LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
July 19, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows:
the member for
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call the bills in this order, please:
26, 45, 54 and 51, followed by 42.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 26‑The
Expropriation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Burrows, who has 30 minutes remaining.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the last time I spoke on this
bill I was talking about fairness, and the fact that we object to this bill
because we believe there is a major change in the area of fairness. It is a very important bill because it has to
do with expropriation, which is a very powerful right or prerogative that most
states have for themselves, normally only used under exceptional circumstances
or when the state believes that what they are doing is in the best interests of
the whole society.
We believe that the change that is being
made does not protect the rights of individuals sufficiently and, therefore, it
is a negative change.
This bill, although presented by the
Department of Justice, will be administered by the Department of Government
Services. Currently, compensation for land expropriation is determined by the
Land Value Appraisal Commission. The
expropriating authority is bound by LVAC ruling, although owners may have
compensation determined by the Court of Queen's Bench.
When the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), I
guess it was, spoke, he gave the government's reasons for making these changes,
one of which the government claims is the perceived duplication of function of
the Land Value Appraisal Commission and the Court of Queen's Bench and also in
order to reduce the length of time to resolve claims and reduced accrual of
interest on compensation awards.
We hope that the Minister of Government
Services (Mr. Ducharme) enjoys being responsible for this piece of legislation. I wonder if the minister appoints the people
on the appraisal commission. Are those
government appointments to the appraisal commission? (interjection) Well, then
the minister has a new responsibility.
An Honourable
Member: No, we appoint them now.
Mr. Martindale: No? Well,
the government appoints them now but I am sure that they will be consulting the
Minister of Government Services for his suggestions as to who to appoint.
An Honourable Member: No. We
do now. Government Services appoints
them now.
Mr. Martindale: Oh, Government Services appoints them
now. Oh, pardon me.
The change that we have objected to is that
recourse to the Court of Queen's Bench would be allowed only after going to the
Land Value Appraisal Commission.
The other major change to the legislation is
in the interest paid on the compensation awards. Now the rates of interest will be based on the
rates set under The Court of Queen's Bench Act, or prejudgment interest,
namely, semiannually instead of annually.
So, in conclusion, because this legislation
removes‑‑
An Honourable Member: You have not studied it.
Mr. Martindale: Oh, I think this is a pretty short bill. I must have read it in its entirety. No, I doubt if I did, because it is not
necessary. Second reading is in
principle, and so you do not need to read clause by clause, because clause by
clause is third reading, right? So you
just need a little advice before you speak so you know what you are talking
about.
An Honourable Member: Just think of north of
Mr. Martindale: Well, north of
In fact, The Forks was another one. At the time, I happened to be on the Manitoba
Municipal Board when the property was being expropriated. I remember, somebody came to the Municipal
Board, appealing the decision around the expropriation, and I believe it ended
up in the courts.
It was very interesting listening to the
arguments by the property owner, represented by their lawyer, as to whether it
was fair or not. I do not remember how
we ruled. We must have ruled against
them, because they went to court.
An Honourable Member: What was the incentive of the lawyers to get
the job done?
Mr. Martindale: Well, the lawyers always want to get
paid. That is their incentive.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
As I recall it, there was only one holdout,
and they had a very small piece of property, a minuscule piece of property compared
to the amount of land that was being expropriated in The Forks. It did look at the time like they were maybe
trying to be the last holdout hoping that they might get greater compensation, but
I do not think that has a great deal of bearing on why the government proceeded
with this bill.
Well, I would like to ask the minister why,
but I think I will have to wait until he speaks on the bill or until committee.
(interjection) Well, I know the government is only going to put up one speaker
here, and if they want to they can put up more speakers, but we still believe
that individuals have rights and that the government should not take them away,
because in expropriation the government has a very powerful tool.
An Honourable Member: Do you understand what you are doing?
Mr. Martindale: I do understand that there is a change in
this bill.
An Honourable Member: By law they can appeal.
Mr. Martindale: Well, they cannot appeal‑‑
An Honourable Member: Not the amount.
Mr. Martindale: Not the amount. Why do people appeal? I mean, people appeal because they disagree
with the amount.
I am sure that our critic can explain this
in terms that are much more articulate than I can, but I have watched previous examples,
and I have listed some of those previous examples in debate, and it is always
the amount of money that people contest.
That is the reason that people go to court. (interjection) Well, of
course, government does not want to do this, because it is government money
that is being paid out in expropriation, so I understand that the government
has a self‑interest not to allow people to appeal the amount, because if
they are successful on appeal, then the government is going to have to pay out
more money. Do people win most of the
time on appeal? I do not think that is
the most important issue.
The most important issue is the rights and
whether or not people have the right to appeal.
So, because this legislation removes the right of a landowner to appeal
the amount of compensation through the courts, we will not be supporting this legislation. There are many, many government commissions
and boards that the government appoints their supporters to. All parties do that when they are in
government. In this case it is quite
significant that it is Order‑in‑Council appointments, because now
instead of the courts deciding the amount of compensation, it is this
commission that is deciding the amount of compensation.
I think we can suggest that it is even more
important than usual, it is more significant than usual after this bill is passed,
because surely it will pass‑‑the government has a majority‑‑it
is even more important than usual who the government or this minister names,
suggests to his government will be on the commission. They are going to have a lot more power than
they did in the past, this commission of politically appointed individuals will
decide on the amount of compensation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those few
remarks, I will conclude. Thank you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker, as the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has stated, we are going to oppose this bill in second
reading. We will oppose it in committee,
and we will oppose it in third reading.
*
(2010)
The minister, when he brought this piece of
legislation forward, said that there were two basic changes that were going to
be looked at in this piece of legislation.
The first change was the fact that there currently is duplication in the
adjudication process for determining compensation payable on expropriation. The second general principle of this
amendment is to reduce the length of time to resolve claims and the corresponding
accrual of interest on compensation awards.
I would like to open my remarks by talking
about the second of those principles first, which is the reduction of the
length of time to resolve claims and the accrual of interest on compensation
awards.
My understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, and
again our lack of opposition to this second principle is based on what we have received
from the minister. By changing the time
period of determination of accrual of interest it means that there will most
likely be a reduction in the interest payable, and it will be more flexible and
more reflective of the accuracy, the current financial considerations. We have spoken in other pieces of legislation
saying this is a legitimate thing to have happen.
My understanding is that it will be every
six months instead of once a year, that kind of thing, or I may be mixing this
bill up with another one, but whatever.
The principle is that it is more reflective of current realities and we
are not in opposition to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
However, in the first principle of the bill
which is the "duplication" principle, is where we bring forward our unalterable
opposition.
This government, Madam Deputy Speaker, has a
marvelous propensity for changing the definitions of words. I need only to remind members of the word and
the definition that we have all grown up with of the word
"contribution" and what the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has done
to the definition of the word contribution.
It no longer, at least not in the lexicon of the Minister of Health,
means something that is voluntarily given. No.
