LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
July 9, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Bonnie DePauw, Craig Spencer, Kelly Lounsbury and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lorna Temple, Murray Lee, Melba Stewart and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos). 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 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). 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: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Acting Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fifth
Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Fifth Report.
Your committee met on Wednesday, July 7,
1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee heard representation on the
bill as follows:
Bill 3‑‑The Oil and Gas and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Written Submission:
Samuel
Doyle ‑ Association of
Your committee has considered:
Bill 3‑‑The Oil and Gas and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
section 6 be amended by striking out "June 30" and substituting
"December 15".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 24(3) be amended by striking out "and thereafter until the
appointment is revoked and a successor is appointed".
MOTION:
THAT
section 49 be amended by adding "and dispose of" after
"remove".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 53(5) be amended by striking out ", in accordance with the
regulations,".
MOTION:
THAT
section 57 be amended by striking out "is not renewed under subsection 52(3)
or".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 59(1) be struck out and the following substituted:
Requirement
for survey 59(1) Where the director
considers it necessary or advisable to have a survey made of a reservation area
or lease area to settle a dispute respecting the position of the area, or where
no plan of survey exists for a reservation area or lease area or any part of
it, the director shall require the applicant for, or the holder of, a
disposition in respect of the area to obtain a survey of the area or any part
of it, as the director may determine, in accordance with The Surveys Act.
MOTION:
THAT
clause 70(1)(c) be amended by adding "or the transfer document is executed
by a person who has authority to execute it on behalf of the corporation"
after "document".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 70(2) be amended by adding "of the disposition" after
"a duplicate copy".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 74(2) be amended by striking out "a caveat or other" and
substituting "an".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 79(1) be amended by striking out "this Act" and
substituting "section 91".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 79(2) be amended by striking out "this Act" and
substituting "section 91".
MOTION:
THAT
section 125 be amended by adding "and The Surface Rights Act" after
"the regulations".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 151(2) be amended
(a)
in the part preceding clause (a), by adding "orrelocation"
after "construction"; and
(b)
in clause (a), by adding "or relocated" after"constructed".
MOTION:
THAT
clause 168(1)(d) be amended by adding "property or" after
"impact on".
MOTION:
THAT
the English version of subsection 169(2) be amended in the part preceding
clause (a) by striking out "license" and substituting
"licence".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 171(1) be amended by striking out "The holder of a license or
permit issued in respect of a well or oil and gas facility that is
abandoned" and substituting "Where a licence or permit issued in
respect of a well or oil and gas facility is cancelled, or the well or oil and
gas facility is abandoned, the holder of the licence or permit".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 171(4) be amended
(a)
in the part preceding clause (a), by striking out"rehabilitation
required, within five years" and substituting"repair or
rehabilitation required, within six years".
(b)
in clause (b), by adding "or property damaged" after"contaminated".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 172(3) be amended by adding ", and interest earned on those
amounts," after "184(7)".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 172(4) be amended by striking out "or" at the end of
clause (b), by adding "or" at the end of clause (c) and by adding the
following after clause (c):
(d)
make an expenditure from the Abandonment Fund ReserveAccount to defray
costs arising in relation to any adverseimpact on property or the environment
resulting or that mightresult, in the opinion of the minister, from a well, oil
andgas facility, or geophysical operation.
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 172(6) be struck out and the following substituted:
Recovery
of expenditure from reserve account 172(6)
An expenditure made from the Abandonment Fund Reserve Account in respect
of a geophysical operation, well or oil and gas facility
(a)
is a debt due to the Crown by the holder of the licenceor permit, as the
case may be, issued in respect of thegeophysical operation, well or oil and gas
facility; and
(b)
is recoverable under Part 17.
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 192(1) be amended by adding "under this Act or The Oil and Gas
Production Tax Act" after "by a person".
MOTION:
THAT
section 208 be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (a),
by adding "or" at the end of clause (b), and by adding the following
after clause (b):
(c)
makes application to be registered, or is registered, asan oil and gas
lease agent;
MOTION:
THAT
section 242 of the French version be amended by striking out
"constituent" and substituting "constitue".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 20‑‑The Social Allowances
Regulation Validation Act; Loi validant un reglement d'application de la Loi
sur l'aide sociale
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of
the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Seventh
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and
Natural Resources presents the following as its Seventh Report.
Your committee met on Wednesday, July 7,
1993, at 5 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Mr. Derek Smith, president and chief
executive officer, provided such information as was requested with respect to
the annual report and business of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.
Your committee has considered the annual
report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the year ended March 31,
1992, and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
* (1005)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Unemployment
Rate
Provincial
Comparisons
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Speaker, every time we raise questions
about jobs and unemployment the Premier says, next year things will be great,
next year we will be first out of the chute, next year we will have the best
economic performance in the country, next year we will be this, next year we
will be that.
I would like to ask the Premier: Why are we going in a different direction
than the rest of the country in terms of jobs and unemployment?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite always
twists the figures to meet his particular political need, which is always to be
negative.
When we have been running at the lowest or
second lowest unemployment rate in the country, he has said it is because
people are not attempting to re‑enter the workforce, that nobody is
coming back to try and re‑enter the workforce. This month what we did have was 3,000
additional people employed, and what we did have was 7,000 more people come
back and register because they see some optimism in getting back into the
workforce. Then he turns that into a
negative, turns around the position he has been taking for the last four months
and says, well, something is wrong with it.
The fact of the matter is, those people
who have not been seeing any optimism, who have not been registering to try and
find employment are now there because they see some optimism, and that is, more
people registered to try and find work, and the numbers are there. He should be happy about that, Mr. Speaker.
Our numbers of employed people are
up. We continue to be in the lowest half
or fourth lowest in the country, and more people are seeking employment in this
province and have been for a while. We
think that is a positive thing, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, there are always more people who
join the labour force in June. The
Premier knows that. We have never had
55,000 people unemployed in June in
Mr. Speaker, we are now for the first time
ever since we have maintained statistics in last place in unemployment in
western
I would like to ask the Premier: Why is this the first time ever? Why are we in last place in western
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the member
opposite takes great delight in being as negative as he can possibly be. He is
the king of gloom and doom.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,
this‑‑(interjection) The member opposite does not want to hear the
answer.
* (1010)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Premier why‑‑
An Honourable Member: Stop trying to shout me down, you fool.
Mr. Doer: When the Premier grows up, I will proceed with
my question. (interjection)
Well, if the members opposite do not think
it is a serious problem when
Employment
Creation Strategy
Federal Assistance
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier has invested $7,000
of taxpayers' money in meeting with Kim Campbell for the swearing‑in
ceremony. Federal‑provincial
relations are very important to Manitobans.
When can we expect some of the job
dividends in the relationship with the Premier and the new Prime Minister?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite talks about
the comparison between
The reality is, we continue to be better
than the country as a whole. We continue
to be better than all of the provinces to the east of us.
Economic
Growth
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the
Premier or the Minister of Finance.
The fact is, we compare
My question, therefore: The economy is in rough shape. We compare very poorly with the rest of
western
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know if it is because the member for Brandon East is with us again today, but
this is the first question we have had on the economy, I believe, in three
weeks, so I think that speaks volumes.
The absence of those questions speaks volumes as to the interest of the
NDP party in the economy.
Let it be said that employment and
unemployment is a big issue with governments throughout the country and,
indeed, governments around the world. As
a matter of fact, I know, for instance, that having talked this issue over with
former Minister of Finance Mazankowski at the G‑7 meetings, indeed most
of the time was directed toward the unemployment question across the western
world. It is the big issue. It is not interest rates. It is not
necessarily levels of debt or deficits.
It is the level of employment.
It is the big issue everywhere. So the members across the way do not have to
stand on the pretext that it is only an issue with them, but if the member is
going to be selective with his statistics, why does he not indicate that much
of
For the first six months of '93, there
were 388,000 Manitobans working full time, 8,000 more than the same period last
year. That is a gain of 2.1 percent,
four times the national growth rate in full‑time jobs of half of 1
percent. Why does he not select those
statistics?
* (1015)
Economic
Growth
Infrastructure
Renewal
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the key figure is the rate of
unemployment, and we do very, very poorly in terms of unemployment in this
province.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance,
because we have asked him this months back, weeks back, but we are going to ask
him again in view of the seriousness of this.
I would trust the government would recognize this is a serious problem
and not try to push it under the mat by selecting their particular figures that
particularly suit their purposes.
Mr. Speaker, will this government
establish a joint municipal‑provincial infrastructure program to
stimulate our economy? It is recognized
that the rate of economic growth is related to the development of basic
infrastructure and even, I might add, the G‑7 leaders are now recognizing
that job creation has to be a priority in our economies.
