because, I believe, of the political issues surrounding the public insurance
issue in this province.
If we go back to the late '69 period or
early '70s when Ed Schreyer first brought in the idea of public insurance in
this province, everyone will realize that it was very much a political issue
and perhaps was one of the major considerations in Schreyer's re‑election
in 1973. The reason why it was an issue
is because it was one, the New Democrats at that time, the new government, the
first‑time New Democratic government in this province brought it in and
stuck to its guns on it, even though it was a very difficult issue, stuck to
the principles, and were very successful.
So it was a very positive development for
Manitobans, particularly for young motorists.
It was therefore a very political issue, and so this issue of public
insurance is by its very nature historically then a very political issue in
It was, after it was first founded, as I
mentioned, a positive contributor to the re‑election of Ed Schreyer. It was an election issue in 1981 when the New
Democrats could point to the potential dismantling of the Public Insurance
Corporation by Sterling Lyon who was in government the previous four years,
whom Manitobans did not trust with public insurance in this province, and
certainly we in opposition did not trust.
It was a major issue in 1986, not to the
extent that it was in 1988, but it was a major issue in 1986 because I recall
clearly that the opposition Conservatives were promising the electorate that
they were going to give them back, each driver, ten or fifteen bucks, this
reserve, this terrible reserve that the New Democrats had hoarded away in
MPIC. They were going to give this back
to the motorist because obviously New Democrats had overcharged these motorists
and they had this hideous reserve. What
an awful thing! Imagine, a reserve.
And would this government not like to see
that kind of reserve at MPIC in modern days, the one that was in place in 1986
by the New Democratic government of that time?
I know, going house to house it was a cheap trick by the Conservatives
in an effort to win an election, to buy a vote for ten to fifteen bucks a
head. The people in
In 1988, it was a political issue again,
but this time it was on the negative side for the New Democrats. In 1973, it was a positive; in 1988, it was
very much of a negative because of the rate increases and the way that the
political opposition, our political opponents, coupled with the media were able
to build this issue into a major one, to blow it all out of proportion in terms
of factors that contributed to these large increases in premiums, the factors that
had nothing to do with the large increases such as allegations of mismanagement
and those kinds of things. But in fact
the Conservatives were successful in that campaign, and it was one of the
largest contributors, in my mind, to the downfall of the New Democratic
government in 1988, as well as the timing of that election which was also a
major contributing factor.
So I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
this has been very much of a political issue through many elections, and I
believe that this government is being politically opportune in bringing forward
these measures at this time, even though they disagreed fundamentally with no‑fault
up to as recently as one year ago. They are doing it for the purposes of being
able to tell motorists in this province that they are going to see their rates
drop, and they hope to be able to do that in the short term, avoid the
negatives of this, the downsides of the horror stories that may result in the
short to medium term with the implementation of this new scheme. There are going to be people who are
upset. There are going to be people
complaining. There are going to be
losses, and there may be major negative publicity, articles, news media stories
during the period of time that this new system is being put in place in the
province, during the transitional time, the formative years of implementation
of no‑fault.
* (1540)
So the government hopes to capitalize on
the drop in premiums which they can take credit for. I think this is very much a political issue
on the part of the government. They saw
what happened in '88 on one side, and now they want to create another issue
that can assist them in being re‑elected in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, this rather political
issue, then, is one that we are having to deal with in this Legislature. As a result of the major increases that came
forward in 1988 and contributed to the previous government's downfall, as I
indicated, we commissioned a report by Judge Kopstein to look at the overall
operation of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to determine whether
there could be ways to improve efficiency or some changes in the way it
operated to save significant amounts of dollars to avoid having to increase
premiums to the extent that they have been increasing over the last five years
or six years.
One of the recommendations, of course, was
a no‑fault scheme similar to what was in place in
So we support the principle because we
believe that it is a fair principle. We
are not saying that this bill is as fair as it could be, Madam Deputy Speaker,
and I will speak to that as my colleagues have before me and my other
colleagues will undoubtedly in the next number of days, but the principle is
one that can be fair.
It also leads to another principle which
we have supported historically in our party, and that is one of a universal
sickness and accident insurance plan in
The one that we see now through the
changes in the MPIC proposed by Bill 37, the one that we see through this no‑fault
scheme that is being proposed goes some distance towards a universal accident
insurance program, because every Manitoban is covered if they are Manitoba
residents. They do not even have to own
a car or have a licence, they are covered.
They are covered if they are involved in a
traffic accident anywhere in North America, pretty well, United States and
I think that is a very positive feature of
this bill, and I think that that goes some distance towards providing what I
mentioned is a universal accident insurance scheme for Manitobans. It does not deal with sickness and accident
as universal schemes for other accidents.
It deals with motor vehicle accidents.
But it is a major step in that direction, and I think it is a very
positive step from that point of view.
Imagine being in
Now, we would like to see this broadened
in the future, and it gives a base to work from. That is one of the reasons why we can find
many of the aspects of this bill positive, and something that we can support.
We reject the tort system that has been in
place for a number of reasons. As I
mentioned, cost is a major factor, and we have to understand that we simply
cannot afford the way we have been doing things under the tort system, because
there is so much money tied up in courts in litigation that takes place in
order to prove one's point of the need for compensation, justification for pain
and suffering loss.
It costs a lot of money, the courts system
eats up a lot of that money, and a lot of it does not find its way to the
victims, in any case. So that is one of
the reasons why we support this no‑fault system, the principle of no‑fault,
and also reject the tort system.
Because, in fact, the system as we have had it at the present time does
cover pain and suffering to the extent that it can be shown by way of, either
negotiations directly with the MPIC or through the court system, and can be
very expensive before decisions are made and result in long and costly delays.
So that is one of the reasons why we
reject it at the present time. Another
reason why we also tend to reject the present system and support the principle
of no‑fault is because it is unfair‑‑the present system is
unfair. I want to quote from Judge
Kopstein. He said that he rejected the
present tort system because it operates upon a standard that does not recognize
normal human mistake. He noted that
accidents are inevitable, and at times, ordinarily careful drivers will be at
fault. Being found negligent or innocent
is often a matter of sheer luck. To
quote Judge Kopstein: Accident insurance
which discriminates between those entitled to adequate compensation and those
not so entitled on the basis of luck is not insurance. It is a game of chance with high stakes.
That is why he said the tort system was
not fair, because it is based on the principle that the driver at fault must be
treated differently than a person who is not at fault. No‑fault insurance rejects that notion
entirely and therefore gives us a principle on which we can support legislation
that leads to no‑fault insurance in this province.
Now, we have rejected, Madam Deputy
Speaker, some other alternatives. There
have been a number of reports that have been undertaken by MPIC. I mentioned the Kopstein report; there are a
number of other reports that have been done through MPIC. We have also had other analysis done by
various groups, the LERNS enhanced no‑fault deductible automobile
insurance proposals that were put forward.
The lawyers have put forward other alternatives. There has been thresholds suggested. In all cases, we feel that there are
sufficient drawbacks with those proposals that they are not positive and should
not be the first priority.
For example, with thresholds I would think
that thresholds tend to encourage thresholds to become the minimums, that there
would be every effort made by lawyers and anyone involved in such claims to try
to escalate them to meet the threshold so that they could ensure that there was
some payout, because below the threshold they get nothing. So it is an unfair system. It can be very unfair, and it still involves
very high court costs with all of the litigation disputes that go on. So thresholds are not the way to go.
* (1550)
On the other hand, deductibles would seem
to be somewhat more fair, but there are also drawbacks on that side of it as
well. Someone suggested that we could continue with the present tort system but
we could have in place a system of deductibles so that a person would not get
an award unless they were over a particular level of, say, $5,000. Then they would get only the difference
between the deductible and the amount of the award that was agreed to through
the court system or through negotiations.
So if there is a $5,000 deductible, a person with a $6,000 claim would
get $1,000, and they would lose $5,000 or five‑sixths of that award. The person getting $100,000 award would still
only lose $5,000 and would get 95 percent of his award, and the person with a
$1,000 claim would lose everything. So you can see then that it would apply in
different ways and could perhaps be viewed as being very unfair in its
application. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that deductibles are not
necessarily the way to go either.
So what we want above all else with this
legislation is to ensure that the system is fair, and we are not particularly
certain that this government would put in place the fairest system, because we
are not so sure that is their major motivation for bringing this legislation
in.
As my colleague has said before and I said
earlier, there is a very political aspect to this particular issue. We believe the government is driven more by
politics than by fairness, when introducing this legislation, and desire to
take credit for the lowering of premiums which they can then take across
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the
primary motivation, so our primary motivation has to be fairness. We have to review this legislation with a
view to ensuring that the government is being as fair as possible. If they are not going to be fair, we are
committed to making it fair, because we believe in the principle of no‑fault
insurance. We have to ensure that it is
fair one way or another‑‑one way being by getting this government
to put in place a very fair system, and another way, by ensuring that we as
government in the future make it fair, if this government refuses to do so at
this present time.