First with the Northern Transportation Program there was going to be a
contribution of $50 each time a northerner had to come out to access medical
services outside of his or her local region.
There are many examples, but the latest one is the contribution that
people who have medical situations requiring things like ostomy supplies,
crutches, walkers, things like that, they are also going to be asked to
contribute 50 percent of those costs.
This again is an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, of this wonderful talent
this government has in reworking and redefining certain words.
In the context of Bill 26 this is very clear
as well. The Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) talks about the duplication in the current adjudication process for
determining compensation payable on expropriation. The current situation, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is that an owner of property has his or her property expropriated by the state
and an amount of money that the owner is given in return for having his or her
property expropriated is determined firstly by the Land Value Appraisal
Commission. I will get into the Land
Value Appraisal Commission shortly.
Currently if the owner objects to the amount
of money being offered for the expropriation, the landowner has the right to appeal
the Land Value Appraisal Commission amounts directly to the Court of Queen's
Bench, and this is because the concept of expropriation is such an enormous
one. The power that expropriation gives
to the state is one of the most powerful tools that the state has. The person who owns the land has no recourse
to the fact that the state is going to take his or her land. The only recourse the landowner has is in the
amount of the money paid to him or her in recompense for losing the land, which
may or may not have been in the landowner's possession or family for
generations, decades, generations, whoever knows.
So while we agree in principle with the
concept of expropriation, because it allows the state to take over land for the
good of the entire citizenry, one would hope, we also have always said that you
must balance that power with the responsibility and the rights of the
landowner. The landowner has no rights
as to whether his or her land will be expropriated, but up until Bill 26 the
landowner has had the right to appeal directly to the Court of Queen's Bench as
to the amount that the Land Value Appraisal Commission is giving the landowner
for the value that they are placing on that land that they are expropriating.
Now, this is the process, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that the government is saying is a duplication. They are saying this is a duplication because
the landowner has the right to go to court, but that only the landowner has the
right to go to court. The expropriating
authority, i.e., the state, does not have the right under the current
legislation to appeal the ruling of the Land Value Appraisal Commission. That is, again, a balance of power to ensure
that the state, with its overweening power in the expropriation aspect, does
not also have the ability to railroad through an appeal on the amount of
money. So currently there is a rough
justice here in expropriations. Now,
there are some situations where it takes a great deal of time and energy to get
a final determination, but there is an avenue there that is available almost
immediately to a landowner if he or she is unhappy with the amount that has
been assessed by the Land Value Appraisal Commission.
The government states that this process that
is currently underway is a duplication because they state that allowing the expropriated
owners to have their case adjudicated in two forums, two fora, one being the
Land Value Appraisal Commission and the second being the Court of Queen's
Bench, results in a duplication of legal appraisal and consulting fees.
(interjection) Well, yes, it may very well result in a duplication, but that is
the way the process works in every appeal process. There is, by definition, a duplication of
some of these services.
My reading of this legislation and the
second reason why the government has stated there is a duplication of process
is the real reason the government is bringing this piece of legislation in and
that is the resulting delay in settlement by having to go in some cases through
the Land Value Appraisal Commission and then to the Court of Queen's Bench
increases the amount of compensation being paid by the expropriation authority.
We discussed this afternoon in the context
of Bill 41 and we have discussed in other pieces of legislation, several of
which have been brought forward by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), the
fact that this government is making reactionary regressive changes to
legislation that impact on people unfairly because they want to get more money
or they want to spend less money. That
gets right back again to the problem that we have faced in the past, which is
the underlying problem of this government, they have no plan.
They have no economic plan. They have no revenue generating plan. They have no job creation strategy. They do not have any kind of plan. Their only actions, and I do not even think
you can call it an overall plan, that the government undertakes, whether it is
in health care, social services, education, justice or even something as
seemingly simple as expropriation, their only actions are to cut services, to
cut the rights of individuals, to cut the rights of groups, to narrow the focus
of legislation, narrowing always the rights and options for individuals and
groups of people.
We have spoken in this House for three years
that I know of, and two years before my election, since this government was elected
in April of 1988, about this government's inability to think strategically,
their inability to come up with a coherent plan.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Their insensitivity.
*
(2020)
Ms. Barrett: Their insensitivity, as the member for Dauphin states
so accurately, to the needs of the majority of the people of the
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Bill 26, like
in virtually every other piece of legislation this government has brought down in
its shameful five‑year history, the effect of their legislation is not to
be fair, it is not to be flexible, it is not to ask every Manitoban to share
the pain as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) stated in his budget
address. It is instead to put the onus
on those who are least able to fight back.
Now, one might say, well excuse me, any
landowner who has land to be expropriated usually has financial resources at
his or her beck and call, if no other resources than the amount of money that
the Land Value Appraisal Commission is prepared to deliver to them as a result
of the expropriation.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it may be the
case that in the majority of situations the landowner does have resources, so
they are not in exactly the same financial situation under Bill 26 as, for
example, students on social allowance who have been cut off from their program
entirely, or the home care people who do not have a clue what is going to
happen to them tomorrow or the next day or the next month, or the foster
families and children who are increasingly under pressure because of this
government's cutbacks, or the school teachers who do not know what is going to happen
in their school division, the school trustees, or the women and children who
are faced with enormous delays in the maintenance enforcement program in the
Department of Justice because they do not have the adequate resources.
Madam Deputy Speaker, while these people
that I just mentioned, these groups of people may have less financial resources
than the landowners who are being expropriated under Bill 26, they really are,
in principle, in the same category because they are powerless. They have much less power, much less rights
under Bill 26 than they did have prior to the introduction of Bill 26. They are no longer able to go directly to the
Court of Queen's Bench to appeal. Their
first recourse for appeal and their only broadly based recourse for appeal and,
according to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), their only avenue
of appeal to the amount of money that has been given to them for expropriation
is to the same group of people who determined the amount they were to be given
in the first place.
Now, I may not have the greatest number of
years in this Legislature, and I may not know as much as other members about parliamentary
process or natural justice, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I do know that, by
definition, an appeal should not go to the same group of people who delivered
the determination that one is appealing.
By definition that does not make any sense, so this goes against natural
justice, it goes against fairness, it goes against equity, it goes against all
of the principles that we talk about in this Legislature.
It again talks about duplication. It is not duplication at all. It is a regressive piece of legislation that
takes away the rights of individuals that they have had for decades in this province.
I would like to speak very briefly, Madam
Deputy Speaker, about the Land Value Appraisal Commission, which is the group which
now has a lot more authority than it did before Bill 26. The Land Value
Appraisal Commission is made up of six members appointed by the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
whose terms are either for one year or at pleasure, and I am not quite sure
which it is.
At any rate, every single member of the Land
Value Appraisal Commission is a government appointee, has been a government appointee,
has been a government‑appointed body for years.