I would simply ask this Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness): When will we get some action? When are we going to get some action in
creating jobs and developing infrastructure?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): It is interesting that the member opposite
should make that point now that he has lost his other points, Mr. Speaker,
because the fact of the matter is, last week, as we had the discussion with the
First Ministers in
Mr. Speaker, as we talked about the
comparisons of approach and investment in long‑term infrastructure and
job creation through that vehicle, I pointed out to them that on average,
across the country in all of their budgets, they had reduced their capital
spending by over 18 percent, all of these provinces on average.
This New Democrat does not understand that
in office, his New Democratic colleagues are not following that policy, Mr.
Speaker.
Social
Assistance
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Obviously, if
we have 4,000 more people unemployed in Manitoba today than a year ago, the
economic policies of this government are failing. There is no action plan. There is no plan to put people to work in
this province.
I have a question, a very specific
question, for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst). Because we have 16,000 cases of people on
welfare in the city of
We want it in other cities too‑‑Brandon,
When will this minister come to an
agreement with the city and start putting some people to work?
* (1020)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon) has indicated, we take some pride in having
maintained our level of capital spending at the highest levels basically in
relative terms across
Mr. Speaker, if stimulating the economy
means you spend more than you take in, I can tell the‑‑(interjection)
Well, there, that is the number I was going to use. See, the members show the number, $862
million last year. That means, in
essence, we stimulated the economy by using their numbers, $862 million. That
was not enough. This year, in this
budget, we are going to stimulate the economy, again, by the definition,
spending more than you are taking in, by $367 million. That obviously is not enough for the members.
How much more do they want to stimulate
the economy, how many hundreds of millions of dollars more because, Mr.
Speaker, when I table the unaudited Fourth Quarter Report of last year, when
ultimately the final numbers as to the deficit are brought in, and I will be
tabling that in the course of the next couple of weeks, the members opposite
will notice that the greatest increase over budget in a department was in the
Department of Finance service costs and, indeed, those service costs when they
increase, they do not employ one more Manitoban.
So how many fewer Manitobans does the
member want employed as a result of service costs going up because of a higher
deficit? He cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Reinstatement
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province has on a number of occasions said that
the best social program is a job. I
agree with him wholeheartedly. I have
said that before, and I will say it again.
But, Mr. Speaker, last night, I sat on a
committee looking at Bill 32, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, which
eradicates, eliminates, the ability of the very needy children in our community
to continue to go to school. We heard
very clearly, we heard from every expert who came, who worked in this field, it
is going to send them down the street to the welfare office to regular welfare,
which they cannot go to school on. It is
a bill which is dedicated to making it harder for these children to get an
education, which is their only hope of getting a job.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
minister. Will he reconsider this
act? Will he understand and explain why
we are going to make it harder for young adults to get educated in our society? Why are we doing that?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious, even though the member sat through part of the hearings
on this yesterday, he does not understand that this has nothing to do with
children. Children are educated in the
public school system. We have programs
for children in the public school system and in the child welfare system.
The bill which we have been discussing and
which was passed at committee last night is dealing with adults who want to
return to the high school system to pursue their education.
I indicated to the member last night that
this government has put forward numerous reforms in the whole social allowance
system. I told him last night, and I
will reiterate it again, this is a very dynamic area now.
The
There are dramatic changes taking place
here, and I indicated to the member we are involved in many discussions to look
at ways in which we can put programs in place for people to receive an
education but also to avail themselves of that basic safety net that is
required for some of them.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if I used the word
"children" inadvertently, I apologize. I also used the words "young
adults", and I understand that this deals with young adults. I do not want this issue skewed by that
distinction.
The reality is, the people told us last
night‑‑who work with these people, who teach them, who deal with
them, who have never been in this building before but came last night without a
political axe to grind to tell us that this is a very, very bad mistake,
because it makes it more difficult for people to get educated, and it makes it
more easy for them to continue to get welfare dollars without being
educated. In fact, they cannot be
educated when they go on the other system.
Mr. Speaker, this does not save the
province money. It pushes it down the
line, but it does not save us money, either in the short term or the long term.
The minister talks about a dynamic system,
about discussions. What can he tell us
today that we can pass on to these people as a hope for them to continue their
education, to keep going to school to give them the only chance, the only hope
they are going to have to have a job in our society?
* (1025)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I accept the member's apology
and certainly his admission that he does not fully understand the system.
I think the member should also recognize
that there were a number of opinions expressed there yesterday. Some of the lack of understanding that he
shows was also part of some of the presentations that were made, that there was
not an understanding of Workforce 2000.
There were some who, as the member, thought this referred to 16‑
and 17‑year‑olds.
I have gone through the number of reforms
we have brought to the social allowance system on a number of occasions, and I
would simply say to the member that there are discussions going on to look at
ways of enhancing the system.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, what we heard last night was that
people who are on welfare between 18 and 24 months generally do not come
off. That is what we heard. We also heard that the vast majority of these
people, and this is coming from people who work with them, who are on this
program will end up on the regular welfare system, which pays them more, and
they cannot go to school.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
minister: Can he produce a study, can he
produce anything which substantiates his view that these people are somehow
going to stay in school and be as well off or better off? Can he produce anything which suggests that
what the experts told us last night was wrong?
That is the nub of this.
These people are not going to be able to
go to school. They are going to cost us
more. They are going to cost us more for
the rest of their lives, and the human cost is going to be immeasurable. What has he got to show us, to defend this
action in his role as a minister of this government, supposedly acting in the
interests‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, certainly, some of the experts,
members of the public who spoke, spoke on both sides of the issue. There is no question that people across this
country who are on social allowances are staying on for a longer period of
time. You have a province like
We are constantly looking at ways to
reduce our caseload. In fact,
I want to assure the member, though, that
we are in discussions with the municipal government in looking at ways to
address the issues he has raised.
Home Care
Program
Reinstatement
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has not
been forthright in his description of the devastating cutbacks to the Home Care
budget. He would not reveal the criteria
for those cutbacks, and he did not tell us that the Home Care budget in the
city of
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to step in and ask this Minister of Health to put these Home Care
cutbacks on hold and reinstate the program as it existed prior to this budget.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, over the
course of Estimates, Question Period, for the last five years, Manitobans have
been subjected in Question Period to this accusation of cutbacks in the Home
Care Program, and all the while, the program has increased, increased,
increased, with the exception of one area.
That one area, Sir, is in domestic
services as provided by home support workers, such as laundry and
housekeeping. Those services started to
decrease in the Home Care Program in 1985 by a policy put forward by the NDP.
My honourable friend says, put a halt on
it. Is my honourable friend not speaking
to his Leader, who sat at a cabinet table that put that policy in place, that
started to work in 1985 by removing government and taxpayer paid‑for
housecleaning services, including laundry, and investing the money into
personal care services?
Mr. Speaker, we have continued with that
program, and that is why today in this year's budget, we are going to buy
almost 4 percent more services from Victorian Order of Nurses, almost 10
percent more hours of registered nursing services, almost‑‑well,
not almost‑‑11 percent more hours of home care assistance workers,
which helps with the personal care needs of Manitobans trying to maintain an
independent living style in their homes.
That is hardly a cutback, Sir.
* (1030)
Budget
Reduction
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) again. Perhaps he knows.
Will he confirm that there is a $3‑million
cutback in Home Care homekeeping services and that the budget for the city of
Winnipeg home care, which constitutes about half of the home care in the entire
province, is reduced from $31 million last year to $29 million this year?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the Home Care budget at the end
of this year will reflect an increased spending of over $1 million in needed
service provision.
Now, part of the 4 percent increase,
almost, of VON service will be in the city of
Mr. Speaker, there will be in Winnipeg, as
I announced in the budget April 7, in subsequent questions, in the Estimates
process which my honourable friend has before him, that in terms of domestic
services of housekeeping and laundry, there will be a decrease in that service,
primarily in Winnipeg, as has happened throughout all of rural Manitoba,
Brandon and the north end of Winnipeg, but needed personal care health needs
will increase in Winnipeg.
Housekeeping
Services
Criteria
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister, to my mind, has
confirmed that there will be a decrease in the overall Home Care budget in
My final supplementary to the
minister: Will the minister at least
outline the new criteria which indicate amongst other things, Mr. Speaker, that
if you are incontinent once a day, you will get laundry service to clean up the
mess, but if you are only incontinent two or three times a week, you will no
longer get the laundry or homemaking services?
Will he confirm this is part of the new
criteria, and will he put it on hold?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker, I
will not confirm that because that is part of the fabricated information my
honourable friend tries to put out.
Let me understand what my honourable
friend is saying. Do you realize that in
the Home Care Program, the maximum, the most frequent provision of
housecleaning and laundry service is once every two weeks to a maximum of two
hours? That is to assist people who are
not incontinent. That is to assist
people with modest housecleaning and laundry needs who have those services as
part of their service delivery menu or in isolation.