We must deal with the issues of fairness
as they deal with income loss and with appeal particularly. My colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) mentioned that there are inadequacies with the appeal system. We believe that it must be totally impartial. It must be free of any political
interference, and there must clearly be faith in that appeal system by the
people of
Therefore, we will be reviewing this issue
very carefully as we go through the clause by clause, and prior to that, the
public hearings on this particular debate, with a view to putting forward
suggestions that will make the appeal system more fair and hoping that the
government is also working on this issue, because they must put in place a fair
system. Therefore, they should be
motivated to ensure that that mechanism is researched, that they look at
various options, that they look to improve, not to simply sit with what they
have in this particular bill.
Of course, we must consider the levels of
compensation for income loss. We have to
remember that, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many people who will not be
eligible, as this bill is drafted for the $55,000‑a‑year income
loss, which is the maximum. Some that
are unemployed‑‑others have mentioned students and farmers and
small‑business people as to how they should be compensated for present
income loss and future income loss. How
do you project ahead fairly? How do you
ensure they are adequately compensated and protected from becoming destitute in
the future as a result of that particular accident, because they are no longer
able to earn the income that they could have earned otherwise, potential income
loss?
That is the least concrete area in this
particular bill, the fuzzy area, the one that needs to be articulated. So we have to look at, as my colleague
mentioned, the issue of talented people who have lost the opportunity to market
those particular talents as a result of an automobile accident. How should they be compensated? Madam Deputy Speaker, those issues are ones
that we will want to see addressed and clearly articulated.
I have to share the concerns that some of
my colleagues have raised in so far as the haste with which this government is
proceeding on this particular issue on this bill.
We noted that only a few short months ago
they were not committed to the concept, to this particular principle of no‑fault
insurance. They were not committed. The Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr.
Cummings) clearly stated that he would not bring in this bill. Now, all of a sudden, it must be done
immediately.
Again, it is working on a political
timetable rather than on ensuring that what is brought in is sound and
fair. So I think there is some
justification for the government to consider the criticism that is being made
as being aimed at the government with regard to the timing and the research,
the study, the consultation that must take place, the education, so that people
in Manitoba are aware of precisely what it is they are buying into if they are
going to support this.
It is not enough‑‑(interjection) Now the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says we do not want them buying a pig in a poke,
and he has got it right on there. We do
not want the people of
We want them to know what it is
beforehand. We want them to have the
opportunity to debate this, to study it, to dialogue with the government, and
perhaps those hearings in Room 254 or 255, for a few hours when people line up
to speak, is not the best way for an issue as complicated as this to be
discussed by the public and to be understood.
Perhaps there should have been an
announcement of the government's intention first, an outline of its basic
principles, a white paper on no‑fault insurance with public dialogue and
then legislation brought forward.
I know that the government will say, well,
if you advocate that, you are advocating higher rates in the short term, and
you are to blame if you cause delays in that way. I do not think that that is a realistic way
to respond or react to that kind of criticism or those kinds of
suggestions. I think the government
would be well advised to look carefully at that option, and that is an option.
That is to say, look, we want to ensure
that what we are putting in place for Manitobans is durable, will stand the
test of time, will stand the test of scrutiny, of fairness from all sectors,
from victims and from those who are families of victims, so there will be
fairness and justice ultimately done by way of this bill.
The government has that opportunity, yet,
to consider that option. While we
support the principles I have indicated, we have several reservations. That would be putting it mildly; we have many
reservations, and I could certainly enunciate a number of areas where we could
see amendments being required.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it
would be better for the government to in fact outline some additional strategy
with regard to this bill rather than being driven blindly by the political
agenda to have those rates come down in the near future so they can just simply
say, we can take credit for that; we brought your rates down‑‑but
to ensure that what they are putting in place is sound. So they should consider that other aspect of
what is being dealt with here, consider how well they are responding and answer
the critics who come forward and propose alternatives, the suggestions that
they are making, answer them and cause public debate on them before passing
this bill. I think that is the
responsibility of the government and one that they should feel is incumbent
upon them to deal with in an adequate way.
* (1600)
We are in the closing days of this Legislature. Perhaps it will take a number of weeks, maybe
even months, however we do know that at times very complicated pieces of
legislation, very detailed legislation, comes before this House with very short
notice as has happened this particular year.
This sitting, particularly, we have had a number of rather substantial
pieces of legislation come forward at a very late time, at a very late date in
the session, and it means that the extent of public knowledge of what is going
on is limited.
Even as members of this House and this
opposition become aware of the details of those bills, as we study them, the
members of the public are not always fully up to date as to what is being
proposed until some months later. We
have to ask the government why they want to not ensure that the public is
aware.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will support
the principle of no‑fault insurance as my colleague the member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) has indicated, the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie, and we will want to have opportunity for our colleagues to debate
aspects of this bill to demonstrate some of the positive aspects from Quebec
and other jurisdictions that have had this concept, this principle, in place
for a number of years and also to point to areas where it will need to be
improved.
We hope the government will be listening
to that debate and considering aspects of improvements that are put forward by
the opposition.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate
be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 27‑The
Environment Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 27
(The Environment Amendment Act (2); Loi no. 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings)
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on this particular bill, and I can
indicate for the purpose of members in this House that I will be the last
speaker from our party on this bill, and the matter will be moved, certainly by
our caucus, to committee following conclusion of my remarks this afternoon.
Notwithstanding that, my colleague the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will be very courtly, as we say in French,
by providing a very short wrap‑up statement prior to the matter being
moved by our party into committee. For
the benefit of the member my comments will be brief and to the point.
Until the recent drastic cutbacks to the
home care services, I as an MLA representating a suburban part of the city
received more calls on stubble burning when it occurred as a problem than any
other issue since the time I have been elected to this Chamber up until the
home care cuts which have dwarfed the number of calls I received on all of the
issues.
I was very moved and quite concerned by
those calls and by the representations made to me on behalf of constituents,
many of whom were forced to personally attend at a hospital because of the
conditions, many of whom, and these were the majority case, whose children were
either forced to not attend school or forced to attend at the emergency ward of
a hospital due to health difficulties which occurred as a result of the smoke
inhalation.
This particular issue is a classic issue
that probably is a paradigm of what we experience in the Legislature in terms
of varying issues and being very difficult issues and very hard issues to deal
with, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the
things that I admire by the constituents who phoned me at the time was their
realization of the very serious economic times facing the farming community and
their need to try to economize as best they can. I was very impressed with the fact that my
constituents were cognizant of that.
But standing beside that concern of course
are the very grave health concerns that are predominating in this debate as
well as the environmental considerations, Madam Deputy Speaker, something that
has evolved over the past several years to become of greater importance in our
society and in our quality of life.
There is no question that I felt compelled
to take a very strong stand on this issue based on the representations made to
me by my constituents who were suffering physically and otherwise from the ill
effects of the stubble‑burning residues and smoke that had accumulated in
our end of the city this past spring.
This bill, to my mind and my review,
without even considering the comments of the minister or without considering
the comments of other members in this House, basically suggests that the bill
itself is a compromise as I understand it.
I think the action taken by the government
in the sense of putting together a committee to make recommendations made
sense, to make representations to reflect the various viewpoints because it is
very difficult in issues of this kind to try to grapple with the issues.
Putting people together in a room, having
representations from all kinds, I think was an effective way of trying to come
to grips with the very real issues contained in this particular bill. Actually if I had more time I would actually
like to get into some of the historical aspects of it, but I will cease and
desist on that point.
My review of the bill indicates that there
is regulatory power that is being assigned to allow other individuals to have
the regulatory authority to enforce the bill, and I understand that the RCMP
and others can enforce the bill. I think
that is a positive step because clearly we need the requirements for
enforcement of these provisions.
I suspect, in fact I do not suspect, I
know, that probably 99.999 percent of people involved in the farming community
very strictly adhere to safety and environmental concerns in terms of this
stubble burning, but for whatever reason perhaps some individuals, combined
with the weather conditions, have caused some considerable difficulty and we
require regulation. There is no question
that we require regulation if only from a health standpoint. We certainly require some kind of
regulations.
* (1610)
This bill, by restricting stubble burning
to particular hours and by restricting it to regions by empowering the minister
to have the authority to designate these various areas, I think, is a
compromise attempt to try to deal with a very serious problem.
I did review the comments of various other
members in the House concerning this bill, and I will not spend a lot of time
reviewing. I am not an agricultural
specialist by any stretch of the imagination.
Clearly there has been a decreasing
tendency on the part of people involved in agriculture to engage in stubble
burning, and probably as time goes on that will decrease even greater. But some form of regulation was required
because of the effect that this process was having on the urban area of
So there was a health and environmental
problem. There was an economic and a
concern from the rural communities.
There is basically a compromised position in terms of the bill that
comes down that allows for more stringent controls as well as stipulating times
when stubble burning will be allowed and will not be allowed.
In an ideal world, one would desire far
more stringent regulations and tighter controls in order to definitively ensure
that we do not have this health problem occurring in our areas. But I am a
realist, and I recognize that this piece of legislation is a result of a
compromise process.