I would like to make a slight detour and
explain yet again to the government, in particular to the Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that we are not on this side of the House
stating that we think that there should not be government‑appointed
boards and commissions, nor are we casting any aspersions on the current
personnel of the Land Value Appraisal Commission. Not for one moment am I doing that, and I hope
the Minister of Government Services listens to that because it is very
important. The point I am making is not
that. I do not want the minister to
allow it to degenerate into a discussion about the current people on the Land
Value Appraisal Commission.
The Land Value Appraisal Commission actually
is being given a very difficult job to do in Bill 26, something that no
appointed board should have to do, and that is to not only rule on original expropriation
amounts but also then to act as the first appeal process to those amounts. That is very unfair, not only to the people
who are being expropriated, but also to the members of the Land Value Appraisal
Commission.
The Land Value Appraisal Commission should
have the responsibility that it currently has, which is to make the original
first determination as to the amount of money to be given to a landowner in
expropriation, a responsibility that they have undertaken and have done with
dispatch and fairness throughout their history.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when you give them the
authority and the responsibility not only to determine the original amount, but
also to rule on the fairness of that amount as the first level of appeal, you
are again, as I have stated, going against natural justice. You are making a mockery of the concept of
appeal. You are putting a dreadful onus
on the Land Value Appraisal Commission members, one that I do not believe they
should have to deal with.
As I have stated, the concept of
expropriation and the power of expropriation is one of the strongest powers
that any state has to deal with its citizens.
It is an amazing power that we, as a society, have given to the state in
this regard, for them to be able to take, without any reason whatsoever, our
land, the land that we own as individuals and as citizens. For whatever reason, they can expropriate.
Now, ultimately, they are responsible
politically to the electorate, so there is a check and balance on the degree to
which they expropriate. I would also say
that I think, in most instances, governments are very good in exercising this
power. They do not usually expropriate without good reason, because the governments
know what a huge power this is.
But this government seems to have forgotten
that for every power that a government has, there has to be a countervailing right
of the citizenry. You have to have the
checks and balances or this system gets out of balance, and you have a really
unfair inequitable situation occurring.
What Bill 26 will do, should it pass in its
current form, is to disturb that balance, to take away a basic right of individuals
to appeal the decision of a very powerful arm of the state. We feel that this is such a basic right that
we need to speak out very, very clearly and strongly against this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my
remarks by summarizing again. On the
second principle of reducing the length of time to resolve claims and the
accrual of interest on compensation awards, that flexibility, we are not in
opposition to that principle. But we
could not be more in opposition to the first and major principle of Bill 26,
which is eliminating one of the rights of individuals and giving far too much
power to an already powerful portion of government in dealing with the expropriation
of land held by individuals in
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I stated
earlier, I will be the final speaker on this piece of legislation.
(interjection) Oh, I am sorry, I will not be the final speaker on this piece of
legislation. One of my caucus colleagues
wishes to put a few remarks on the record, and then we will be interested to go
to committee. We, under no
circumstances, will support this bill.
*
(2030)
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 26, dealing with expropriation,
is a bill that I am rather surprised this government has brought forward. Having been involved with expropriation as
Minister of Government Services in the past, I know that colleagues of this
government, when in opposition, had expressed concerns about some of the
changes that were made in the process when we were in government which were far
less onerous than this particular change that is being made by this government
at this time.
At that particular time, we had made some
changes for, particularly, multiple expropriation proceedings when there were multiple
property owners affected, because in some instances people who continue to
negotiate were able to hold out for higher prices, particularly when land
values were increasing dramatically. So
the person that settled early got less than the person who held out and
negotiated, and then expropriation was necessary after many months and perhaps
many years of expropriation.
The present minister has to know that before
the changes were made, and this was at the time of the North Portage Development,
expropriation was taking place which often resulted in inequitable settlements
from landowner to landowner. You would get
some who had settled quickly and actually paid a penalty because of it, because
they got less than those who held out for a number of years and went through,
finally, the expropriation procedure. So
we changed that procedure at that time to initiate the expropriation procedures
immediately and then negotiate. This had the effect of freezing the prices at
the date of expropriation, in other words, at the time that expropriation commenced. What that did was to ensure that there was
uniformity for all property owners being expropriated.
At that time, the member for Virden, who was
a former Speaker of this House, who at that time was in opposition, had raised
a number of questions with me in committee about the procedures and said that
he felt that this was not necessarily a fair procedure. I had at that time, Madam Deputy Speaker,
defended that procedure because I said it was fair and that it established the
value for all landowners in an equitable way.
I find it rather surprising then that the
government is bringing in an act that makes it more difficult for people to get
a fair hearing under expropriation than was in place before, because they were
really chastising the government at that time for not being fair in
expropriation. Expropriation is always deemed
to be unpleasant because it imposes the state's power on an individual, and it
is usually done or should always be done in the name of the public good. That is the reason why governments expropriate,
allegedly to do something that is in the public good at the expense of an
individual, if that is necessary, and there is a fair system put in place that
an individual will be fairly compensated when expropriated by these awesome
powers of the state.
The bill that is before us now, Bill 26,
will reduce the ability of individuals to get a fair hearing and to receive
fair compensation. I find it‑‑again,
I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑rather unbecoming of this
government, that they would move to limit the fairness of a process that has
been in place and has worked well. When
we looked at the awards that have been taking place in this province as a
result of the appeal process, one has to support what I am saying. That is, that they tend to support the
individuals' claim that they did not receive fair value for their
property. They usually get more when
they appeal.
That would seem to me to indicate that the
Land Value Appraisal Commission tends to err on the side of government. It tends to put forward rather conservative
settlements rather than necessarily fair settlements. I think it is important that, as my colleague,
the former speaker, the member for
I regret that they are doing this. I think to save a few thousand dollars, they
are prepared to sacrifice the rights of the individuals further. In a democratic society, we have to protect
those rights. We understand the need for
expropriation. We understand the need for expropriation‑‑(interjection)
Well, there is the irony of it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The member is talking about property
rights. The Conservatives advocated property
rights in the Constitution, yet they can come right in here and step all over
individuals' rights with regard to expropriation. They will not even give them a fair appeal
when they know very well that the appeal process is the only fair element of
expropriation. Otherwise, it is the
massive powers of the state against the individual, who has no power under
these circumstances.
So I am rather disappointed, to say the
least, that this government has chosen to make this kind of a change to expropriation. I do not think it was necessary. It seems to be typical of this government's
lack of sensitivity to individuals in this province and arrogance towards the
public in general, the ability to do within their power what they think they
should do regardless of how it impacts on people. That is what we are seeing more and more,
Madam Deputy Speaker. This bill typifies
that, and I felt compelled to put those comments on the record in this debate
because it is worth noting that this probably demonstrates this government's
lack of sensitivity towards individuals better than any other piece of
legislation in this House. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I also want to say a few
words on Bill 26.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is
actually pulling a very fast one over on the public in this bill. I am quite surprised that the government was
able to pass this in their own caucus.
Maybe there was not any discussion.