Incontinent individuals, Mr. Speaker, will
not have their laundry services reduced if that is required to maintain their
independent living. What we are talking
about are individuals who once every two weeks have been provided with a two‑hour
laundry and housecleaning service; in other words, four hours per month at an
average cost to other Manitobans who, since 1985, have been purchasing this
service on a policy put in place by Howard Pawley and the NDP at a cost of some
$24 to $36 per month.
Home Care
Program
Employee
Gag Order
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Since then, we have learned about the
difficult situation staff are facing, the gag order they are under, the fact
they were ordered not to tell clients anything about the changes unless they
were asked by a client, the fact they cannot put anything in writing to clients
and the fact they have to wait for the nod from on high before they can
actually communicate to clients these changes that are underway.
I would like assurances from the minister
today that the workers involved with the client whose name I gave to the
minister yesterday will not be sought out, singled out or face any consequences
for trying to carry out the government's orders.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to point out that
in the rhetorical flourish of the NDP yesterday, they talked about hundreds of
people. Now the member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) says thousands of people complaining. My honourable friend had a list
of pink phone slips which she could have given to the Clerk to have photostated
and delivered to me immediately, but I received one name‑‑one name.
Mr. Speaker, I take the circumstances of
that one individual very seriously, and my staff are investigating the
circumstances. I will provide my
honourable friend with a report as quickly as I have it.
Mr. Speaker, again, I can simply close my
eyes and go back to four years ago when the New Democrats, as the second
opposition party in 1989, made the same accusations about cutbacks in Home Care
while the program was increasing, when the Leader of the opposition party, the
New Democrats of the day, sent me a ticked‑off survey name that he sent
out to constituents, presumably of his, who had no Home Care services at all
but were concerned about it. When we
investigated it, we found that they did not even have the service.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the minister himself said at
least 2,000 people would be affected, so we are talking about a significant
number of people who are going to be cut off home care.
I would like to ask the minister, before
we give him more names and information about clients affected by these changes,
if he will give us absolute assurances that the workers involved with those
clients will not be singled out, will not face punitive actions and will not
see their jobs placed in jeopardy.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, maybe my honourable friend is
reflecting on the good old days when she was in cabinet and had that kind of an
attitude toward civil servants, but that is not the attitude today.
My honourable friend keeps raising these
fears that she cannot identify an individual who phones her because the
individual is afraid to make the complaint to government. Well, that is phony. That is absolutely phony.
We have investigated every single name
that has been delivered to us by the NDP in six years, and that totals about 15
so far in five years, not the thousands the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak)
talks about from his seat or the hundreds that were promised yesterday, but the
single name we got. Now we are
investigating that.
As I have said all along, if the
professional assessors in the Home Care department or in my division of Home
Care have erred in the assessment or in communication with the individual, and
the service needs to be reinstated or otherwise altered, that has happened.
Mr. Speaker, I would say in roughly 20
percent of the individual complaints that have come in, we have made
adjustments. In the other 80 percent,
the assessment by the professionals has been accurate, but we have still
investigated the complaint without compromising anyone.
Impact of
Service Reduction
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, will the minister then
provide some very specific information to the House today and tell us the exact
number of clients affected? He said
2,000 yesterday outside the Chamber.
Will he tell this House what the number is
we are dealing with? Will he tell us the
specific criteria and table that information?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it was
not only yesterday outside the House. It
was in the House, June 21, 1993, page 4499, where I give that complete detailed
information to the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and now he says, well,
no, you did not.
Obviously, my honourable friend a) cannot
hear and b) more importantly, cannot read, because it is here, and it has been
here ever since we dealt with this issue in Estimates.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend knows,
as I indicated in the figures I gave to my honourable friends in Estimates,
that those are our estimates. Those are
the best estimates we can come up with.
We will not have the final figures until the professional assessment is done,
as has been the case since 1985.
We expect the decision on domestic services
of vacuuming, housecleaning and laundry, two hours per week every two weeks,
will affect upwards of 2,000 clients per month.
That is a projection made on the experience that has happened since 1985
in rural
That is the best estimate we have, Sir,
given to us by the professionals who make the program work.
* (1040)
Social
Assistance
City of
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am
going to return to the subject area of my first question, because I think it is
very important today. I do not accept
the answers of the minister that sometime down the line we are going to have
some answers for these people.
Last night at the committee, we had a
councillor from the City of
He said last night in response to
questions from me that he would meet with the minister, and the minister said
nothing in response to this, to find dollar for dollar the same savings for the
Why will the minister not take the city up
on that and find a different way, a better way, a more humane way to save the
dollars which are the genesis behind this bill?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, indeed, we
did have a city councillor at committee last night. I have met with city councillors on a regular
basis. They also meet with the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) to discuss
issues within the city.
I know the councillor speaking last night
is well aware of the financial difficulties and economic problems that
governments have. They very publicly go
through their budget exercise every year, and he announced last night they are
starting on their next year's budget.
Certainly, we listen to him and meet with him, and I look forward to
meeting him in the near future.
We know they have difficulties keeping
libraries open yet are able to find money for other initiatives they want to
lobby government on. I do not pretend to
want to give advice to the City of
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, he indicated he made that offer
months ago. It is interesting to me that
the minister today says he is willing to meet.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing he indicated
on behalf of the city was‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the second
opposition party, with his question.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the indication from him was that
he had proposed to the province at least 12 options for dealing with the
welfare system in this province to make it more efficient, more cost‑effective. He said he had proposed 12.
I would like to have from the minister,
because he did not say anything at the committee last night‑‑can he
indicate whether or not that is accurate?
Can he produce those options? Can
he tell us what options he has canvassed, as opposed to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order please.
The honourable member has clearly put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member indicates that
requests for a meeting occurred months ago, and I do not want the member to
leave the impression on the record that I have not met with him. I would suspect that it was about six weeks
ago that the councillor and I met over a number of issues.
He currently has brought before government
a proposal for infrastructure renewal that is being considered by government,
that has been sent back to council to look at a number of portions of that
proposal that we find not acceptable. It
also involves getting the third level of government, the federal government,
involved as well.
I would say the city is well aware of
that.
Mr. Edwards: The minister has indicated in his former
answers that he would have some answers.
He would be dealing with this issue.
It was a dynamic system. He has
now told us he is willing to meet with the city to work toward a solution.
My question for the minister is: Why are we taking this precipitous action
now? Why are we doing this now to cut
people off of education, to cut people who need‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the second
opposition party will take his bench now.
Order, please. I will remind the House that when the Speaker
is standing the members will take their benches.
Order, please. There seems to be some growing concern here
that even though the Speaker is standing, members can carry on, keep putting
their questions or keep putting their answers.
Now, let us get this straight right here
and now. When the Speaker is standing,
the members will take their bench.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable Minister of Family
Services, to answer.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Family
Services was in Estimates this year for some 30 hours and a multitude of
critics came in. I am sorry that the new
Leader of the Liberal Party failed to appear there, because it is difficult for
him to understand these complex issues at this late hour.
I would remind him of numerous reforms we
have brought into the system, and I would be pleased not only to meet with the
councillor but also the Leader of the Liberal Party to give him a better
understanding of these complex issues.
Wine
Boutiques
Government
Advertisements
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee, the
president of the Manitoba Liquor Commission confirmed that the commission had
spent hundreds of thousands of dollars creating wine boutiques in Manitoba
Liquor Commission stores across the province, confirmed that the commission has
spent thousands and thousands of dollars training staff in those boutiques.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister responsible
for the Manitoba Liquor Commission then explain why in the Free Press the
government has been advertising for the creation of private wine stores,
private wine boutiques, given the fact the commission has spent hundreds of
thousands of taxpayers' dollars creating this in their own operations?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr. Speaker, the member seems to have become
very interested in this topic and wants to debate it everywhere except in
committee, which is where I wish he would send the bill, because I am patiently
waiting for them to do second reading, send it to committee, so we can discuss
all these details about the rationale for the establishment of private wine
boutiques and all of that detail. I
trust that someday we eventually will get in committee and do that.
As to the answer to his specific question,
that answer was given to him in the Liquor Control annual report, the amount of
upgrading we have done to try to provide better customer service to those
Manitobans who frequent the MLCC stores.
Does the member not wish us to provide
that kind of good customer service? I do
not understand the intent behind the question.
Certainly, the addition of the private wine stores, Sir, will be an
enhancement and an addition to that which we are already doing.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that cabinet is
going to hand out four or five of these plums, can the minister explain why
there is a minimum $250,000 liquid‑‑I hope there is no pun intended‑‑assets
which are going to be required before someone gets one of these plums?