I did have an opportunity to read the
discussion paper prepared by the Crop Residue Burning Advisory Committee, and I
note that there were people on it such as Kim Lachuta of the Concerned Parents
of Children with Asthma, a representative of the Manitoba Lung Association, et
cetera, people whom I had spoken with to gain advice and guidance during the
period of time when stubble burning was a serious problem in the city.
If people of that interest and of that
concern are prepared to accept this kind of legislation, then I think it is
worthy of at least trying and seeing how it functions in the future.
I also have had an opportunity to review a
brief prepared by several nurses concerning the issue. From my quick review of the brief, I believe that
this legislation probably would fall within their acceptable guidelines of
trying to deal with the problem, with the proviso on the caveat that we must
continue to be very vigilant in our observation of how the regulations are
working and how the system is functioning to ensure that we do not see major
health problems occurring.
Because if we are involved in a period of
health reform in this province‑‑and that is certainly open to some
question‑‑then we certainly must be dealing with preventative
aspects. Clearly preventing health
problems at their source is something that is of crucial importance, not just
for the health and well‑being of Manitobans, which in itself is
justifiable, but there certainly are grave concerns in terms of the economic viability
of many aspects of the health care system, and certainly forcing individuals
into hospitals and taking away from their economic productivity is a factor for
consideration. Although on human grounds
alone, we should be justified in bringing about stringent regulations.
I have reflected on this some time,
because the other position that one could take would be to take a very strident
position and say, a complete ban and complete regulations. But I am moved by the fact that individuals
who are intimately involved in the debate came down on the side of this kind of
legislation.
Consequently, I am moved by that. I have also had discussions with many of the
individuals who contacted me during the time when it was a major problem, and
there seems to be satisfaction on their part for this kind of regulation. So on that basis, I can indicate that we will
be sending the matter to committee.
Certainly, we will dealing with it affirmatively at this point in regard
to this particular bill.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I
know the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) wants to put some concluding
comments in this regard, the only caveat‑‑I am not certain if the
minister made the regulations available.
I believe they were supposed to become effective August 1. The regulations are available. I have not had a chance to review them. I would like an opportunity to review them,
but certainly that does not change my comments with regard to this bill.
With that, I believe the member for
Burrows wants to make a few comments since the members of this House charitably
allowed the matter to remain standing in his name. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Is there leave to revert back to Bill 27 to permit the honourable member
for Burrows to put his remarks on the record, because leave was previously
granted to leave it standing in his name? (agreed)
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
I will be fairly brief on this Bill 27, The Environment Amendment Act
(2) which has been called the stubble‑burning bill. Stubble burning is actually something that I
know a little bit about because I have burned stubble. I worked on a farm near Cayuga,
It is interesting to note that stubble
burning is actually a misnomer. It
should really be straw burning. Stubble
is what is left after combining, and the straw is the residue that is left
after combining and threshing. So it is
really a matter of straw burning. I do
not know where the expression stubble burning came from, but we are stuck with this
expression of stubble burning. Maybe it is connected to the other slang
expression, stubble jumpers, I do not know.
This is a serious and legitimate concern
of farmers, because from time to time, due to soil conditions or the amount of
residue, it is difficult to get rid of the straw any other way, although there
are other methods that the straw is disposed of. For example, sometimes straw
can be baled and sold. Flax straw can be
baled and sold, and I believe there is a program where the baler goes around
the province and it is commercially bought and used for the purposes that flax
is used for.
When I was living in
They had straw there which I believe was
from flax, but I could be corrected, and they were using it to mulch
trees. So they were putting six or eight
inches of straw under pine trees at
Last November I was down in the fruit‑growing
area near Niagara‑on‑the‑Lake. I was sitting in a farm home talking to
friends and out in the field there were straw bales, and they were being bought
off the field at $4 a bale, which is a very high price, I guess due to poor
crops in southern
An Honourable Member:
Transportation cost.
Mr. Martindale:
Transportation cost, as the minister points out.
So farmers have some legitimate interests
and legitimate reasons why from time to time they feel it is necessary to burn
straw, but on the other hand, we also have city dwellers and rural people,
people in small towns and even on farms, who are affected by the smoke from
this farming practice. The public debate
and this bill, which is really a compromise, was quite interesting. More and more asthma patients and others were
ending up in the hospital, and I am sure the Premier's Office and the
minister's office and MLAs' offices were getting more and more phone
calls. The government said they were not
going to do anything and then a day later they said they were. They were going to act, I believe, under
emergency measures legislation. They were going to stop stubble burning.
So in a very short period of time they
changed their position, and I think that is a good thing. I commend them for changing their minds on
this because from time to time people criticize the government and occasionally
I will even defend them. You know, it is
not easy to defend this government, but sometimes I do it.
Just this morning I was talking to someone
on the phone who had made presentations at a committee last night. They were very disillusioned because, they
said, we come to this committee, there are 10 or 12 presenters, and the
government does not seem to listen to us.
We have suggestions for amendments and they do not do anything.
* (1620)
I said, well, you know, in defence of the
government, after all the public presenters had left, the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) did move amendments. They were carried, and so from time to time
the concerns of the public are listened to and amendments are the result.
I believe that this bill is the result of
public pressure and the government listening to people's concerns. Now, it does not happen very often, but
occasionally it does, and I would grant that this is one of those
examples. So we are pleased to see that
the minister has this bill, and it is the result of a compromise, and we are
going to send this to committee now with support.
Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was wanting to put a few words on the record on
this particular bill, primarily because it is one of those bills that I believe
give at least some sense of hope for those individuals that are out there that
want to see some form of change in the way government does things.
I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) has met with a constituent of mine by the name of Kim Lachuta, and I
had the opportunity. Kim had visited me
at a local restaurant to discuss some of the problems about stubble burning and
had asked in fact what is it that a person can do as an individual to be able
to see some sort of a change. I had
expressed at the time, you know, it is fairly easy just to go and criticize and
so forth and to demand what it is that you feel has to be done.
For example, at the beginning, there was a
lot of talk about banning stubble burning, period, just an outright ban. There are many different interest groups, no
doubt, that are out there that do take a very hard line. I suggested to Miss Lachuta that a good
responsible approach to stubble burning would in fact be to do things such as
getting petitions, making presentations, not only to government but to all sides,
to involve farmers, because the farmers‑‑and no one wants to deny
economic opportunities to our farmers, to sit down and to talk about it and try
to come up with some form of a compromise that in fact will allow for urban
residents to be able to breathe relatively clean air and allow for farmers that
are put into a situation in which they have to burn, at least provide them that
opportunity to be able to do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
You know, personally, and it is a bit
harder if‑‑many would say that I am an urbanite of sorts, but I am
very sympathetic to the farmer. I,
myself, would like to see all farmers cultivate, to find different usages of
the stubble, but I do appreciate the fact that some farmers are unable, for
whatever reasons. I think that there is
a responsible way of doing things, and I think that this bill at least moves in
that direction.
I was very pleased to see, in particular,
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and his response to this issue in
dealing with individuals, in particular Ms. Lachuta. I know I can speak on her behalf in terms of
she very much appreciated the fact of at least being listened to. I think that is what Manitobans want. They want to be listened to when there is a
problem that is out there.
Having said those very few words, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am quite prepared to see it go to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 27, The Environment Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la
Loi sur l'environnement). Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion.
Agreed? (agreed)
Bill 36‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), Bill 36 (The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Transcona.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to put my comments on the
record. I believe that I will be the
only speaker for our party speaking on this piece of legislation. After I have concluded my remarks, we would
be prepared to pass this bill through to committee.
This bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, known as
The Highway Traffic Amendment Act or the used vehicle inspection legislation,
in a way can be a misnomer. We like to
refer to this piece of legislation as the Bob Kozminski bill, basically for the
fact that it will give a great deal of power and, of course, a great deal of
income to the used vehicle inspection points in this province, something that I
am sure all members of the opposite side are aware of and the efforts that Mr.
Kozminski has made to ensure that this legislation has come before this Chamber
for debate, not only during this session but in the last session, when the
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) introduced his piece of legislation, of
course, which never concluded debate in this House for reasons to which we will
not get into at this time. I am sure, if
members opposite want, we could debate that at the same time.
With this bill, we have had the
opportunity to ask a few questions of the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger)
and the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr.
Cummings) about some of the impacts of this legislation and what it is going to
mean to members of the public and how much money members of the public are now
going to be charged for this inspection.
We, first off, I think, to set the record
straight, should make it clear that we support mandatory vehicle
inspection. That is clear. We believe that all vehicles in the province,
on a regular and ongoing basis, should they be registered in the
Where we differ from the government on
this is that we believe in the public vehicle inspection program versus what
the government believes in the private vehicle inspection program. The
government, in this case, wants to put money into the pockets of their friends,
many of them car dealers in this province who have supported this party over a
number of years, car dealerships and their owners that support the Conservative
Party. Looking at the campaign contribution
list, it is no wonder that this government has chosen to bring in this
legislation.
The bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, will put
$84 million into the pockets of used vehicle inspection points in this
province.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Reid:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know members opposite get great humour out of
this, but we do not find it as amusing when members of the Manitoba public who
have vehicles registered in this province are going to be gouged upwards of $40
to have their vehicles inspected by private inspection points, a service that
was provided by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and the Department of
Highways and Transportation until this government introduced legislation to
change that. That was a service that was
provided to members of the public. Now,
they are going to have to pay that $40 user fee.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we want to
get into the fine details of this legislation, that is something we are
prepared to do on third reading of this bill, but the intent of this second
reading of the bill is to talk about the principle of this legislation and that
is why I am standing to talk about the principle of this legislation.
I hope that members of the public that are
watching here today and that may be listening will be aware that this
government is now going to force them to pay this fee to the private vehicle
inspection point, something that had been performed by the MPIC inspection
points to this point. The Minister
responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) has said that there has been a slight
reduction‑‑a slight reduction was his term‑‑in the
number of vehicle inspections taking place in this province this year. Well, for the information of members of this
House the vehicle inspections that were done were approximately 25,000 vehicles
inspected a year on average over the course of the last number of years, and
this year those vehicle inspections are going to drop to 3,000 to 3,500.
Now, I would like any member of this
government to tell me how that drastic a reduction is going to protect the
safety and security of the travelling public and other members of the public in
this province. I do not see one member
on this side that is going to be able to answer that question, because that is
not going to happen. That is not
protecting the public in this province.
* (1630)
In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I
raised questions in this House during Question Period, I made reference to a
study, Project E‑400, that was done by the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation for the minister responsible‑‑and this minister should
have known; I take it he should have known of projects that were authorized by
his department‑‑indicating that the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation was providing four options for this government to look at.
In option 1, the mandatory universal
inspection of all vehicles in
The second option, Madam Deputy Speaker,
was the mandatory universal inspection program of all vehicles conducted
province‑wide by MPIC. The
advantages of that program was assurances that all vehicles registered in
The disadvantages: physically impossible to transport inspection
equipment to remote areas of the province; and that there was limited vehicle
population and limited exposure to salvage vehicles in some rural areas makes
the program delivery in those areas impractical and uneconomical. That was a given.
Under option three: the mandatory, universal inspection of all
vehicles by the private sector. The
advantages were the ability to inspect a greater number of vehicles annually,
and the frequency of inspections reduced from once every 10 years.
The disadvantages of that program under
the private system of mandatory inspection, Madam Deputy Speaker, was
substantial program revenues directed to the private sector, $84 million, as I
have already indicated. There would be a
high administrative cost factor attached to it.
There would be little control over the quality of inspections and
necessity of repairs.
Now that may be something that the Minister
of Highways (Mr. Driedger) is addressing through his inspection point. Time will tell because the minister has not
finished drafting the regulations to this point. We have asked him for that, and the minister
has indicated they are not ready. Also
that there would be negative public reaction to the private sector involvement.
Now, the fourth option that was available,
the fourth and final option that was available and was presented to the
minister responsible for MPIC, said that all vehicles in
That meant, Madam Deputy Speaker, that by
the proposal of option four, that this government had in their possession that
was given to them, that 98.9 percent of all vehicles in this province would
have received mandatory public vehicle inspection in this province if this
government chose to go with that option, something that they obviously did not
choose to go with.
The claim centres would have been in the
major centres of our province, and they would have been in fixed locations
versus the mobiles that we currently have in this province, the only one
mobile, I believe, that is remaining.
They would have established 10 inspection
lanes, in five
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, MPIC was fully
capable of expanding the program and had presented options to this government,
in fact was going to triple, over triple, nearly quadruple the number of
inspections that they were going to perform servicing the public vehicle
inspection program in this province.
This government chose not to move in that direction.
Now, the primary consideration with this
legislation was that it is to protect the safety of the public. That should be our primary concern with any
legislation that we bring in in this regard.
But in this respect, there are going to be some problems with that
because this program will not address the concern that there will be tens of
thousands of vehicles travelling the highways and roads of our province, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that will not receive this vehicle inspection program. That, I have confirmed in consultation with
members of the minister's own department, wherein they have indicated that
there are tens of thousands of vehicles that do not change hands, and that
these vehicles have not received that inspection program.
Since safety is the primary consideration,
and the number of vehicles that are involved in accidents should be of
consideration and concern to all members of the House, the government has never
come forward with any information to tell us the number of vehicles that are
involved in accidents in this province where vehicle defects can be directly attributable
to the cause of that accident.
The reason for that is, by the minister's
own statistics under the driver vehicle and traffic accident and statistics
reporting, the most recent copy is 1991, indicates that only 0.8 percent of all
vehicles involved in accidents have vehicle defects that are directly
attributable as a cause for those accidents.
So less than 1 percent of all accidents have defects that may be the
cause of that accident.
Now, if that is the case, I find it
interesting that the members opposite want to bring in this legislation. The only reason I can see that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is to put money into the pockets of their friends. That is the only thing that I can see, and
$84 million is justification enough, I suppose, for the members opposite to
move in that direction.
I have asked‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Reid:
It is okay. It is all right,
Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Reid:
I just had to take a drink of water here to quench my thirst. I am just recovering from the flu, so it is a
bit difficult to talk.
Under this program, and this, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I raise because when I talked about people, and I am talking about
vulnerable persons here, and in particular, people that do not have knowledge
of vehicles and how vehicles function.
They may be competent enough to receive a driver's licence and to
operate their vehicles, but as far as the mechanical abilities, that area may
be lacking. They had put trust in others
that they will not be, in a sense, ripped off.
There was a program‑‑some
members of this House may not have seen it‑‑in particular, where
women were involved. A woman took her
vehicle to a garage for an inspection to find out the condition of that
vehicle, and she received a list of defects for the vehicle. The same vehicle was taken to that garage by
a man a short time later, and there was a different set of defects, a much
reduced list of defects. So, Madam
Deputy Speaker, the only thing that one can conclude by that is that certain
segments of our society, in particular women or others who do not have a sense
or a mechanical ability dealing with vehicle condition, mechanical condition,
there is an opportunity here for members of our society to be gouged or to be
ripped off by this process.
* (1640)
Now I do not see anything in this
legislation that would prevent that from happening. (interjection) I have read this legislation thoroughly. I have consulted with members of the
minister's department. I have talked
with the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) on this, and he is trying to‑‑(interjection) I have not talked to Bob
Kozminski on this, although I have talked with several used car dealers in the
province who have drawn this to my concern, which brings to mind another point,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
I find it very disconcerting that members
of the public would be coming and lobbying myself and other members of our
caucus on legislation that had not been introduced to this Chamber, and they
seemed to know the specifics of this legislation before that bill was
introduced into this House. Now, one
could assume that the members of the public who are doing this lobbying were
lucky in their guess, or there is the opportunity that they might have had some
consultation with members of the government, I suppose, could be another
option, or maybe in fact they wrote the legislation.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I leave it for
the members opposite to inform us on what the case may be here. Maybe they will choose the lucky part. It seems that that would be the only
reasonable or possible explanation that they could give for members of the
public having advance or inside knowledge of what this legislation was going to
contain before members of this Chamber had the opportunity to review the
legislation. I do not think that that is
fair to members of this Chamber, because I think members of this Chamber should
have the first opportunity to review the legislation, debate it and consult
with members of the public on the impact of that legislation before that
legislation receives the blessing of the government here.
An Honourable Member:
I showed you the legislation last year, Daryl. You looked at the bill. You did not speak to it, but you looked at
it.
Mr. Reid:
Well, for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), we could get into
reasons why his legislation did not pass here. I am sure he would not want me
to delve too deeply into that aspect of it.
I do not think it would be fair to him or to other members of the
Chamber for me to dwell on that aspect.
It is a long and very tragic story on the events that unfolded why this
legislation did not proceed, because the member was unavailable to pursue that
avenue, but I will not dwell on that aspect of it.
An Honourable Member:
Was he out in Transcona?
An Honourable Member:
Only in Transcona.
Mr. Reid:
All I know is that I hope that the member has changed vehicles to make
it easier to see where he is going.
With this legislation, Madam Deputy
Speaker‑‑and the members opposite think that might have been a low
blow on my part, but I can assure them after what I heard in Question Period
today by their member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) and the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) himself, I feel very little discomfort in the comments that I just
made, with respect to those comments that I heard in this Chamber here today.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):
. . . Daryl, the next time your brother gets pissed out of his face, I
will not carry him out of the next auditorium.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Laurendeau:
The next time he gets pissed out of his face, I will not carry him
out. You carry him out.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Reid:
It is unfortunate the member opposite, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑I
did not dwell on any specifics of the case, but I am sure if the member for St.
Norbert wants me to relate the conditions, in fact, he should be honoured that
a certain rock band has taken to write a song and dedicate it to the member for
St. Norbert. I am sure he knows to which
I am referring.