I know you have this super‑duper committee that you have in your
caucus. I do not know who is on it, but
I have always believed that there is a balance between the collective right of
the public, through the government, for expropriations for the greater good of
the province and the individual rights of property owners to get fair compensation
for expropriations that are taking place in a unilateral way by the government.
I have always believed that in the great
examples of public works in this province there has been a balance between the public
good and the private interest. You look
at Duff's Ditch, always referred to by the Member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been all
kinds‑‑
*
(2040)
An Honourable Member: You are going to tell us about
Mr. Doer:
Every day the Telephone System and the Hydro
system of this province takes away private land of individuals. Every day, the Highways department takes away
private land of individuals. Often those individual reside in rural
After the government has expropriated land
for the greater public good, there is a body that establishes a price, but the citizen
has the right, and I am surprised that members opposite, a former head of the
Keystone Agricultural Producers is so willingly going along with this
legislation, because after the big government has come in and established the
unilateral decision to take away somebody's property‑‑a very
important decision‑‑through their Crown corporations, through their
Crown agencies, I believe that an individual citizen should therefore have an
independent process right through to the courts to decide the value of that
land that is being expropriated.
I was involved in the negotiations to take over‑‑(interjection)
I will get to that. The member for
Pembina (Mr. Orchard), because this member is going in the opposite direction
with this bill, if you approve property rights in the Constitution, you have
done a 180 turn in this bill, because you have turned back property rights in
this province with Bill 26 before us in this province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I was involved in the
expropriation of land at The Forks.
There was only one property owner that was opposed to the plan to return
50 acres of land to public ownership, to a public corporation. There was only one property owner in that
site that opposed it, and government, yes, had to proceed with the greater good
of having that land returned to public ownership to expropriate one person's
land. He was very concerned about it and
very upset about it, but at least we knew that one individual who had the
federal government, the municipal government and the provincial government
agreeing in the takeover of the 50 acres of land for public ownership, at least
that individual landowner knew that he had the right, or she had the right in their
family to have that issue determined by the courts in terms of the value of
that land.
Now, look at the situation in this
bill. The government appoints the
members of the appraisal committee. The
government, through Order‑in‑Council, approves the appointees to
this body. It is not a politically independent body; it is a cabinet‑appointed
body. Yes, today there may be good
people on it, tomorrow there may be bad people on it, the next day there may be
mediocre people on it. The bottom line
is these people are appointed or dis‑appointed by the cabinet of the day
and hold office by the will and pleasure of the Executive Council of government.
Now, this Conservative government that says
or alleges that they were in favour of entrenching further property rights in
the Constitution to make even the mere act of appropriation more difficult and
make the act of appropriation subject to the Charter of Rights where it was
proposed to be placed, this government has gone the opposite direction. They do not even want to have people's land
appropriated with the right to go to court for the actual value of the land to
be appealed. Only an error in law can go
to the courts now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So I do not know who was watching on behalf
of the individual landowners in the caucus of the Conservative Party, but I
think Bill 26 breaks the balance that is here in Manitoba, the balance of the
public good with the right to expropriate, and the private interest with the
right to go to court to get the final valuation of their land. Why has this government, why would this government
reduce the balance for the individual in terms of the individual property
owner? I thought this was a so‑called
Conservative government that had some belief in the right of private
ownership. Why is the government rolling
back this right? Why are they taking it
away particularly for rural Manitobans, who are subject‑‑(interjection)
Well, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) probably did not read the bill either before it went through his caucus. The members for rural
I suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
perhaps the government was worried about a few potential expropriations or
potential future expropriations down the road and somehow the Treasury Board or
the financial interests of the government got in the way of a balanced bill on
expropriations. But I think that the Conservatives
have gone in the opposite direction on property rights, and I mentioned to the
member for
A government‑appointed body‑‑you
know, governments come and go. Tomorrow
it could be another government in office appointing a six‑member land
appraisal committee. They may be very,
very inadequate in terms of their compensation for the land that is being
expropriated. When you take away
somebody's individual land or property, that is a very major decision, and it
has got to be balanced off with the right to go to court on the value of that
land.
I am absolutely shocked that the
Conservatives opposite would tip the balance in such a way to give the state
the right to take away your land. You
give the state the right to set the value of that land through the cabinet‑appointed
bodies and to only allow the court to deal with matters of law, not in terms of
matters of value.
Shame on you, members opposite. You did not do your homework. You did not look at the long‑term
principles of the rights of the public through expropriation and the rights of individuals
through the way compensation is set. You
have tipped the balance in a way that favours government in a way that is unfair
to individuals. Always this Legislature
should balance the rights of individuals with the rights of the public
good. I think the Conservative Party has
made a big error in the way it has handled this today in Bill 26, and I think
this is a very unfair bill for anybody that is going to be subject to expropriation
in the future.
I think you should really reconsider this
before third reading. I think you are
making a very big error and a great disservice to Manitobans who might be in
the unfortunate situation of having their property or their family assets expropriated
without the right of going to the court for their value to be determined,
ultimately, through appeal. Thank you very
much, and I will be voting against this bill.
*
(2050)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 26, The Expropriation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Some Honourable Members: On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 45‑The
Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 45
(The Coat of Arms, Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les armoiries, les emblemes et le tartan du Manitoba), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship
(Mrs. Mitchelson), standing in the name of the honourable member for Concordia
(Mr. Doer).
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise on
this real creative part of the Conservative agenda, Bill 45, The Coat of Arms,
Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act.
I hope the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has given his trained seals opposite the
right to a free vote on this issue, because if any bill was before this House
that should allow the Conservatives opposite to speak their mind and their conscience
on a bill, I think it is Bill 45.
Now, it is nice to be able to sit in front
of the Speaker's Chair when we speak on this bill, because we see before us the
present symbol of
As the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) says: Wait until we put the new one up. And he laughs when he says that. He laughs because he knows‑‑
An Honourable Member: Deep down he is hurting.
Mr. Doer: Yes, deep down he is not only hurting, but
should a new symbol that is being laughed at by the cabinet that brought it in
be the new symbol that we pass in this Chamber?
Should this be the symbol that we pass that brings levity to members opposite? Is this a symbol that will unite this
province? Is this a symbol that will
unite us together as 57 members of this Legislature, something we can be proud
of, something we can leave this Chamber with enthusiasm and vigor for? I do not think so, Madam Deputy Speaker, and
I was quite surprised to hear members opposite say that they would be
supporting this bill.
First of all, let me deal with the one, sort
of, spin the Conservatives are putting out in the hallway, because they have been
asked, how much is this going to cost? I
wonder if the minister of the Treasury bench can tell us today how much it is going
to cost the taxpayers of
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): It does.
Mr. Doer: The minister says, it does. Will the minister tell us how much this will
cost us? (interjection) The minister says zero.
How much did that symbol out in the hallway cost us? Did we get it donated? Was it free?
An Honourable Member: It could have been.
Mr. Doer: It could have been? Was free?
I mean, we do not know the answers to these questions. Did this marble just appear? Did it just come
from on high, I ask you? The Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) says zero. How
much did that cost out in the hallway?