Can the minister explain which Tory friend
she is going to give these plums to?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first
answer, if the member would cease stalling on this and give second reading and
let us get to committee, we can go into all of those details.
Certainly, we have already had numerous,
numerous inquiries. We are now asking for people to specifically let us know if
they wish to receive an application; $250,000 in liquid assets‑‑and
there is no pun intended‑‑is the minimum requirement. I think if the member investigated what it
would cost to set up these stores, he would find you have to purchase inventory
and do a number of other things.
As to the accusations of patronage, well,
we know what they are trying to do there, and it is not appreciated and not
accurate.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, firstly,
on House business.
The Standing Committee on Law Amendments
will sit today at 1:30 to consider clause by clause, Bill 29.
The other committee that is called for
next week is Law Amendments, sitting Tuesday, 9 a.m., to consider Bills 25 and
34.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the only
business that the standing committees have at this time.
Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in
the following order: Bills 37, 31, 36,
45, 49 and 33.
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, 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, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that the matter remain
standing? (agreed)
* (1050)
Committee
Change
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for St. Boniface wants to make a committee change
at this time.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows: Osborne (Mr. Alcock) for St. Boniface
(Mr. Gaudry).
Motion agreed to.
Bill 31‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), Bill 31, The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Wellington. Stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal ruling
was fairly clear in this regard. It also
stated that the Department of Health, by regulation, did not have the authority
to determine where medical services can be provided. In other words, the Court of Appeal ruled
that the government legislation could not be changed simply by changing
regulations and that the government was required, by its own legislation, to
provide for these services in a clinic, that the services were efficient,
effective and particularly cost effective.
Bill 31 is this government's response to
that appeal court ruling. It, in effect,
is an attempt to amend The Health Services Act to allow the province to have
the authority to determine where medical services can be provided.
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting piece
of legislation, because it is clear, and everyone who has an interest and a
concern in this piece of legislation knows, that the only reason the bill was
brought in was to enable the government not to fund the services that the Court
of Appeal said should be funded and must be funded, and that the government did
not have the authority not to fund, i.e., those medical services provided by
the Morgentaler Clinic. Everyone knows
that this bill was brought in specifically to enable the government not to fund
those services. So we are disappointed
that the government would respond in this manner to the Court of Appeal ruling.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
On the other hand, Mr. Acting Speaker,
there is potential here that I hope the government, should this bill pass, will
take advantage of. That is, this bill
does allow the government to determine where medical services shall be
provided, medical services that will be paid for by the Manitoba Health
Services Commission.
We would hope that the government will use
this piece of legislation in its broadest context, Mr. Acting Speaker, and not
simply implement it and then stop paying for services or continue to not pay
for services provided out of the Morgentaler Clinic. We hope that the
government will use this piece of legislation to, for example, staff midwifery
clinics.
If I may be allowed a very minimal detour
here, we are waiting‑‑I believe the minister said that this month
the midwifery report would be prepared and would be given by, I believe, the
deputy minister to the minister. There
are many people in this province who are anxiously awaiting the results of that
report.
I would hope that the midwifery report
would suggest and recommend to the minister that midwifery clinics be
established in this province for a broad range of reasons, and I will not go
into them because they are not particularly germane to this bill. But this is the kind of clinic, the kind of
medical supervision, the kind of medical health service that could be
undertaken by the government using the authority granted to the government
under Bill 31.
We hope that the government will take
advantage of this piece of legislation to do that kind of progressive, forward‑thinking,
proactive kind of medical service provision.
We hope that it is not, as I stated earlier, simply a situation that the
government found itself in and that it is a knee‑jerk response to a
particular case, to a particular type of medical procedure, to a very specific
clinic in this province, Mr. Acting Speaker.
It can allow on the other side‑‑I
have given an example of where Bill 31 could allow for the proactive provision
of services. On the other hand, I
assume, and I am not up on the legalities of implementation of legislation,
that this legislation could give the government the authority not to fund as it
is obviously going to not fund services provided by Morgentaler. It could also be used to say we will not fund
other services provided by other people who were attempting to provide health
services.
Situations where we are concerned in this
on this side of the House, as are most Manitobans, with the privatization and
the Americanization of our health care system as a whole, with the fact that
waiting lists are extremely long. We
have a proliferation of walk‑in clinics.
We have huge demands placed on our entire health care system.
The government has not in any way, shape
or form instituted any health reform.
They brought in their paper in May of last year, a paper which on the
surface appeared to be very positive and had some excellent ideas in it.
But, as we have seen as we alerted the
public to the day the quality health care document was tabled in this House
that this government was not interested in true health care reform, that they
were interested in cost cutting and that alone.
Not only are they interested in cost
cutting, but I would suggest that in their heart of hearts this government
really does think that the best kind of health care system is the health care
system similar to the
This is the way this government has been
reacting in the social services area. It
is the way the government has been reacting in many other areas: their lack of job creation programs, their
lack of understanding about the need for education and training as evidenced in
the government's callous implementation of the student social allowances bill
last night in committee.
This bill has a potential for that
happening as well, and we are worried that the government will use this piece
of legislation in a narrow and reactive and regressive manner rather than in a
positive way that we think potentially could be the outcome of a piece of
legislation such as this.
Bill 31 is an example of the power that
legislation has. It is a very small bill
with enormous potential implications and ramifications. We want to put on record that while we understand
and totally disagree with the genesis of this piece of legislation, that it is
a reactive piece of legislation dealing with a very narrow situation and
concern, and one that the minister was unable or felt that he could not follow
the legal requirements of the Court of Appeal‑‑and made this
legislation retroactive, I might add, so that the actions of this government,
from the time of the appeal court ruling to the time of this bill's passage,
should it pass, would be legitimized. We
are on record in general opposing retroactive legislation, and we have had
several examples of that kind of behaviour and that kind of legislation today
in this session.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
We abhor the reason for the government
bringing this piece of legislation in; however, we also see some positive
potential implications of this legislation should it be acted upon in a
progressive manner. We look forward to
the public hearing process and to any concerns that are raised by groups and
individuals in our community. We wish
that this government had not brought this piece of legislation in as a cowardly
kind of response to a Court of Appeal ruling and look forward to its being
taken to a committee and the public response to it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put comments on
the record in regard to Bill 31, The Health Services Insurance Amendment
Act. We, as a caucus, are quite prepared
to have this bill go to committee so that members of the public will have an
opportunity to express their concerns and comments about Bill 31.
* (1100)
Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting
bill, because the potential for this supposedly benign change in regulations
certainly has great implications as to what kinds of services can be provided,
and also the authority and the ability of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
to make decisions in regard to community clinics and community services. So there is a positive potential of this
particular bill, and of course there may be negative potential as well.
It is certainly no secret that in the
province of Manitoba that this particular change in regulation‑‑and
I do not think the Minister of Health would disagree with this‑‑that
this particular regulation was brought in specifically to ensure that the
abortion services which are currently carried out at one particular clinic, the
Morgentaler Clinic, that this regulation would allow the minister to not pay
fees for the performing of those particular services.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal has
determined that abortion services are legal and that regardless of what one
personally believes about the issue of abortion, that they are safe, they are
legal, and if that is the case, this bill will and can limit abortion services.
As I say, it has already been determined
that they are legal. It has already been
determined that they are safe, and those kinds of services could be provided in
a community setting. This particular
bill will allow the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), which I am sure he will
do, to basically limit women's ability of access to these particular clinics.
I think that is wrong. I think that if this minister and this
government have difficulties with the issue of abortion and whether in fact
there should be those types of services provided, they should deal with that
issue directly. They should deal with
that issue aboveboard and bring the debate out into the public.
This particular bill, this particular
amendment, actually is a backdoor way of changing a regulation so that they can
decide to not allow access of women to the clinic, because in fact there will
not be any payment of fees for this particular clinic. So it is really a very backdoor way of doing
things, Mr. Speaker. I would have
preferred that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and his government and his
colleagues would have decided to deal with the issue of abortion, because that
is I believe what they are trying to do in this regulation. Deal with it aboveboard and talk about the
issue, have a debate in the public.
Now there is potential for this bill, as
well, for some very positive impacts in regard to community clinics. I know that the minister in his remarks talks
about a new facility proposed by the Canadian Red Cross and that he will use
that type of facility to‑‑it will be covered in this type of
amendment. So there is certainly the
potential for very positive impacts of this particular type of regulation.
The question will be, how will the
Minister of Health decide that he is going to use this regulation in regard to any
type of expansion of community clinics, of facilities in the community. That
will be the question, Mr. Speaker, which we will judge the minister on.