In continuing my comments, Madam Deputy
Speaker, one of the aspects of this legislation that is not contained in this
legislation is with respect to the environmental component checks. With this legislation there is not a segment
in this bill that relates to the environmental component checks. That is something that has been lacking in
this province for a period of time, and it is not only something that has not
been dealt with by this government but by successive governments, in all
fairness to the government members. That
should have been included. I know, and I
hope that members opposite know, that there are vehicles that are travelling in
public that have in some cases their exhaust systems modified to the point
where they are‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Laurendeau:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for
Transcona is impugning some motives on me a little bit here or making fun of an
instance that happened to me last year.
That instance not only did a lot of damage to myself, but it damaged my
family. My daughter still today has
trouble sleeping, and if that member for Transcona wants to make fun of me, he
had better choose to be very careful with the words he chooses‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for St. Norbert does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Reid:
I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I said anything that offended the
member for St. Norbert. It was not my
intent to say that there was something that was untoward by the events that
took place. If there was anything that
created hardship‑‑
Mr. Laurendeau:
You were making fun of it.
Mr. Reid:
Give me an opportunity. I am
asking for an opportunity here. Just
calm down.
What I am saying here is that we are
talking about a case here that happened to the member opposite. I do not want to go into the details of
that. I told him that, but if he wants
to continue to raise the issue here, then it is giving me the opportunity
because he is raising the issue and throwing comments at me about it, that I
take it then that he wants to talk about it.
The members opposite heckle me on many other occasions when I speak on‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Transcona is concluding his debate on Bill 36,
and I would appreciate the co‑operation of all members in this House in
(a) letting him complete his debate, and (b) I would remind the honourable
member for Transcona that the debate is to be relevant to the principles of the
bill.
Mr. Reid:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologize to the member opposite if he took any
offence to any of the comments that I made with respect to other events.
To continue my remarks, Madam Deputy
Speaker, on this legislation, there is no component of this legislation that
deals with the environmental components that are on a vehicle. So if there are segments of the exhaust
system, for example, that have been removed, there is nothing in this
legislation that will say there have to be checks or inspections for that.
I have looked at the sheets that the
government uses for their inspections, Madam Deputy Speaker, and since the
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) has not come out with any regulations dealing
with components that will be inspected by the private shops, I can only refer
to the motor vehicle inspection reports that the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation uses. They do include a
section under the exhaust, but they do not indicate whether the full components
under the exhaust system will be covered or will be inspected by this
process. They only refer to the
muffler. There is nothing to deal with
the environmental components, including the catalytic converters. In this legislation, that is missing.
One other segment here that I have asked
the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation about is
the 23 jobs that are affected by this legislation. The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation employees
have performed these used‑vehicle inspections over a number of
years. In fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
believe this is the 25th year that these inspections have been ongoing.
In that case, these employees are quite
concerned about what is going to happen with their jobs. They have not been given any advance notice
about their jobs. In that sense, they
are quite worried about what the future holds for them. I have asked the Minister responsible for the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation whether or not he is going to inform
these employees, whether or not these employees are going to be laid off or
whether they are going to be redeployed.
The minister has not given us any indication on what is going to happen
to these employees.
* (1650)
I hope the minister responsible will take
some action in the very near future to let these employees know that they
hopefully will be redeployed within other government departments, in fact,
hopefully even in the vehicle inspection program under the Minister responsible
for Highways and Transportation, because it is my understanding that the
minister will have to have staff to go around and perform some of these
inspection‑point certifications and checks and that these staff may be
the ones that are qualified to do this.
That would give them the opportunity to continue their employment
opportunities with the government.
Another point, Madam Deputy Speaker, this
legislation does not provide for: since
there are no regulations that have been drafted, the taxicabs currently have to
have inspections done on a twice‑yearly basis. Under this system it says that the MPIC will
cease inspections of taxicabs in the fall of '93. That is this year. Since there are no regulations that have been
drafted, I am unclear as to whether or not these taxicabs will continue to have
their vehicles inspected as per the Taxicab Board instructions, whether they
will follow the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report from the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation or would there be some other regulations that will be
drafted and provided when this program continues, because this program has to
be a continuing and ongoing program of vehicle inspection to protect the public
that uses taxicabs in our city.
These taxicabs, of course, are going to
have to pay this fee in advance of other members of the public since this
program will not be in place and operational until, I believe, in 1995. That means that the minister should move with
all haste to ensure that the regulations are in place and available for use
when the vehicles have to be inspected by this program.
Under the Autopac inspections, they were
willing to inspect a significantly greater number of vehicles than what they
have been doing under the current program of 25,000 vehicles per year. This would
have given us the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have all vehicles in
the province inspected on an every‑two‑year basis. It would improve the safety for the
travelling public in this province, and it would have kept the cost to a
minimum.
In fact, looking at the charts that were
made available by this study by MPIC, it showed that for a very modest fee that
this program could be continued under private vehicle inspection programs. In fact, the chart here shows that for a $10
fee, if this government is intent on going ahead with the user fees, even
taking into consideration the factor for cost of living, this program run under
the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation could have generated enough revenue
to pay all of the operating costs and to pay the 10‑year amortization
cost of equipment purchased, Madam Deputy Speaker, and they would have made a
small profit on top of it.
So this program could have remained in the
public domain, operated continuation of the current public inspection program,
continuation of the same operations that were there but on an expanded basis to
provide a greater number of vehicle inspections in this province. Looking at the monies that are going to be
generated on the MPIC study at least, had that vehicle inspection program fee
been increased and they had gone as far to calculate it based on a $30 fee,
that the operating cost would have been the same, that the revenue generated
would have been considerably higher, in fact several million dollars, and that
the profit for MPIC at that time would have been in the range of $5 million a
year which could have gone towards offsetting the rates of the travelling
public for their automobile insurance in this province.
Now the government chose not to go in that
direction. The government likes to talk
about the cost of buying fixed equipment, and they say there were several
million dollars involved. Well, I say to
the members opposite that had they chosen to look at the fact that the photo
licensing program in this province generates upwards, in fact over $800,000 a
year in profits from that program, those funds could have been redirected to
the public vehicle inspection program in this province to offset the equipment
purchased in this province, could have been amortized over the same period of
time, the 10 years that is involved, because the figures that the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) uses were I believe in the $9‑million range
to purchase this equipment.
So over the same 10‑year period we
could have taken that $800,000 a year, paid down the equipment purchased to
continue the public vehicle inspection program in this province, and we would
have had the continuation of the program under the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation instead of putting the $84 million a year into the hands or into
the pockets of the used car dealers and owners of this province, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
So I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we
had options that were available to us.
The government had options that were available. They could have chosen to continue on this
program and chose not to do that. Now
Manitobans are going to have to pay the difference. They are going to have to pay that $40 fee
out of their pocket. There is the
opportunity for them to be taken advantage of by some, because there will
probably be very few, but there will be some unscrupulous dealers in the
province or vehicle inspection points in this province, and there is not a
mechanism in place that I see that will protect those people.
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is in essence
the concern that we have with this legislation.
We look forward to this bill proceeding through to committee to allow
members of the public the opportunity to come out and to raise their concerns
with this legislation.
I hope that the government will look at
reconsidering this piece of legislation and keeping the public vehicle
inspection program in this province in place and operational under Manitoba
Public Insurance Corporation for the benefit of all Manitobans, and it will at
the same time protect the employment for those individuals who are currently
filling those jobs in those inspection points in this province.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe
I am going to be the last speaker from our party on this piece of legislation
unless other members wish to speak. We
are prepared to pass this bill through to committee. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de
la route). Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Acting
Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would
ask that there would be leave to waive private members' hour.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour?
An Honourable Member:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Praznik:
Then I would ask you to please call Bill 24.
Bill 24‑The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 24
(The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les taxis et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this piece of legislation
as well.
When I started off my comments on Bill 36,
of course, we referred to that piece of legislation as the Bob Kozminski bill.
It is interesting to note that one of the first acts of Bill 24 will be to
remove the requirements for the U‑drive vehicles licensing in this
province. In fact, one of these same
beneficiaries of the elimination of that program is Mr. Kozminski himself. It may be just a coincidence, I suppose, but
looking at some of the U‑drive establishments in the city of
We have concerns with this bill, this
taxicab act, for what it will do to the industry, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
owners of the taxicab vehicles in our city of
Looking at the legislation, I can see why
the government did not consult with the people that are involved in the taxicab
industry, because it goes contrary to the wishes of those that are involved in
that industry. In essence, it will take
away opportunities from people involved in the taxicab industry and prevent
them from taking any challenges to other forms of appeal that would be
available to them.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, goes
contrary to the Conservative philosophy of deregulation, in the sense that this
goes further into the regulated environment than what I have seen this
government go‑‑
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Transcona will have 37
minutes remaining.
House Business
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to getting into Private Members' Business, I will recognize the
honourable government House leader.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would like to formally
announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit tomorrow night
at seven o'clock to consider Bills 40, 44, 36 and 27.