How much is it going to cost to change all the stationery? How much is it going to cost‑‑oh,
no, it will not cost anything. I
know. Governments change symbols not to
change the symbols on all the material they use. That is right.
Why are we changing it then if we are not
going to use it? If we are going to use it it is going to cost us some
money. Why do you not admit that? If you do not have the courage of your convictions
in Bill 45 why do we not scrap the bill?
If you do have the courage of your convictions why do you not tell us
how much it is going to cost and tell the people of Manitoba how we can justify
this expenditure at this time.
The second item‑‑the first spin
the Conservatives putting out, it is not going to cost us anything. It did not cost us anything to draw it. It did not cost us anything to design it. It
did not cost us anything to put the marble symbol outside in the hallway. It is not going to cost us any money to
change the stationery. It is not going
to cost us any money for the ceremonies.
It is not going to cost us any money for all the other things they are
going to do. That is the first thing
they have told us. I do not believe
that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know members opposite really do not believe
that. Because if we are going to use it
it is going to cost. If you are not
going to use it why bring it in?
Point No. 2:
The government is going around now saying they are just worried about a
little bit of controversy on this bill. They are saying to people, oh, the
Queen made us do it through the Governor‑General who made the Lieutenant‑Governor
do it and then they passed it on to our cabinet. It came from the Queen to the Governor‑General
to the Lieutenant‑Governor to the cabinet. (interjection) That is what
they told you too, I bet. Did they tell
you that, Jack?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have it
specifically in the Heraldic Quarterly, the augmented arms of
It says clearly that this project, this
present augmentation was requested on May 1, 1992, by the Honourable George
Johnson, Lieutenant‑Governor, on the advice of the Premier (Mr. Filmon). That
is the member for Tuxedo and the Executive Council, that is members opposite,
the member of Finance, the member of Government Services, the member of Labour,
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), ministers all across there. They were the ones that requested this.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson)‑‑I guess that is why we cannot get any jobs in this
province. He was spending all his time
debating our new symbol for
It says clearly here, to have the
commemoration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the order of
this bill. So those are two arguments of
the Conservative government opposite that this bill really developed somewhere
else and we were told to do it. Clearly
this was a cabinet priority. They have
55 potential bills before this session, this is Bill 45. This is one of the biggies that they sat
around that cabinet table the last two years working on to develop the new
symbol of Manitoba, to give us the new vision of the new Conservative Party,
the new Jerusalem through the symbol that we have before us today.
We always wondered what you did in that
cabinet room, because we know you are just tearing apart the health care
system; you are tearing apart the education system; you do not create any jobs. You have lost 10,000 jobs in the last four
years since you have been in office. We
have always wondered what you do around the cabinet room, and now we know. You sit around having 20 people design a
symbol for
There are more pressing matters. We are in the middle of the biggest recession
in the province since the 1930s. We have
the highest unemployment rate month after month after month. We have a health care system begging for
leadership. We have an education system
that is falling apart, and what do the Conservatives of Manitoba bring us? This new symbol for
I ask you.
Did they consult the people of
An Honourable Member: That and The Vital Statistics Act.
Mr. Doer: That and The Vital Statistics Act, as the
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) points out along with the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen).
That is right, is was another similar time. It must be deja vu for the Minister
responsible for the Treasury Board. Big priorities
for the big Conservative government. The
big blue machine rolls into town again with the new symbol of
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are times, and I
want to remind the member for Pembina, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that
he was part of the Executive Council, the cabinet that recommended this to the
Governor‑General. He was one of
the ones, and I ask him, did he go back to his coffee shop, the Wagon Wheel, in
the Pembina constituency and ask his constituents, which one do they
prefer? Do they prefer the old symbol or
do they prefer the new symbol? Do they
like the old one or the new one?
An Honourable Member: The new one.
*
(2100)
Mr. Doer: They like the new one, do they?
Well, I do not think he brings that into his
coffee shop in Pembina. That speaks to
one of the issues before us today. There have been occasions recently where the
public have been involved in the changes of symbols to this province. There was the introduction of the Gray Owl to
Madam Deputy Speaker, the people were
involved in the debate, and the people were the ones that decided ultimately
what would be the symbol of
That is right, it came from the member for
Now the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
has already described these symbols that are supposed to unite us in this province. Now I know there is heraldic value to some of
the symbols that have been selected by the government, but the question is, are
there public values to be attached to the symbols that the government has tried
to pick? I know it is not that easy to
do so, so I understand that former Premier Ed Schreyer, who was looking at
bringing in his symbol of‑‑
An Honourable Member: As we speak, it is being painted on your car.
Mr. Doer: I would not be surprised. I would not be surprised.
I understand former Premier Schreyer was
looking at a polar bear and an elk to be on the symbol of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Flin
Flon has quite eloquently pointed out the symbol and how it looks to him as an ordinary
citizen of Manitoba‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Doer: Okay.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has
quite eloquently pointed out that beavers in his neck of the woods do not eat crocus. Now, I do not know what the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) feels about this.
Does he agree with that assessment?
An Honourable Member: My lips are sealed.
Mr. Doer: Your lips are sealed. Cabinet confidentiality will not let the
Minister of Natural Resources speak on this.
The member for Flin Flon also points out
that the beaver has a crown on its head.
He has asked the question, when was the last time you saw a beaver with
a crown on its head?
People will find it interesting to see a
unicorn in a
There are some interesting other symbols on
this as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. There
are many, many other interesting symbols, but I would like to say that when I
look at that symbol, it looks rather focused.
It has a message to it. When I
look at the new bill, perhaps we have put in too much in this new bill. It
looks rather unfocused, a little confused perhaps, perhaps a lot like the
government opposite, because it is they, in Executive Council, that recommended
this to the Lieutenant‑Governor and Governor‑General of Canada.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the old
symbol. I am opposed to the new
symbol. I think the new symbol does not
unify the people of this province. It is
not a symbol that unifies the
It speaks volumes to the priority of this
government for all those unemployed and people that are being cut back day
after day after day by ministers opposite, that they would find this such a high
priority to bring in that they would introduce it in this Chamber. Secondly, involve the public in the design,
if you will, of a new symbol if you are going to have a new symbol, because
symbols should unite us, the coat of arms should unite us, and I believe there
is absolutely no evidence that this symbol unites us. There is absolutely no consensus that this
new symbol should be introduced in this Chamber.
I am opposed to this new symbol, and I want
to join the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) in saying no to Bill 45. I hope that members opposite will do the
same. Heraldic reasons for bringing in
this bill are one thing, and the symbols in that heraldic recommendation may be
great, but the wrong time and the wrong sets of symbols as far as I am
concerned in this proposal from the government.