We have heard about the minister's health
reform document. Certainly, as one goes through the principles of the health
reform document and looks at the foundations that are laid out in that action
plan, the discussion of community‑based services, community‑based
care is mentioned throughout that particular document. Again, this particular regulation change in
Bill 31 can allow an increase of community‑based clinics, and we would
like to see that. We would like to
actually see where in fact the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will start to
look at more community‑based clinics, because in fact you oftentimes can
provide a service‑‑if it can be provided safely‑‑more
economically, it can be more accessible if it is provided in the community.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks
short. We would like to see this bill go
to committee so that the public, interested citizens, will have an opportunity
to debate this particular bill. Again,
we see positives of this bill in terms of potential expansion of community
services and community clinics. On the
other hand, we are quite aware of what the minister plans to do with this
regulation in regard, in specific, to the Morgentaler Clinic, and we have
difficulties with his backdoor approach to the issue of abortion.
With those few comments, I will leave it
at that, and we will certainly be having more discussions about this at the
committee stage. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health will be
closing debate, as understood.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that this bill will proceed to committee. However, I do have to take some modest
exceptions with some of the comments, particularly by the last speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the last speaker to this
legislation indicated that this amendment could be used, for instance, to
restrict access to services of therapeutic abortion for women. That is not factually correct. My honourable friend the previous speaker
appeared to base her statement, in which she made that conclusion, on the basis
of the Court of Appeal decision. In
fact, the Court of Appeal, on majority decision, found that the provisions of
therapeutic abortions in the
My honourable friend the member for Crescentwood
(Ms. Gray) ought to read the judgment, because the statement she made that this
amendment, if imposed on the Morgentaler Clinic would restrict women's access
to therapeutic abortion, in fact is not an accurate statement. Of course, if my honourable friend chose to
accurately relate the Court of Appeal decision, she would have to change her
position that she presented this morning.
I accept my honourable friend's concerns,
but as I indicated in bringing in this legislation, this allows the formalization
of a process that governments, not only ours but the previous New Democrat
administrations and previous Conservative administrations, have used since we
have provided insurance health care services in the province of Manitoba to
determine where services can be safely and economically provided within the
budget framework that Manitobans have put at their disposal through taxation
and borrowing to provide needed health care services in Manitoba.
This amendment we believe will alleviate
the concern expressed by minority opinion on the Court of Appeal that we did
not have the regulatory authority as crafted in legislation to make those
determinations by regulation.
This will give us that authority which has
been used, Sir, for 25 years by governments of a number of political
affiliations and not narrowed as my honourable friend the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), the member for
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the
question? The question before the House
is second reading of Bill 31, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
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 Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Minnedosa
(Mr. Gilleshammer); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); and the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) for
the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey).
Motion agreed to.
* (1110)
Bill 36‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (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. Reid).
Some Honourable Members:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act. This bill in principle brings in
mandatory safety inspections for all motor vehicles upon the change of
ownership, and the extension of the legislation programs which are currently in
place to deal with vehicles sold by motor dealers and the periodic inspection
of commercial vehicles. Now in that
sense it replaces the random inspection system that we now have in the
province.
Mr. Speaker, this is, in principle, an
idea and an approach that our party has been on record as supporting and
recommending and asking for, for a long time.
I know that, the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), it has been a
large issue for him. It is one that I
believe firmly in.
I have one overriding concern with this
bill‑‑not the principle behind it but the way that it is done, and
I look forward to a discussion at committee about that. I do not intend to hold up the legislation at
this point based on that concern, but I will look forward to some discussion at
committee about that, and that is, I want to ensure‑‑and others
have stated that it is a concern of theirs‑‑that the same
restrictions that apply to private vendors and purchasers of motor vehicles
also apply in the same way, no lesser, to the commercial dealers.
I want to ensure and make sure of that at
the committee stage, because I understand that commercial vendors, used car
dealers in the city, in the province, will most often sell vehicles which are
much less likely, perhaps, to be dangerous, but the same safety requirements,
the same protocol, and the same necessity for proof should be applied.
Mr. Speaker, I see the members opposite
saying that is in there. It may well
be. I have looked at the bill; I have
not been convinced as yet that it is abundantly clear, but I will wait for the
committees to clarify that point.
Mr. Speaker, I also to want to discuss how
it is going to be administered and how it is going to be done. As we all know, there is a lot of trade in
used vehicles. The purchaser is not
intending the vehicle to be driven ever.
It is simply being bought for parts.
It is being bought for some other purpose.
In my view, the way it should be done is
that it is the obligation of the purchaser to ensure that the safety inspection
is done, because then the purchaser decides, do I want to license it? If so, then I have to get the safety
inspection. If not, then I do not have
to worry about it, and maybe I have bought this vehicle for parts. So, if that is the case, if that is the way
this is to be administered, then I am in agreement. I think it is an appropriate bill.
In reality, I know from spending some of
my life in the province of Ontario, the way it works is, in fact, and it works
quite well I think, is that‑‑unless the NDP have changed it since
they got into power, but knowing the things they have done, they may have
screwed that system up since I left.
But, when I was there under a good Liberal regime, for part of the time
I was there, the system worked very well.
The way it worked was that in the used car
market the purchaser knew that this would be required and, if he or she was
intending to license the vehicle, would simply demand from the vendor that it
was sold with a safety certificate. So,
in fact, it became the obligation of the vendor in reality in the marketplace.
But in law it stays the obligation of the
purchaser, because then the purchaser has the option of licensing it, in which
case you get the safety certificate, or perhaps not licensing it, using the
vehicle for other purposes, for parts of some other purpose. So that is the system which I think makes
sense and works.
One of the problems with the random
selection is that‑‑as one who had a number of vehicles through high
school and university, as I think a lot of people do, none of which lasted very
long, and not because of my driving habits, but they were just vehicles which I
paid very little for and lasted a very short time.
I know that there is a market there in
vehicles which in all likelihood should not be on the road. That puts at risk not just the people who
purchase that vehicle; it puts everybody at risk, because it is a vehicle that
the brakes could go, or the lights could go, or the steering shaft could
go. I mean it could be very dangerous. So it serves us all to have this.
There will be additional costs borne by
the vendors to have these safety certificates, but I think it is worth it. I think it is worth it to know that there is
a minimum standard of safety on the vehicles on the road. Driving a vehicle that is unsafe, driving a
vehicle where the driver is impaired, is like having someone walking around
with a loaded gun. There is no other
analogy that is more appropriate, because it is something waiting to happen,
whether it is a pedestrian, another driver, children in another vehicle,
children in that vehicle‑‑these are tragedies waiting to
happen. So I certainly support in
principle, albeit with some of the concerns I have expressed, and our party
supports in principle, moving to a system in which we are going to better ensure
that vehicles are, in fact, road worthy.
Now the other concern, Mr. Speaker, that I
will simply mention is one that we would like to discuss and confirm at
committee: there still remains the
random system for vehicles that have not been sold for a certain period of
time. If you rely entirely on the
turnover of the vehicle, it may well be that a vehicle is owned by one owner
for many, many years and becomes unsafe.
So we have to still maintain a random system of check, I would suggest,
based on the age of the vehicle and narrowing out those vehicles which have not
changed hands.
We certainly do not need to send out
random selections to vehicles which are changing hands on a regular basis,
because they are being checked every time they changed hands under this system,
but those that are not being turned over, are not changing hands, if we do not
maintain some random selection for them, never will be checked. So we do have to have a balance between the
two systems, but I think this is the way to go.
I think it is important and makes sense to have a system whereby
vehicles are checked regularly, and I think that the additional cost that will
be borne by potential vendors is well worth it and is acceptable to
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Bill 45‑The
Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), 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, standing in the
name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I do
not intend to make lengthy comments about this bill, but do want to indicate
that I do not like the new coat of arms.
With all due respect to the artist, to the people involved‑‑I
have every confidence that they did their best‑‑they should be sent
back to the drawing board, because I am a little embarrassed by that coat of
arms. I think that it just tries too
much by half, and the result is that it just does not send a clear message.
I am not one who pretends or purports to
be any kind of an art expert or have any sophistication about art. I know what I like and I know what I do not
like, but I do not pretend to have a sophisticated idea of what is great art,
but this emblem, I do not see it so much as an artistic piece. It speaks for the province. It has to represent. People in this province have to be able to
relate to it in some way. It is not
perhaps a major issue, but it is something which is going to be used around the
province, perhaps in all kinds of ways.
I just do not think it does the trick.
With some regret, because I recognize the expense of producing it out in
the foyer here, I recognize the time and effort and expense of coming up with
it, but I do not like it. I have
canvassed with the caucus members in our party. They do not like it. Again, with regret, we oppose this bill.