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank the honourable government House leader for that
information.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker:
The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 43‑Proclamation
of Anti-Sniff Legislation
Mr. Speaker:
Resolution of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes),
Resolution 43, the Proclamation of Anti‑Sniff Legislation. No, okay, Resolution 43 will drop to the
bottom of the list.
Res. 44‑Mineral
Incentive Exploration Program
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that
WHEREAS mining is a vital component of
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
introduced a program whereby junior exploration companies will be offered a
taxable grant equal to 25 percent of their investment upon completion of a
project; and
WHEREAS this exploration will help tap
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support exploration companies in both their
search for
Motion presented.
Mr. Reimer:
Mr. Speaker, mining in
In general, when we talk about mining in
But as with mining, one of the ironic
things about mining is that the end of a mine starts the day that it is opened,
in effect, because there is only a certain amount of minerals. There is a
certain amount of wealth that can be generated out of that particular, and
inevitably the mine is mined to its extinction as it is being utilized.
So what has to happen is the fact that
mining and the exploration of mining is an ongoing affair. It is not satisfactory just to have a mine
and then to have the company rest on its laurels, if you like, to mine the
wealth out of it, take the minerals out of it, and not look for expansion. Because to continue to supply the world's
demand for metals, precious metals, base metals, and all kinds of minerals, not
only in the metals, but in oil and gas and things like that, there has to be an
incentive to explore. There has to be an
incentive for companies to look for the wealth not because they are just there,
but by the fact that there is an availability of opportunities.
Here in
But because of exploration techniques, the
fact that there are advancements of mapping and geological surveys, the fact of
various aspects of mineral development, and the sophistication of analysis, we
can now look at various areas where we thought that there was no mineral
activity, or areas where there was very little interest. They have sparked new interest, new mining
and claiming, and new exploration.
That is very exciting for
So the fact that the mining exploration
and the huge amount of money that it can generate is a natural and a tremendous
stimulus here in
In a sense, what it is, is that it works
in a way of giving investors a flow‑through share opportunity. What we mean by a "flow‑through
share" system is where the investment is provided through the federal
Income Tax Act where the expenses are renounced by the exploration company and
passed on to the investor. So what the
investor does is he invests in a company and the company does the exploration
work and the investor is able to utilize the investments and the exploration
costs as a tax incentive through the federal government and, in fact,
sanctioned by the federal government. So
it presents a tremendous opportunity for people, even though they may not be
prospectors or mineral exploration people, but it gives them the opportunity to
finance and to be part of any type of exploration, especially here in
Here in
I would just like to point out some of the
areas that there has been some activity and this is to June 30, my latest
figures on the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program. Some of the areas that have taken advantage
of the opportunity is in Bissett. There are two projects that are underway. The expenditures were almost $650,000, and
the grant application is just over $160,000 on it. There the target for exploration is gold in
and around the Bissett area.
In Flin Flon‑‑I know the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is always interested in areas around his area‑‑there
have been eight new projects that have taken advantage of the Mineral
Exploration Incentive Program. Of these
eight, there is almost $3 million worth of exploration costs involved. When we talk about the amount of money that
is used, this is money that is used in claiming and staking and equipment and
expenses that are all associated with any type of mineral exploration
time. There is a tremendous amount of
time involved with that, with the people who are utilizing or renting or buying
or equipment, and the fact that they are looking for minerals.
In and around the Flin Flon area, it is
interesting that they are looking for copper some more. They are looking for diamonds. As mentioned earlier, there is diamond activity
in and around the Flin Flon area. There
is gold. There is spodumene, and there
is zinc. So there is quite a diverse
area of trying to find this type of activity.
* (1710)
Oil, on the world market right now, is
enjoying a bit of a lull in its pricing activity, but I guess it is like
anything, once there is a demand there is always the fact that oil and gas will
come about and there is always the availability of profit involved with
that. That is the reason that they
invest, Mr. Speaker, in these companies is because there is the availability of
profit. There is the availability to
make money because making money and paying taxes is one of the things that
generates wealth and generates taxes and it generates the programs that we come
to expect. A lot of the people that will
invest in a lot of these small companies for buying shares‑‑we have
to talk about who invests in these companies.
There was an interesting article in The
Globe and Mail just the other day that I could not help but notice, because
from time to time we hear the comment made from our colleagues across the
House, the opposition, about the big business and the big business not paying
taxes and the big business taking advantage of all the tax loopholes and all
the not paying their fair share of taxes.
We have to look at what the definition of a corporation is, because a
corporation is not an entity in itself, it is a conglomeration of
shareholders. The shareholders are the
ones that really own the company. That
is who owns a company is shareholders.
We have to look at who is buying shares in
the companies and what constitutes a company, because the company has to make
profit. When it makes profit, it pays
out that profit in the sense of dividends to shareholders. So we have to ask our question, well, if they
are shareholders that control these companies, who are the shareholders? Well, the shareholders can be anybody.
It is an interesting comment, as I
mentioned, that was in The Globe and Mail just recently. It is in regard to the amount of money that
is being invested by the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and also the Ontario
Municipal Employees Retirement Board. These are all people that are, like I
say, the teachers' association, the pension board and the
They want a return on their investment,
ROI, return on investment. This is what
motivates the investment of these large unions.
It is ironic, when we hear the criticism from across the way about large
corporations making too much money, but it is the investors in that company
that are dictating and coming forth to the board of directors and saying that
they want a return on their investment.
If these large investors, particularly,
like I mentioned, the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan and the Ontario Municipal
Employees Retirement Board are going to invest this type of money, and we are
talking billions of dollars. In fact,
the Ontario Teachers' Pension board has $27 billion in its fund, and in only 18
months out of that amount it has invested almost a half a billion dollars into
real estate, and the reason is because they want a return on their money. They want a return on their money.
They are not talking about just putting
their money in there because a lot of that money that is going in for union
dues now is not going in to fight strikes or anything like that, because there
are very few strikes. They realize, the
companies realize, and governments realize that strikes are not the mode, if
you want to call it. So the money is
being now invested and they are looking for a return on their investment. So they go to the various companies. They buy into the various companies through
shareholdings and they want a return, and if they do not get a return, they go
to that company and say we are going to pull our money out. So the company has to make money.
On the other hand, we have the NDP on the
other side saying that the companies are not allowed to make money because they
are taking advantage of the so‑called poor downtrodden taxpayer. It is a circle, Mr. Speaker, that is hard to
comprehend when you try to think of the mindset, if you want to call it, of the
opposition parties in trying to cater and pander to one end of the spectrum,
and at the other end of the spectrum not realizing what the market is out
there.
So in looking at the Mineral Exploration
Incentive Program, we talk about flow‑through share offerings. That is exactly what we are doing is we are
giving the people an opportunity to invest in the companies. They get a return on their monies invested
and it creates jobs, it creates the movement of monies. It creates the fact of a turnover and
possibly even the possibility of new mines, new gas wells or new oil wells, and
the fact that there will be more development.
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member's time has expired.
* * *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):
Mr. Speaker, just a little while ago during the heated debate, I took
some offence to what one of the honourable members from the opposition did to
me. I would like to apologize to the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and to the House for the actions that I took
and the words that I put on the record.
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank the honourable member for St. Norbert for that.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
I want to commend the member for St. Norbert for putting those remarks
on the record and for doing the statesmanperson thing. It certainly could have happened earlier in
the day.
An Honourable Member:
Manperson?
Mr. Storie:
Statesperson person. The
statesmanlike thing. It could have
happened earlier in the day and we could have perhaps avoided some rancour in
this House.
* * *
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a good one. I want to commend the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer) for bringing this resolution forward.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I want to add very quickly thereupon that
I am very disappointed with the government's response to an earlier resolution,
which talked about the importance of mining and the importance of the mining
community, which I introduced and spoke on earlier in this session.
Of course, the government's response was
not to acknowledge the real concern of mining communities with respect to their
future. The government's response was to
ignore the intent of the resolution and pat itself on the back. Now, I do not think the honourable member for
Niakwa would have responded in that way, and I do not believe that the member
for Niakwa spoke on the resolution. But
I want to point out the inconsistency of government members when it comes to
dealing with resolutions.
We have the member for Niakwa, an
honourable member indeed, who with good intentions talks about the Mineral
Exploration Incentive Program, and talks about the importance of mining at the
same time, Mr. Acting Speaker, as his government is belittling others who raise
issues that are important to mining communities. It is another example of politics.
I do not know whether the member for
Niakwa has ever been in a mine. I do not
know if he has ever spoken to a miner. (interjection) We were all minors 20 years ago. The fact of the matter is that this
government has a very, very mixed record when it comes to dealing with mining
communities and mining in the
* (1720)
Notwithstanding the good intentions of the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), this government's record when it comes to
mining, support for mining communities, miners, miners' families, is completely
indifferent. Since this government took
office in 1988, three mining communities have had their lifeblood shut
off. Three mining communities, the
community of Sherridon, the community of
Unfortunately in 1988, in 1989, in 1990
when I and others in northern
Mr. Acting Speaker, when I was asking in
1988 and 1989 for the government to deal with the modernization in Flin Flon,
to come to some agreement, to show some leadership, the government
refused. The end result was that when
the company was finally sold to Minorco, and Minorco could guarantee in essence
the government that it would not lose any money, the government responded.