I would encourage members opposite to be
free spirits on this issue. Let not
history show you voting for this unfocused new symbol over and above the
focused symbol we have before us in this Chamber.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I rise with pleasure to speak on the augmented
coat of arms act of
The augmented coat of arms has perhaps been
a long time coming to
But for a variety of reasons, there was no
bill which came before the Legislature, and certainly no agreement on a coat of
arms for this province. What this
particular bill does is to take the old shield, the one that is above your
Chair, the one with the buffalo standing on the rocks with the flag of St. George
above it, and it adds to it horses and unicorns and beavers and crocuses and
wheat and forest and waters, and it adds to it also a motto: glorious and free, in Latin, I assume to avoid
the use of either English or French.
This, the government argues, is the government's way of celebrating the
125th anniversary of Confederation.
In March of last year they did make
representations to the Governor‑General for an augmented coat of
arms. One would have thought in May of
last year, in 1992, that the government might have had other issues on its mind
when speaking to the federal government.
It might have had issues, for example, of the reduction of payments in
social services to aboriginal people in this province. It might have had questions of training; it
might have had questions of the Labour Force Development Agreement. It might have had questions of the withdrawal
of the federal government from the purchases in community colleges, every one
of which has had enormous impact on the long‑term future of
But the way this government chose to
celebrate the 125th anniversary of Confederation‑‑something
obviously worth celebrating and which I think every Manitoban would have supported
them in, but they chose, however, to look for an augmented coat of arms, and
they chose to do it in a very top‑down fashion, to me a very typically
Tory fashion with very little public consultation, public discussion, none of
the usual competitions with school children or any kind of public displays of
alternatives that might want to be considered.
*
(2110)
There were other imaginative ways across
Canada of celebrating the 125th anniversary of Confederation, and I suppose all
of us harken back to the Centennial of Canada in 1967 when there was such a
tremendous outpouring of popular enthusiasm and a large number of projects in
every town, village and city across Canada of useful community halls, of
curling rinks, of museums and galleries and things which have given lasting
benefit to the people of those provinces and of those cities and towns. But this government chose, in the face of one
of the deepest recessions that our generation has faced, to look for the celebration
of Confederation not with something of lasting value in public terms, but with
an augmented coat of arms which received very little, in fact none, no public
discussion at all.
The federal government did offer a medal,
and I know many members of this House were asked to choose five people from
their constituency to receive that medal.
I think that was an interesting way of approaching the 125th anniversary
of Confederation. I know that I took a
great a deal of time and consultation with people in my constituency to look
for five people whom I thought would best represent some aspects of my constituency,
and I would like particularly to mention a couple of them.
One of them is Kate Kerr (phonetic), who is
a master swimmer, and one of the very dedicated teachers of swimming in
But this government chose, without public
consultation, without public input, to look for an augmented coat of arms as its
only celebration of the 125th anniversary of Confederation. It presented it to
us in the language of heraldry, with lions rampant. I have a description here of the Canadian
coat of arms: "On a Wreath of the
Colours Argent and Gules a Lion passant guardant Or imperially crowned proper
and holding in the dexter Paw a Maple leaf Gules." Essentially not the language of everyday
Manitobans and a very good indication of why this government should support the
plain language bill that my colleague the member for
If this is to have popular support, if it is
to be representative of the aims and ambitions and sympathies and unity of
Manitobans, then surely at least the government could have made the effort to
translate its bill into plain English.
Now, of course, this bill comes from the
context of heraldry, a European institution, which I think has some
significance for the many Manitobans who are interested in genealogy and for
those who are interested in medieval history or in the history of symbols and
such aspects of Manitoba and Canada.
The original use of heraldry was, of course,
visual identity, very much like the visual identity of a multinational corporation. We tend now to think of visual identity only
in terms of advertising, but of course, originally, when it was used in
heraldic terms its purpose was in fact for allegiance, and that is what is
being asked of us here in this bill is allegiance to a very composite and
graphically, I think, very dispirit kind of symbol.
We know that there are many kinds of
heraldic devices in
An imaginative government, one that was in
fact looking at the contemporary situation of
Heraldic devices were also used for
families, and I think probably many people in our constituencies, people who
are interested in family history, and through that have become interested in
crests and family crests. Originally, of
course, this was because many families, 15th Century
But there are symbols, I think, which do
represent changing historical patterns.
I think probably most people here remember the changes to the City of
There was, I understand, at the time quite a
campaign. They had that sense of new
vision created by the
What is most important, I think, is the
change in the motto that was there in the
I was suggesting earlier that the heraldic
origins of much of our language and literature about crests does come from the medieval
period. One of the legends attached to
it, of course, is that heraldic devices became much more significant after the invasion
of the Duke of Normandy into
It is also legendary that after that, the
nature of European armour changed so that helmets, such as we see now in the
new
There were other traditions also associated
with the developments of coats of arms.
Some of those which were used in the 11th and 12th Centuries in some of
the wars in the
*
(2120)
So the symbolism that has been attached to
coats of arms throughout history, indeed, has been quite significant, something
which has both, I think, religious, magical, symbolic efforts that have meant
to draw people together, to draw them into battle to let them know which side
they are on and to, in fact, induce them to endure greater hardships and to
follow the leadership of their own people.
In many ways, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a
system which has come to us through the courts of
In
In the case of the
Until 1988, coats of arms were always dealt
with by the
What this particular bill is offering to us
is, in fact, a series of additions to the central crest that is so well recognized
and of which many of us are extremely fond, that is the buffalo on rocks on a
shield with the coat of arms or, at least, the flag of Saint George. We are being asked to add to this a crown, a
beaver with a crocus, a unicorn, a white horse, each of them with colours of
particular significance, some wheat, some trees, some water and a motto.
So I want to look at some of these elements,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and to suggest some of the history of each of them. When
we first got the crest of
Various drawings were sent over from
here. Buffaloes came back looking much
more like human faces and lions' bodies.
The secretary would send them back again until eventually the buffalo, a
satisfactory buffalo, was found and created in 1904 for the coat of arms of
Manitoba. Since then, indeed it has become,
I think, a very popular, a very distinctive symbol and one well recognized
across
The buffalo was something, of course, which
had formed a part of Riel's flags. Riel
had a number of flags. Several of them are
reputed to have contained representations of the buffalo. It included also the cross of St.
George. Although this may be interpreted,
of course, as the domination of the English, certainly a historical fact in
The idea of augmenting this coat of arms was
broached, first of all, in 1917, and the provincial librarian, Mr. Robertson,
who suggested that we needed an augmented crest to add to the symbols that
Manitoba could use. Mr. Robertson, at
that time, suggested an augmentation which included a caribou on one side,
which certainly would have made reference to the larger
On the other side, Mr. Robertson in 1917
suggested an elk, again something part of the natural history, something which would
find suitable acceptance throughout
Mr. Bovey wrote to the Premier and he
said: If submissions are to be made to
the college of arms, may I suggest that one of the supporters be a polar bear
or some other animal representative of the northern regions of
Mr. Bovey is presently the archivist of
Mr. Bovey, I know, was a colleague of mine
when I was a graduate student. I know
that he has a particular interest in heraldry, and I am interested‑‑we
used to have a running joke about lions rampant and lions passant of which I
cannot remember the origin now. Perhaps
he can. I was interested to find this particular
document and glad to be able to read it into the record, and I hope he will
enjoy it as much I did.