* (1120)
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that I
appreciate the efforts made, and I understand that people may be hurt or
offended by that judgment on this, but we do have a responsibility to look at
it in the context of what our constituents are likely to think about it. They are the residents of this province and I
just do not think they are going to like it, and I do not. I think we are going to have to send them back
to the drawing board. I am not sure what
is wrong with the old one and maybe that could be explained. Maybe I have not listened intently enough on
that point but I am not completely clear why we are doing away with the old
one. Perhaps that could be clarified,
and if need be, we will go back and try again, but this one to me just does not
cut it.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Bill 49‑‑The
Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 49, The Summary Convictions Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les poursuites
sommaires et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this
bill, The Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, is a
bill that I oppose and that our party will oppose.
The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that
it takes away the fine option program for parking and highway traffic offences.
Now, it may be stated, and I know the minister has said that it will save a lot
of money, $250,000 annually he says. He
says it will remove jail as a penalty for nonpayment of parking tickets which I
agree with and that is a part of the bill that I do support. He indicates the time to pay can be granted
for those with low incomes.
What he fails to mention is that the fine
option program is not a program in which people pay in dollars. It is a program in which they pay in
time. It would be fine if we allowed people
to pay over time and required that they pay cash, pay money, if they had jobs,
if they had money, if they had any disposable income. But, Mr. Speaker, we have
36,000 people unemployed in this city. There just are not jobs. The people who come before the courts and
qualify for the fine option program do not have money. That is why they opt for the fine option
program.
If the minister is saying that Highway
Traffic Act offences are not that serious, Highway Traffic Act offences can
result in hundreds and hundreds of dollars of fines. So the fine option program is a very, very
important part of the sentencing regime, sentencing options available to
judges. I have had the experience and I
have had the opportunity on many occasions to recommend the fine option program
to a client and have it approved by a judge because it works and it is
necessary in those circumstances. The
fact is that it also makes available to community clubs, community
organizations, nonprofit organizations, makes available people to do work and
work off their fines. What is wrong with
that? The organizations get the labour,
the work. The individual involved gets
the experience of doing the work, which is often a very good thing, especially
for young people, to know that they have to work to pay off their fine.
Thirdly, it sends the message to the
individual, to the young person, obviously a lot of young people use this
program, that for the crime, for the act, there is a consequence. You may not have the financial resources to
pay a fine, but there is a consequence.
It is real, and it is going to mean that on weekends, Saturdays, you
have to go to the community club, you have to put in the hours, you have to do
the work. What is wrong with that? I think it is a great system.
I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, why we
would do anything to undercut, to do away with that system. The fine option program is a good
program. What is going to happen? What is going to happen with young offenders
and others who now do not have that program?
I know what will happen. They do
not have the money to pay. Their parents
will pay. Someone else will pay, or they
will not be able to pay at all, but they do not get the message. It is not a
bad message for people to hear and stand up in front of a judge to tell them
that there is a consequence to this. You
are not going to be let off the hook.
Damage occurred, there is a fine that is necessary, and as a result, in
your community you are going to have to do free work. I do not think that is a bad system.
Mr. Speaker, my view would be that the
bill has to be opposed. I do not know
why we are scrapping this sentencing option, which has at its root that goal
which is to send a message, a sentencing message in a real way to people who,
for whatever reason, cannot afford it.
We do not want to simply be able to go to their parents or otherwise and
get the money, so it does have that great advantage. It is used every day in our courts. I can tell you from experience. It is used every day. The judges value it and
use it in appropriate circumstances as an appropriate sentence.
Mr. Speaker, I am very unhappy to see that
the minister is proposing to delete it, to get rid of it. I also, however, have to say that it is not a
surprise, because I do not think the minister understands the correction system
sufficiently to understand the importance of this program.
There are many other areas of the justice
system that give me grave concern, most notably the other two acts before this
House, which I have discussed, dealing with the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Board and the Victims Assistance Fund.
We are seeing a politicization of those monies. We are seeing a reduction in benefits that
will be available to the victims of crime, all the while assault, robbery and
sexual assault are rising dramatically in our city. So the victims of crime, grievous crime, are
increasing, and now those who are the victims of crime and cannot work are
having their benefits cut.
The minister stood up yesterday in this
House and said: You should be happy we
have a criminal injuries compensation scheme at all; so it is being cut; you
should be happy that we have it at all.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I have not checked, but
I have been in other provinces. They all
have criminal injuries compensation schemes to my knowledge. I would stand to be corrected on that, but
certainly many of them do, if not most, if not all. I do not think the minister should say it is
some great blessing for our society to have this. It makes sense, if you are the innocent
victim of a crime, that we have some scheme that is going to compensate
you. We have the same scheme if you are
in a car accident, not by your fault or something else. If crime happens to someone, then they should
not be thrown out on the street and put out of a job and not have any
income. It is not as if they are getting
thousands and thousands and millions of dollars for superficial purposes. If they get anything, it is income
replacement and income replacement only.
It is administered by the Workers
Compensation Board, so people are not getting rich on this. They are getting compensated when they have
been the victim of an assault or a personal crime that results in them not being
able to continue to work.
* (1130)
So the justice system generally, Mr.
Speaker, under this minister's guidance, I think is being eroded and on the
Victims Assistance Fund just outright being politicized. The money is now being taken out of the hands
of the Victims Assistance Committee and given to the government. That is basically it.
They are politicizing those funds, and
they will bring them into the fold and bring them into the government general
revenues. That has been the agenda for a
number of years, and it is culminating in Bill 53 which is before this House
currently. They are moving away from community involvement in that decision
making, from involvement of the experts in a nonpolitical way in deciding how
to fund victims.
They are moving away from that. They are moving more and more and more and
bringing those monies into the minister's office to be directed as he sees
fit. It is fundamentally as a result of
a disrespect and a dislike, I think, of consulting the public and of allowing
nonpartisan people to have any real control over any government funds.
The interesting thing about the Victims
Assistance Fund, it is not taxpayers' dollars.
It is not revenue generated in the normal tax system. The Victims Assistance Fund is as a result of
tariffs on fines. If people are given
fines federally or provincially, they pay an additional percentage of top‑up
which goes into the Victims Assistance Fund.
So it is not as a result of income tax or corporate tax or some such
thing. It is put into the fund as a
result of payments to people who have been convicted of crimes and pay a top‑up
on their fines.
So the politicization of those funds and
bringing them into general revenues is regrettable indeed, in my view, Mr.
Speaker, and this bill, which eradicates this option for the courts, is also
very regrettable. I repeat that the
provision that says that jail will not be made an option for in these cases, I
do not have a problem with, but the provisions which get rid of a sensing
option for judges which helps the community, helps the person before the court
know about this crime, deal with it in a way, they get experience doing the
work, it is a good program.
Why is the minister getting rid of
it? I do not see in his comments any
real defence for what he is doing, and as a result, Mr. Speaker, believe that
this is a bad piece of legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 33, The Provincial
Railways and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les chemins de fer
provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk). Stand? No, leave is denied. Okay.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to let this bill
go to committee, but I did want to‑‑and much to the relief of the
Government House Leader (Mr. Manness) perhaps, we are trying to work through
these as quickly as we can. I think the
Government House Leader understands that some of this legislation has not been
around very long and some of it is very important.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills
that I think has the potential for both some good and some bad in terms of the
rail transportation system in the province of Manitoba. As my colleague the member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid) suggested, this is really an attempt by the government and perhaps an
attempt by other governments across the country to make the best of a very bad
and a very difficult situation. There
are very few communities, if any communities in the province, who want to see
their rail lines abandoned by our national railway companies. For many
communities, one line or the other is the only means of access. Certainly the CN line that goes into northern
So, Mr. Speaker, we, I guess, are faced
with the prospect of having to deal with Bill 33 because of the apparent
willingness of the government, the apparent desire on the part of our national
railways, to abandon and continue to abandon some of the thousands and
thousands of miles of line that connect our province and bring people together,
provide supply lines for our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I want to relate to the House
one of the most frustrating experiences I have had in my almost 12 years in
this Legislature, and it had to do with the use of our rail system. In 1981,
after I was elected, one of the first‑‑
An Honourable Member: Why did you leave a $500‑million deficit
. . . ?
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member for Pembina (Mr.
Orchard) is chirping about deficit again, and I guess representing a government
that has the highest deficit in the province's history, he knows a lot about
deficits. Perhaps‑‑
An Honourable Member: Yes, but you said they were manageable, Jerry,
so you should have . . . .
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member said that I said a
$500‑million debt was manageable.
I suppose that means that his $862 million is unmanageable. Well, of course, that would speak of bad
management, incompetence on the part of the government, so perhaps the minister
wants to get up and debate that at some point.
I think that if a $500‑million deficit is not manageable, then it
is pretty clear and pretty obvious that $862 million is not manageable either.