Many in my communities, many in the
community of
I also was interested in listening to the
member's remarks on the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program. The fact of the matter is that when this
program was first introduced in the budget in 1991, I believe, I stood in my
place and spoke in favour of it, and if the member wants to read my remarks he
will find that I said that this was a good initiative. It had some merit.
I also said at the same time, and the
Minister of Energy and Mines knew at the time, that this Mineral Exploration
Program, despite having the facade of a good idea, did not really help the
mining communities that were currently struggling in the
So you have to ask yourself, if the two
mining companies that employ 97 percent of the miners in the province, that do
the vast majority of the mineral exploration in the province, cannot take
advantage of the program, how much credit does the government really
deserve? How much credit should we give
to this program? I would ask the member for Niakwa before he stands up and pats
his colleagues on the back to check the record.
How much money did flow from this program
to mining companies in 1992? Can the
member for Niakwa tell me how much money?
Mr. Acting Speaker, I can tell you it was‑‑
An Honourable Member:
$6.4 million.
Mr. Storie:
Totally incorrect, totally incorrect.
The fact of the matter is that that may be the value of the exploration.
That oes not indicate how much money has flowed from the province, because in
the budget this year, I believe $1 million was set aside. Last fiscal year, the
The fact of the matter is that the two
largest companies could not take advantage of it. The member is now pointing out that a number
of other companies will take advantage, have taken advantage of this
program. So it has some merit, but it is
no panacea. It did not deal with the
problems that were faced by
Mr. Acting Speaker, the government has
also introduced a new mine tax holiday, which I said at the time will be a
useful vehicle for creating new mines, and it may create some of the additional
exploration activity, may have created some of the additional exploration
activity that we are seeing, but having said that the government did those good
things, it also has failed to recognize the very difficult circumstances the
communities, in particular of Flin Flon and Snow Lake, face right now.
In November of last year, the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) attended a meeting in
The community of Flin Flon, after it began
to understand how devastating the layoffs in Flin Flon, as a result of the
modernization and the closure of the Namew Lake Mine, were going to be to our
community, the Community Improvement and Development Committee submitted a
proposal to the government which ultimately requested approximately $800,000 in
total to deal with the adjustment issues in Flin Flon. Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact of the matter
is, the government has yet to respond positively to that request.
The Snow Lake situation is unconscionable,
that the people in Snow Lake, the community members who have worked so
diligently to put together a training program for those people who are facing
layoffs, who were preparing to start out on new careers, who wanted upgrading
and educational opportunity, to have them wait this long is unconscionable.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have no doubt
and no qualms about supporting the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program, the
concept behind it. I do not think it
recognized the real reality of mining in the province at the time. It did not deal with the issues of the day,
but it may have some merit, and the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is certainly
to be commended for at least thinking about the importance of mining in the
province.
What I would like the member for Niakwa to
do is sit down with the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) and perhaps
explain that to the Minister of Energy and Mines, and not only talk about the
need for investment on the part of the exploration companies, but talk to the
government about the need for investment on the part of the government on
behalf of the people of Flin Flon and Snow Lake and Lynn Lake and Sherridon and
Thompson, Mr. Acting Speaker.
* (1730)
The government also has an obligation to
invest in those communities, because I remind again the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer) and the government that when the mining industry was doing well, which
it was when this government took office, the mining industry was having some of
its best years ever, the government was all too happy to accept the revenue
that was flowing from the exploitation of our resources in northern Manitoba.
This government benefited by approximately
$400 million in mining taxes from 1988 to 1993‑‑approximately $400
million. Mr. Acting Speaker, if you
asked how much of that money has been returned to northern Manitoba to support
mining exploration and mining activity and mining communities and miners and
their families, the answer is precious, precious little.
That is the legacy of this
government. So when we have the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) singling out the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program
for commendation, that is one small part of a very large puzzle. The unfortunate fact is that this government
has never taken the time to put those pieces together. That is the unfortunate part. They have never taken the small little pieces
that represent individuals and individual's families, that represent jobs, that
represent streets and communities in northern
What they want is the revenue from mining
taxes in the province and what they want to do is ignore the very real problems
that our communities, the people who from the sweat of their brow create those
dollars for the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the resolution, I
guess, would have had more meaning had the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)
attempted to provide a much broader overview of the mining industry in the
Well, the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)
says, you cannot do it all, and that is right.
That is why I asked him not to stop by introducing a pleasant sounding,
innocuous resolution. I asked him to sit
down with the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) and some of his
colleagues and explain to them how important mining is to the province, how
important mining is to the communities that are struggling right now,
including, and more particularly Flin Flon and Snow Lake, and to ask the
government to get serious about helping those communities adjust to their
reality and the difficulties that they face.
So there is a great deal of work to be
done, and I know that other members may want to speak on this. I would like to hear some of the other
government backbenchers speak on this resolution, and I want them to speak a
little more broadly than simply the Mineral Explorations Incentive
Program. I want them to talk about the
other issues the mining community faces, because I do not think that most
members on that side know what these communities are facing, know how difficult
it can be.
The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) says he knows what I did.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, when HBM&S needed the government in 1987 to
jointly invest, spend millions of dollars investing in Callinan Mines, I can
tell the member for Sturgeon Creek that we were there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):
Order, please. The honourable
member's time has expired.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Now, I see a resolution and I have to
question. You know, no one questions how
important mining is. If we go through
the resolution, and I am going to go through the resolution‑‑but I
must question why it is that the member chose this particular issue to
introduce into the Chamber, when in fact‑‑
Mr. Reimer:
My father was a miner.
Mr. Lamoureux:
The member for Niakwa says his father was a miner. Well, that is good. That provides some of the answer, but I am
somewhat curious in terms of how the resolutions come up. Do we have a caucus meeting of sorts that
occurs in the Tory caucus, and they say here are all the resolutions that we
have to introduce. Who is going to introduce
this resolution? Then someone will put
up their hand, I will take that one.
Now I understand why the member for Niakwa
would have put up his hand, because his father was a miner. That is how the member for Niakwa, no doubt,
got this particular resolution.
The reason why I say that, Mr. Acting
Speaker, is you go through the resolution, and what does it say? The first WHEREAS, the very first
"WHEREAS mining is a vital component of
Wonderful, Mr. Acting Speaker. I think that embodies basically what everyone
inside this Chamber believes. Who is
going to say mining is not a vital component?
I would be disappointed if in fact the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)
said that it was not a vital component.
Then we go on and‑‑
An Honourable Member:
So would I.
Mr. Lamoureux:
And so would the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would say
everyone would.
We go to the second WHEREAS: "WHEREAS the Government of Manitoba has
introduced a program whereby junior exploration companies will be offered a
taxable grant equal to 25 percent of their investment upon completion of a
project."
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think I have
heard that before. I believe it was in the Budget Debate‑‑
An Honourable Member:
I did not say it.
Mr. Lamoureux:
No, the member for Niakwa did not say it, but I believe the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) said it. In fact,
I cannot recollect‑‑I did not do as much research as maybe I should
have done, but I had thought that this particular program was being talked
about in the throne speech also.
I think that the government has had many
different opportunities to present this particular program, and I encourage
government to promote it. I encourage
them to promote it.
The next WHEREAS: "WHEREAS this exploration will help tap
Manitoba's mineral wealth, as well as generate jobs and foster increased
economic development by investing in Manitoba's natural resources."
Well, I would trust that every government,
especially a backbencher from a government, if they enter into a program, they
are going to say that it is going to have a positive impact.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Could you imagine what would happen to the
member for Niakwa, maybe he would be sitting back here, if the member for
Niakwa said something to the opposite, even though the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) says that it is wonderful and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) says that it is
wonderful, if the member for Niakwa said no, it is not that good of a program. I think the member for Niakwa would probably
feel more comfortable sitting over here.
But then, Mr. Speaker, we go to the final, the catch it all, and it
reads:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support exploration companies in both their
search for
Well, with all due respect to the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), Mr. Speaker, again, I would be absolutely disappointed
in the member if in fact he did not believe that. I like to think that, you know, we all want
to see further exploration and we want to see jobs being created. We want to see
Why does the member for Niakwa not maybe
go out on a limb a bit, maybe talk about the Manitoba Mineral Resources. Why does the member for Niakwa not say
something that could actually be debated in terms of an issue, a policy
issue? Maybe take a stand on something
that he believes that the government could be doing better, or maybe, better
yet, an idea, because I know the member for Niakwa, because he tells us that
his father was a miner, has many ideas about mining.
* (1740)
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the member for Niakwa
could have talked about how we could make mining that much better, maybe even
safer for our miners, and how we could be able to contribute in a much more
positive way. All the member for Niakwa
is doing is saying what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said and saying what the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has said.