However, unfortunately, Mr. Bovey's
suggestions of an elk and a polar bear also came to no fruition, so we are left
with the addition of the beaver, the crocus, the horse, the unicorn, the wood,
the forest, the trees, the rivers, et cetera.
An Honourable Member: Okay, tell us what you do not like . . . .
*
(2130)
Ms. Friesen: Well, the beaver at the top. There are some arguments in heraldry for the
beaver. We should not just assume that
the beaver is a Canadian symbol, although in the late 19th Century, it did
become one of the symbols of
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) might
be interested in the beaver. Perhaps we
only think of it, not in the context of the Minister of Health, but simply as
an industrious rodent in its own right.
It used to be, in European terms, that the beaver was considered the
symbol of physicians and doctors. There
was an ancient medieval assumption that the glands of the beaver did secrete
some magical healing powers. They were
certainly valued for the treatment of convulsions. Of course, in medieval times, convulsions was
assumed to be the work of the devil, one was possessed by the devil, and so the
glands of the beaver could in fact heal this, and they were often used as a
symbol, in heraldic terms, for physicians and doctors.
Now, the crocus has also re‑emerged in
this particular symbol, and the crocus has an interesting history in
Now, Consul Taylor, later to become known as
Saskatchewan Taylor was very enthusiastic about the prairie crocus. I believe that he was one of the ones who
very early on, in the 19th Century, suggested that this become a symbol for
An Honourable Member: What?
Ms. Friesen: Five hundred.
Apparently, Mr. Taylor used to make an annual expedition to deliver a
posy of prairie crocuses to each of these 500 women, and in the 1870s that must
have taken him quite a long time. I
gather many of them remembered this with pleasure, and their children spoke of
it in later years, but 500
The prairie crocus perhaps survived the
attentions of Consul Taylor and came to the attention of the forerunner of the Naturalists
Society, the Natural History Society. In
1906, they began a campaign to have a provincial flower. They were moved really by American practices
of having a state flower, so the reference to American practices is very strong
here.
The way in which they went about it was an
interesting one. They, in fact, held a vote, and in the submission which they
made to this House in 1907‑‑indeed, it was the member for
Indeed, the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) might be interested in this. It was intended as a tourist attraction,
because what it was meant to do was to signal to people outside of
With this in mind they said, and realizing
it would be prudent to ascertain, as far as possible, the views of the people‑‑and
I draw that to the attention of the government.
In 1907, the naturalist society said:
It would be prudent to ascertain, as far as possible, the views of the
people of our province in regard to the flower which should be selected for a provincial
emblem, and your petition listed June 1904 with the assistance of the press of
the province cause a vote to be taken.
The result of that vote is as follows:
for the anemone, 674 votes; for the wild rose, 606 votes; for the
prairie lily, 514 votes; for other flowers, 278 votes.
Now there was a government which did consult
the people, or at least there was a
The horse and the unicorn present different
problems. The white horse, of course,
makes reference to an animal that was used by both aboriginal and non‑native
peoples in
This particular white horse has a collar
around him, and this is often used in heraldic terms to give greater identity
and to give greater symbolism. This
particular horse has, I believe, on the recommendation of the
On the other side, we have a unicorn, and
there has been a great deal of discussion about this unicorn. There are people who claim, and I believe it
was the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)‑‑I hope I am not
misquoting him. He did suggest that it
was native to the Interlake. Now, I must
admit that I personally have never seen a unicorn, and I certainly have not seen
a unicorn in the Interlake, but I would defer to the Minister of Natural
Resources on this. I assume, indeed
perhaps if is the bill too that he brought in this session included the possibilities
of an inventory, which it did not, but if it did include the possibilities of
an inventory of animals and of the natural resources of the province, we might
be able to find out how many unicorns indeed are in the Interlake at this very
time.
The unicorn, however, does have some history
in
It appears in the Arms of Manitoba because
in heraldic terms it makes reference to both the French and the Scots. In that sense, it makes reference to the
particular origins of the Metis of Manitoba who are derived from the French and
the Scots and the English, of the settlers and of the original people of
So there is the reason for the unicorn from
the context‑‑
An Honourable Member: Tell us about the beaver holding the flower. Have you done that yet? I missed it?
Do it again.
Ms. Friesen: Well, the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) wants me to return to the beaver and the industrial rodent, but I think
perhaps I have said as much as I am going to do on that particular beaver, but
he might refer to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) whose symbol it perhaps
could become.
*
(2140)
What I was discussing was the unicorn, the
unicorn which makes reference to the Scots and French inheritance and which appears
on maps in
There is some indication in the work of
Monsieur Vachon that perhaps there was some confusion here in the minds of the mapmakers
who wanted to assure people that they were making their way toward the
There are, of course, so many indications of
imaginary animals, imaginary islands, imaginary continents, imaginary riches
depicted on the maps of the 16th and 17th centuries. Unicorns, I think, perhaps
fall into that particular context. But I have not seen a 16th Century map of
the Interlake yet, and it is perhaps the beliefs of the Minister of Natural
Resources that would be able to be carried back a little further than the citings
that he has had in 1993.
The collar on the unicorn also carries
reference to the Metis and that is to the cartwheel of the
Both of them of course come from the augmented
Arms of Canada, so both of them do refer to our place in the Canadian Confederation. But what the Herald aofArms was trying to do
here was in fact to ensure that
In particular, I think we should pay
particular attention to the motto, and the motto that has been offered to us
here in Latin is "glorious and free."
It is here that I have particular difficulty, and here where I think we
need much greater discussion, and where I believe we should have had the
broader discussion that people suggested or the Naturalist Society followed in
the early part of this century.
The motto "glorious and free" is
taken from the national anthem. In that
sense perhaps one could argue that there is a legitimacy to it, that it gives
us a place in that Canadian anthem. It
is also meant to represent the Metis, the Metis province, that which makes us
different from
The Metis refer to themselves as the free
men, or, if I take the title of a book written by one of my constituents, Diane
Payment: The Free People,
Otipemisiwak. The Cree word for the Metis
was in fact, men with no boss, people who are free, and they call themselves
the free men. That was how they
identified themselves as people who were free eventually of the Hudson Bay Company
and the Northwest Company and people who put forward some very democratic
ideals which, of course, resulted in the province rather than the
So why not take that free men, take that
theme of the 1870s and that Metis theme?