In 1981, shortly after I was elected, I
contacted the CNR and talked to the National Transportation Agency about the
prospects of introducing a community‑based rail service between the
communities of Cranberry Portage, Sherridon and Pukatawagan. There are some
2,500 people approximately who are served by that rail line, and at that time
it was their only access to the outside world.
There was no road into Sherridon as there is currently, and there was no
winter road system which operated between Pukatawagan and Sherridon and
attached them to the provincial highway system.
Mr. Speaker, I did some research and found
that, yes, there were in fact in other parts of
Mr. Speaker, at the time and to this day,
CN ran trains on that line three times a week, so any given inch of that railway
was used for about three seconds in a week.
There were days when there was no traffic on the line at all. It was predictable when there would be
traffic on the line, and so I felt that it was reasonable that CN would be
willing to lease the line at virtually no cost to a small commuter railway
company, lease time on the line to a community‑based company. I then said, okay, let us see what kind of a
service we could provide.
I went to the Greater Winnipeg water
services railway system, and for members here who do not know that, Greater
Winnipeg water services has operated a little commuter vehicle on the rail line
that goes out to Shoal Lake, and they have done for many, many years. The vehicle that I test drove was, I believe,
a 1980 Ford Econoline van that had been converted to use railway wheels, a
conversion that cost, I was told at the time, some $6,000.
An Honourable Member: A rail bus.
Mr. Storie: It was a rail bus, a rail van, actually, a
rail Ford van. The conversion actually
cost $6,000 and that van on the line could travel approximately 40 miles an
hour. At the end of the line it had a
little mechanism on it that allowed the van to turn around and head back.
I said, there is the kind of model that we
need to apply on the rail lines in northern
It seemed like such a rational solution
given the fact that the people of
* (1140)
Well, Mr. Speaker, as luck would have it,
the federal government got involved, and as they often do, destroyed the
concept. Therein lay the problem. The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy was then the
federal Minister of Transport‑‑(interjection) Well, I do not want
to be critical of Mr. Axworthy because I think through his department‑‑and
I will not pin the blame or the credit on Mr. Axworthy‑‑there was
an agreement to attempt to resolve the problem.
What happened was it went from a concept of having a small van on the
line, a simple concept that would cost in total for the van and the
modifications that were necessary, about $20,000. All of a sudden, it became a million‑dollar
pilot project.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): How?
Mr.
Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member
for Lac du Bonnet quite rightly asked how did that happen? Only a government that had endless amounts of
money to fritter away as the federal Liberal government did at that time would
have turned a simple project that would have met the community needs into a
pilot project that cost millions of dollars.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Not only did the federal government move
the project from the line that was originally discussed, they created a project
that was destined to fail. The federal
government decided, in its wisdom, to have a demonstration project that
connected the communities of Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei with Thompson.
Madam Deputy Speaker, first of all, the service between those two communities
was already much better than the service available in Sherridon and
Pukatawagan. Secondly, what the federal
government did is decide to buy a motor coach, a huge motor coac, which cost
something like $250,000. (interjection) The Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger)
may be correct that they actually bought it in
Instead of turning that vehicle over to
the community and saying, here operate this, they tried to operate it on a
schedule, not understanding apparently and not listening when they were told
that these communities wanted to have this vehicle to operate when they wanted
to operate it. Then it would have been
viable, because people would have paid when they wanted to go. They already had train service, a much better
train service, certainly, than Pukatawagan.
Madam Deputy Speaker, not only that, there
was not the same population base. The
population base of those two communities was much smaller than the population
base of the line that we originally suggested they should use. Anyway, the long and short of it‑‑and
some people want this to be shorter than longer‑‑is that the
project did not work. People did not use
the service as much as we would have hoped.
The line and the operating costs of operating that larger bus was
significant.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did have a
chance to ride on the bus on its inaugural run.
I was at least pleased to see that the federal government, the
provincial government, could get together on an idea and try and make it work,
but unfortunately, as I said to the federal government at the time, this
project was designed to fail. It was not
designed to succeed.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to find
a way to help Manitobans better use the infrastructure that is in place. There is no reason why the taxpayers of
Canada should have put rail lines all over the province and then everyone be
denied access regardless of how much sense it makes for the province to use
that system.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may get
back to the bill, that is why I say we are about to, I guess, make the best of
a bad situation. What the government is
now proposing to do, of course, is to privatize some of those lines. Now, I did not read the minister's remarks,
in all fairness to the minister, but I hope that there is still the opportunity
for nonprofit groups, for communities to get involved and use these lines. Even if these lines are transferred to
private ownership, I think that there necessarily has to be a right of access
to the communities and in fact the people who paid for the line in the first
place.
The people of
If we are going to privatize any section
of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the only other
comments I have is that obviously we would prefer, I think, a national railway
system that was operated in national interests.
We would prefer to find a way to utilize these lines in a way that made
economic sense. We would prefer to have our province develop to create economic
opportunities, rather than have to be here discussing the need for finding a
way to use rail lines that are abandoned. Unfortunately, in the last 10 years
in
So we are prepared to let this bill go to
committee. I indicate we are willing to
see where this takes us and what the people at committee have to say. We do this without any joy. We think that there was a better way, but on
the other hand I commend the minister for at least looking for options. I know this minister, and I respect that he
has the interests of the community at heart.
I hope that ideology does not pervade what actually happens after this
bill is implemented, if it should pass, and it becomes an ideological tool to
simply privatize it without regard for the fact that Canadian taxpayers paid
for this system and they deserve to have it serve their interests and not just
some private individual's interest.
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 33, The Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act
(Loi concernant les chemins de fer provinciaux et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois). Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
Committee
Change
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows:
Motion agreed to.
* (1150)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
will you call Bill 30 to be followed by Bill 41.
Bill 30‑The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability a nd Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 30
(The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant une deficience
mentale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
plan to speak for a few minutes and then we will pass this bill to
committee. I know there are people in
the community who are anxious to make public presentations, and we are anxious
to hear them.
This is a very important bill and a very
long bill and one that has been in the making for a number of years. A great deal of consultation with the
community who are affected has been undertaken.
I would even like to commend the minister for his efforts in consulting
the community. Not everybody agrees with
everything in this bill, but I think that the government did make a good
attempt to consult with as many people as possible.
Our society's attitudes have changed over
the years with regard to people with mental disabilities. In fact, just in my short lifetime, I think
we have come full circle. I can remember
that, when I was in elementary school,
there was a student a year or two ahead of me who was in a regular
classroom, whom now we would call mentally disabled. At that time, the teachers probably did not
recognize the kind of student who was in the class and tried to deal with her
as if she were like any other student in the class, and with really terrible
consequences for that individual, because when she was unable to learn
something, she was dealt with the same way that other students were, namely,
she was given the strap repeatedly for not being able to learn. That was most
unfortunate.
Then these students were taken out of the
school system and put in special schools.
They were segregated. Of course,
over the years, many of these individuals have been in institutions. Now we
have a swing that has come back, or we have gone full circle, and many of these
individuals are being mainstreamed, to use the jargon. Many of these individuals are living in group
homes or living in apartments or living in supportive living settings, and many
of them are back in the regular school system.
It is good to see that, wherever possible, people are reintegrated into
our society and treated like everyone else.
I guess that is the result of increased understanding on the part of our
society.
Bill 30 brings about major changes, mainly
having to do with conferring rights on these individuals. I suppose that is partly a result of lobbying
that various groups have done. I suppose
it is a result of things like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms whereby all
people have rights, and it is only in exceptional circumstances that these
rights can be taken away.
In fact, it is my understanding of the
history of this legislation that, had this legislation not been forthcoming,
there was a group that was prepared to go to court and challenge the existing
legislation. So this is a bit of a
tradeoff whereby that group did not go to court, and, instead, we have this
legislation to replace it.
The government had a review committee, and
we have their discussion paper on possible changes to legislation affecting
Manitobans living with a mental disability which was‑‑I guess this
report is dated September 1991. It is a
very interesting report and a very comprehensive report, and, of course, the
people who had the greatest input into this were hoping that all of their
recommendations would be in the legislation.
That is probably not the case.
In fact, that is probably the usual case
when people are on a review committee, because the government is in the
position of having to balance different interests. I appreciate how difficult a task that is to
be in government because you have special interests lobbying you, and you also
have groups that consider that they are speaking for everyone, putting forth a
case as to what should result in legislation.
The government has to strike some kind of balance, and, ultimately, it
is the government that has to make those very difficult decisions in terms of
what gets into the legislation and what it says.
I would also like to thank the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and his staff, particularly his staff,
because the minister was not at the meeting, but his staff who briefed myself
on this very lengthy and complicated bill.
His staff also briefed the previous critics.
The government also put out a summary of
this bill in more understandable language called A Statement of Government
Policy Regarding Legislation for Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental
Disability, and it is dated May 1993. It
is a very helpful little document to help understand this bill.