Well, we have hours and hours and hours of
debate, whether it is in the throne speech, whether it is the budget, whether
it is the Estimates, in particular, in the department of mining.
I am wondering if the member for Niakwa
was in there because of his concern for mining and asked and made these very
strong statements. We have ample
opportunity to be able to address the different issues that are out there, and
the mining is a very important issue. If
in fact we saw some change, some deviation, an idea, something creative,
something that implies difference of any sort, well, then maybe we should be in
fact having a vote on this particular resolution but, Mr. Speaker, I do not see
anything.
I want to help the member for Niakwa. I am going to make a suggestion to the member
for Niakwa, Mr. Speaker, and that is that next time the caucus has this pool in
which everyone has to say which resolutions they have to take that the member
for Niakwa take a stronger stand. When
they hand him a resolution, change a few words.
Be bold. Go where no Conservative
backbencher MLA has gone before and take a stand, even if it means that it
might be somewhat different than what the government might be saying.
He does not have to do that, Mr.
Speaker. The member for Niakwa could in
fact go where no other Conservative cabinet minister has gone before, if I can
steal a quote, and come up with an idea that is an original and promote it in
the form of a resolution.
Mr. Speaker, when we have resolutions into
the Chamber, it provides every member, all members of the Chamber to come up
with ideas or things that they would like to see being done.
That would provide the member for Niakwa,
because after all he is one of 57 or 56 that participate in private members'
hour in terms of submission of resolutions, to be able to express what he
really thinks about a resolution, because Mr. Speaker, in private members'
hour, many of us value it, even though when it comes to bills‑‑if
there is a disappointment that I have inside this Chamber, it is the way in
which we deal with private members' hour.
I think that private members' hour could
be dealt with in a much more productive way.
I do not believe that it is or has been that productive, private
members' hour, and that is somewhat unfortunate because there is a considerable
amount of time over the years, over the five‑plus years that I have been
inside the Chamber, a considerable amount of time that we spent during private
members' hour. I would have liked,
personally, to have seen, if it is a resolution, a resolution that calls upon something
or reflects on an idea that a private member might have.
In many cases, opposition parties will use
private members' hour to be able to express a concern that they have maybe with
an issue or a policy, possibly even that the government takes it there in total
disagreement or that they have something that they want to be able to
generate. That, Mr. Speaker, is how I
would like to see it.
Yesterday the member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) I think had a very good resolution, the antisniff resolution, at
which point in time when the member stood up and he was reading it, all of the
Conservative members vacated the Chamber with the exception of the member for
St. Norbert. They all vacated it on an
issue which, I believe, could have been debated and should have been debated.
I might not necessarily be the biggest fan
of the member for Point Douglas. He is
definitely not on the same political philosophy as I am, but I believe he did
put in a considerable amount of effort.
Mr. Speaker, I think that members, whether it is dealing with mining or
other issues, that when they bring in resolutions, that in fact everyone should
at least have the opportunity to be able to debate their resolutions.
Unfortunately, what we have seen, in particular over the last couple of years,
is resolutions, such as the mining resolution, that are introduced that are
more back‑patting than anything else.
In fact, after Day One, Mr. Speaker, and
you know it, after Day One the chances of you getting a resolution onto the
Order Paper, especially for debate, are not there. They are just not there, because what happens
is on Day One we have 50 or 60 resolutions that have been submitted. Whether an individual might have put their priority
on a bill, a private member's bill, or whatever, but anyway whatever is
decided, I do not oppose this resolution.
I look at it and I see the importance.
I want to see this program work.
I hope the program is successful.
I would have liked to have talked maybe a
bit more about the Manitoba Mineral Resources corporation in terms of maybe its
mandate. When we had it in committee the
other day, Mr. Speaker, we talked in terms of the importance, or at least I
tried to talk about the importance of this particular organization concentrating
more on joint ventures as opposed to sole ventures, because then you get more
private dollars involved in the developing and exploring.
I think that that would have been a nice
little twist that maybe the member for Niakwa could have put in on this,
because it would have been consistent with this particular resolution. Then the member for Niakwa could have talked
about the benefits of that sort of a thing.
I do not believe he would have been too far out of sync, if at all, with
the government, because the minister in the committee had acknowledged that in
fact, yes, it is somewhat apparent, and we will try to move more in that sort
of a direction.
Well, a resolution that would pass of that
nature, especially if you get all three parties' support on it, does obligate
other political parties if, by chance, they do form government, to abide by a
resolution of that nature. It does not
bind them, obviously, but at least it gives some direction in terms of an issue
which could benefit the mining industry even all that much more.
Mr. Speaker, those are the types of
things, those are the types of debates that I would like to enter into as
opposed to the changing of resolutions, even in many cases the intent. That is what I would like to see. I am sure with that, I speak on behalf of the
Liberal Party or our caucus.
We want to see resolutions debated and
voted upon. Even if we feel that the
resolution is not necessarily worth the paper that it is typed on, it still
deserves the opportunity to be able to come to a vote, and if it is a vote on
division, then albeit. But then it does not drop at the bottom of the Order
Paper to never again surface. Then the
clock, or the three hours, kills it.
The same thing applies to private members'
bills. Having said those very few words,
Mr. Speaker, again, we in the Liberal Party obviously support growth in the
mining industry and hope to see that the mining industry will continue to be
there for all Manitobans. We have to be
concerned about a number of things. The phrase that the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings) likes to use and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), sustainable
development, very very important. That
is what we want to see happen. Thank you
very much.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):
Mr. Speaker, (interjection)
from the sort of northwestern part of the city of Winnipeg, not nearly as north
as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), but I must admit when I read this
resolution and I saw it being presented by the honourable member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer), I could not quite connect the member with the content of the
resolution.
I know that there are some times where a
member's name is put attached to the resolution without an obvious connection,
but I understand that the member did grow up in a community, perhaps not in
Manitoba, but a community where mining was a major part of the life of the
community.
* (1750)
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting how we
in the House sit across from each other or next to each other for upwards of
six months a year and in sometimes very intimate kinds of surroundings. We get very involved in issues and
discussions and debate and yet we know very little about each other's
background and history and where we come from, which I find sometimes is
unfortunate. I always appreciate gaining
the little nuggets of information, particularly about a constituent of mine. (interjection) No, in answer to a
question from the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), they are not
mineral nuggets.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few
moments discussing the serious issue that is raised by the resolution brought
forward by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) and begin by saying it is
unusual, but most of this resolution contains issues and ideas that we agree
with on this side of the House. I say
that is unusual because in most cases the resolutions that come from the
government side are resolutions that come from a perspective that is not one
that we on this side of the House share.
In this case, most of this resolution has ideas that we agree with.
Mining is a vital component of
So we know very well the issues and the
concerns and the day‑to‑day pressures that the mining communities
in
Mr. Speaker, we also agree that
exploration in the mining industry can help tap
So, Mr. Speaker, while we can agree on
some of the items in this resolution, and including the RESOLVED, which is
really unusual, that the Legislature support exploration companies in both
their search for Manitoba's natural resources and their economic investments in
Manitoba, we agree it is essential that we have, that we work together with
exploration companies or we will not be able to find and use to the best of our
ability the natural resources that we do still have in abundance in the
province of Manitoba.
However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree with
the actions that are implicit and implied by this resolution of the government.
Perhaps I should change the word "action" to "inaction,"
and I would like to share‑‑(interjection)
and the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) was, I am sure, hoping that this would
be one of those few occasions when we could completely agree on something. I
think I have been very, very generous, particularly today, in giving the member
for Niakwa the amount of support that I have.
Mr. Speaker, I would not be fulfilling my
functions as an MLA, where I attempt to do the best I can for not only the
people in Manitoba, but most particularly the people in my constituency,
working for them, which includes in some form the member for Niakwa, if I did not
speak in the House on issues that were of importance to the people of Manitoba
and to the members of this Legislature.
Private members' resolutions are those elements.
Mr. Speaker, the area that I would like to
discuss in this resolution is the statement that exploration generates jobs and
fosters increased economic development.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) in his discussions earlier talked
about the problems faced by many of the mining communities in northern
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would not pretend to
be an expert in the genesis of those problems, nor do I think it is appropriate
to get into a political debate on what government initiatives or lack of
initiatives caused or exacerbated those problems. But I do not believe there is anyone in the
House today who does not understand and does not realize that communities in
northern
Mr. Acting Speaker, we spoke earlier of
the fact that the mining communities and the mining activities and the mining
corporations generated almost a half a billion dollars in taxes for all of the
people of the
Mr. Acting Speaker, what this government
has not been able to do is to return to those communities even a minimal
portion of the resources that they generate to all of the people of
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, the people of
Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that we are in
tough economic times, as the government keeps telling us. We know there are tough decisions that have
to be made, but I cannot explain, and I wish the government would explain to me
why it is appropriate or a good business decision not to provide training and
upgrading for people so that they can live productive lives, pay taxes, help
provide the economic infrastructure that this province needs.
While the government does not choose to
pay a quarter of a million dollars‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned till 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).