Well, I would say there are good reasons perhaps for reconsidering that,
because the Metis themselves, and I want to quote from Gabriel Dumont in 1903,
the Metis themselves as they were forced to leave
So I think that sense of tragedy in the
departure, the forced departure in many cases, of the Metis that they were no
longer free men is something that we should consider. There should be consultation on a much
broader basis across
There may be some aboriginal people who
believe that is not an appropriate use of the medicine wheel. I do not know, but I would like to hear from
them. I would like to hear that discussion. It seems to me one of the things which is
missing from this particular symbol, this particular conglomeration of symbols
of
But what is missing is the very multicultural
vitality of Manitoba today, and just as the City of Winnipeg recognized that change,
and they went from "prudence and industry" to "one with the
strength of many," so I think that the new symbol of Manitoba ought to
contain some very clear visible recognition of that new reality, because
Manitoba is still the most mixed, the most multicultural of all provinces.
It is in Manitoba where the greatest
devotion is, I think, to multicultural policies, and I would suggest, Madam
Deputy Speaker, not only that there be a free vote on this, but indeed that we
have much greater consideration, that we slow down this process. Symbols are important. They must unite us.
I think if I were looking for something from
the national anthem, if I were to take the same approach that the herald did in
Ottawa, I would have taken "from far and wide," because I think that
expresses much better the current reality of Manitoba‑‑
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): How about "the True
North?"
Ms. Friesen: Or the True North, as the member for Thompson
suggests. I think what we are seeing
here in fact is that there is the option for much more debate and much careful
consideration by Manitobans. This is a
proposal from
I think we need something which is much
clearer and to which we can have a sense of‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 54‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 54,
on the proposed motion, the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach), the Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi
sur l'evaluation municipale), standing in the name of the honourable member
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed? (agreed)
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
just would like to make a few comments on Bill 54 and have any other members who
may wish to do so make any comments and pass it on to committee.
Just a little breakdown of the bill and in
meeting with the minister's staff and discussing the amendment with the
Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and the UMM, they, Madam Deputy
Speaker, could not see any problems with this amendment and in fact have
encouraged the government to put this amendment in, more of housecleaning.
I do not, again, have any problems with
it. In 1990, when The Municipal
Assessment Act was first introduced‑‑and I may say, Madam Deputy
Speaker, with a lot of problems and a lot of promises that were broken by this
government to bring in a reassessment every three years. Now in fact we have a situation that we are
looking to 1994 before we get another reassessment as the government had
promised that the reassessment would come every three years.
So this amendment has given opportunities for
certain municipalities in a 1990 reassessment to allow municipalities to phase
in the taxes and tax increases and, as we well know, that in many cases in
1990, the increases were absolutely outrageous in some situations due to the
government's implementation of the reassessment at that time. It caused hardships for many people in rural
*
(2150)
I know that the City of
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that
municipalities have expressed interest in this and have desired it, but I just
want to make a comment that let us hope that the provision is not going to be
an ongoing thing with the reassessment in 1994 on how this government is going
to implement 1994 assessment on the ratepayers in rural Manitoba and Winnipeg
and all the urban centres. I look
forward to it going to committee, and we will further discuss the bill, if
necessary, in committee.
On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just
want to say that I am pleased to have spoken on Bill 54, and hopefully, further
discussion will be in committee. Thank
you.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise on
this bill, a very substantial bill. The
only thing that is missing is the minister's picture on one of the pages.
We were in the minister's office with his
staff, and he gave us a briefing on the bills that he had brought forward. (interjection)
Yes, I have no complaints. Like I said,
this bill is just housekeeping, like he indicated when he gave us the briefing. What it gives to the municipal council is the
right to phase in the increases or decreases in property taxes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, like the minister has
indicated in his opening remarks, it allows the municipality at their discretion
to phase in the reassessment‑related taxes to the local taxpayers which
may otherwise be difficult to handle in one year or only on a few months
notice. I think with the three‑year
phase‑in that is going to be starting with 1994, it will please the municipalities. It is what MAUM has requested that happens
when this legislation‑‑and we will look forward that this bill go
to committee immediately so that it pleases the municipalities. We look forward if there are to be any other
comments in committee, but I will be the only one speaking on this bill. We look forward to having it in committee as
soon as possible.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 54, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (Loi no 2 modifiant
la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale). Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
Bill 51‑The
Municipal Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 51
(The Municipal Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les
municipalites), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton). Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I adjourned that on
behalf of our very capable critic. I know
he has a speech on this, my friend and colleague the member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans), who is going to express our views on this bill.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): I am pleased to rise on such short notice on
Bill 51, The Municipal Amendment Act (2).
There are some changes in this act that we
would like to comment and address. Of
course, Madam Deputy Speaker, UMM and MAUM had quite a bit of input into Bill
51, and it was in conversation with their executive and in conversation with
the executive from MAUM, it was decided and requested by them that this bill go
through with not much opposition as‑‑of course, UMM had a
tremendous input into this bill. So did
MAUM.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one aspect that this
bill does allow municipalities to do, and I think it is something that municipalities
have wanted for many years and are finally getting the opportunity, and that is
to invest into different treasury bills and mutual funds, which before they had
not the opportunity. They requested this,
and it is, I think, a positive part of the bill so that they could in fact use
some monies that they had in their budgets and in their funds to be able to
invest in certain investments, and so be it, investing to be able to provide themselves
with some extra capital, to be able to provide them with some funds that they
might need in the future and be able to use or not use as they saw fit.
I know that one other part of the bill that
I did have some questions about, Madam Deputy Speaker, was even though the municipalities
again, UMM and MAUM, requested this from the government, was that they be
responsible for appointing their own auditors and negotiate their own fees and
rates. That may be fine, and
municipalities might want it. The
responsibility is on them to do that, but we must look at another aspect of
this, that if perhaps some remote areas that have, again, the opportunity to appoint
their own auditors, as before, the auditors were appointed and the fee set by
the minister and by the government in place.
There may be some municipalities and
jurisdictions that may not be able to get a reasonable auditor by tendering
out. There may be a problem with that in
the fact that auditors may in fact say, well, its a little too far, too
remote. We are going to have to charge
so much to do your audit. In fact, Madam
Deputy Speaker, these communities or jurisdictions may be put in a problem
state in that way than the government would in fact, if the municipality could
not appoint their own auditor because the auditors are asking for an outrageous
amount of money to be able to do their audits for them, then the government
would in fact have to appoint the auditors themselves.
Now, the municipalities do have the option of
not appointing their own or not requesting auditors to put tenders in‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): I apologize to the
member. I wonder if I might just
interrupt for a few seconds to make an announcement of House business. More importantly, I wonder whether or not we
might waive the ten o'clock just for five or 10 minutes so that the member for
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) could just put a few remarks on the record. If this bill passes to committee, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I then would call this committee tomorrow morning.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House that the Speaker
not see the clock at ten o'clock?
Agreed?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Mr. Manness: On House business, Madam Deputy Speaker, just
to clarify the committees for tomorrow, Bill 37 will be heard in the committee
on Economic Development tomorrow night at seven o'clock. Bill 41 will be heard in the Public Utilities
and Natural Resources committee also at seven o'clock tomorrow. Bill 24 will be heard tomorrow morning at
nine o'clock in Law Amendments. * * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) will have 34 minutes
remaining.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hour being 10 p.m., this House is adjourned
and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).