In their summary, they have summarized the
guiding principles of the new legislation which are as follows: Vulnerable persons are presumed to be
competent to make their own decisions, unless demonstrated otherwise;
"vulnerable persons should be encouraged to make their own
decisions"; "the vulnerable persons' support network should be
encouraged to assist the vulnerable person in making decisions so as to enhance
his or her independence and self‑determination"; "any
assistance with decision making that is provided to a vulnerable person should
be provided in a manner which respects the privacy and dignity of the person
and should be the least restrictive and least intrusive form of assistance that
is appropriate in the circumstances"; "substitute decision making
should be involved only as a last resort when a vulnerable person needs
decisions to be made and is unable to make these decisions by himself or
herself or with the involvement of members of his or her support network."
We think these are good principles.
We have a problem with this bill in that I
believe these principles show up in the preamble. They are in the form of WHEREASes. They read well. We agree with their content.
One concern I have about this bill is that
it might make more sense to have the preamble as a part of a bill, to
incorporate it in the actual bill itself rather than as a preamble. My understanding is that makes a difference
if somebody should go to court under any section of this bill as to how a judge
interprets the bill. I am advised that
makes a difference, whether the principles are in the preamble or in the bill
itself, as to how a judge would interpret the act. That is something that could be changed at
the committee stage or by amendment, and I would like the minister to consider
that.
The Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner is
something that is new with this bill. It
is an individual who will have a lot of responsibility and a lot of
authority. In fact, I have already heard
some interesting speculation about who it is that will be appointed to that
position, and we will wait and see with great interest. I am sure the community will as well.
Because this individual will have
considerable power, I think that also raises questions of accountability. Right now the Vulnerable Persons'
Commissioner would report to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
We have seen how that works in other
situations, for example, the Children's Advocate. The opposition parties recommended that the
Children's Advocate not report to the minister but report to the Legislative
Assembly, as the Ombudsman does under The Ombudsman Act. This would be an alternative that this
minister could consider that the Vulnerable Persons' Commissioner report to the
Legislative Assembly. The minister would
be correct in saying, well, why would you recommend that, why is it necessary?
Let me give an example from the Children's
Advocate. We were in Estimates this
spring and I asked the minister repeatedly if the Children's Advocate had made
any recommendations. The minister talked
in generalities. The minister skated all
over the map. He talked about concerns
and how, yes, he had meetings with the Children's Advocate and the Advocate
raised concerns, but he would not use the word "recommendation."
The Children's Advocate had written a
letter to people who belonged to the Foster Family Association. We received a copy of that letter. In it the Children's Advocate said he had
made a recommendation to the minister.
So we raised that in Question Period.
We said, why did you not tell us in Estimates that the Advocate had
indeed made a recommendation? I guess
that was a judgment call that the minister made, a bad judgment call in our
opinion. We are concerned that the same
thing could happen in this case, that we have a Vulnerable Persons'
Commissioner who has considerable power, considerable authority, and therefore
we believe it would be better if this individual was accountable to the
Legislative Assembly.
* (1200)
Another concern that we have is with
support services. Now support services
are spelled out in the bill. There is a
question of whether this is an entitlement or a right, and therefore an
individual must get all of the support services which they require, or on the
other hand, whether the government would say there are limits. We cannot provide all the services that an
individual requires because the government would say, we need to take into
consideration the fiscal capacity of the government or the ability of
government to pay, and I guess there is a trade‑off there; in the view of
the government, I suppose it is a trade‑off. I would say that this is a very legitimate
concern which people in the community are raising. If you are going to say that people are
entitled to support services, then you need to ensure that the services which
people need are actually going to be there.
Next, I would like to talk briefly about
different parts of this legislation but also government policy and the
regulations. There is a concern that has been raised with me as to how policy
and principles in the act and the regulations will fit together, and I think
that is a legitimate concern. I suppose
it is partly a matter of time, because eventually we will see the regulations,
but we may not know very much detail about the government's policy till we see
it in practice.
There is also the concern about the
principles, whether they belong in the bill itself rather than in the
preamble. People want to know which is
more important and which will take precedent.
Will the principles take precedent?
Will the policy take precedent?
Will the act take precedent? I am
sure the minister would say the act would take precedent, but then quite often
regulations are very significant.
Sometimes governments hide things in the regulations that they do not
want in the act, because regulations are much easier to change. You just need an Order‑in‑Council. In court, which will take precedent, the
principles, the act, the regulations or the policy?
We are also concerned about
education. This is really a change in
how governments and really how our society views disabled people, mentally
disabled people, how we provide for them, and what their rights are. Although part of this bill is consequential
amendments from many other statutes that had to be amended, and the total bill
is 109 pages, the vast majority of this bill is still the bill itself on
vulnerable persons which is 79 pages. So
it is very complicated stuff. It is
going to take a while to inform the public, and so we would like to know, what
is the government's plan on educating the public? Because of the magnitude of these changes,
there is going to have to be considerable education. There is a need to educate vulnerable
persons. There is a need to educate
professionals, and there is a need to educate the general public.
It is not easy to explain to people
concepts like empowerment. In fact, we
just have to read in the Free Press this morning about the community
development people and church people working in the Langside district who were
trying to empower people in their community to take more responsibility, take
more control over their lives and show more concern and responsibility for
their neighbourhood. So they engaged
them in a process of naming their new community centre. What happened when the suggestion got to City
Council? The councillors totally ignored
it and said, well, we know what we want to call it. We have a name for it. Now the people in the community are very
frustrated and saying, look, we tried to empower people and you did not listen
to us.
Empowerment is a very difficult concept
for a lot of people. A lot of people are not familiar with it, have not heard
of it, and it is also difficult to give power to people who were previously
without power and without rights. Now
they will have some of both. Of course,
this education will need to be done in very simple, plain language.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are
interested in knowing how the government plans to review the implementation of
The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential
Amendments Act. Does the government have
a plan in place whereby they are going to monitor and review the
implementation, and will they be doing that over six months or a year, or two
years, or do they have a five‑year plan?
What is their plan for reviewing this new legislation? Perhaps they need some sort of formal
mechanism in place in advance to review all aspects of the act. Of course, if they are going to do that,
which would be a good idea, then they probably need a public review committee
so that they have input from the community as to how this legislation will be
reviewed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that finishes my
remarks. I am looking forward to this
bill going to committee so that we can hear presentations from the public and
see what concerns people have. I already know that some people think this bill
is just fine; other people are not willing to support it; and other people are
very upset. We have people taking
various different positions, and we will get a chance to hear all of them at the
committee stage.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 30, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and
Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
Committee
Change
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 41‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 41
(The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
parcs provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, traditionally
in this House when another member is prepared to speak, we do not deny someone
the right to speak unless it is their will to have that happen. The member for
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, on the same point of order, I acknowledge what the member has
said. Certainly, we will recant on this
side, but I will serve notice to the members opposite that, as of the passing
of Estimates on Monday, Bill 41 will not be allowed to stand whatever excuse,
and, indeed, most of the other bills will not be allowed to stand.
I am serving notice to the House that the
government will not allow any standing of bills as of next week.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to revisit the
previous question? Is there leave to
permit Bill 41 standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is nice to know that
common sense still prevails once in a while.
It is really nice to know that.
As usual, the common sense came from this side. The common sense came from the left side of
the Chamber, and the intransigence came from the other side of the Chamber.
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I do believe the honourable member for Flin Flon would like the courtesy
of being able to debate on Bill 41.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that the
Minister of Finance, the government House leader (Mr. Manness) has given notice
that bills will not be able to stand, and that is certainly fair. I was a little surprised at the unwillingness
to give leave, and I am pleased that common sense has prevailed and that we
certainly will be prepared to speak on Bill 41 probably for a couple of
months. For the government House leader,
when he fills out his calendar, I think Bill 41 should pass some time in
October. I think it is possible.
I did want to make a number of comments
about this bill, and I want to say at the outset that I have mixed feelings
about this piece of legislation, but the bottom line, I think, is that there
are more flaws in this legislation than there are good points. I think that there are some serious, serious
implications in this bill that need to be considered very carefully.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to begin by
touching on the first part of this bill, and there are really two separate
intentions in this piece of legislation.
The first part of the legislation deals with really a re‑establishment
of a classification system for the
* (1210)
So when I began reading this bill and
having listened to the Minister of Natural Resources' (Mr. Enns) remarks, I can
only say that the one area of concern, I think, comes in the decision on the
part of the government to include as a purpose of a park to provide economic
opportunities in accordance with park classifications and land‑use
categories.
I know that that is intended to imply that
all due consideration will be given to the classification system and the use to
which individual parks are put, but in our society and understandably, many
times, the need for jobs, the need for economic development, the pressure to
consume our resources overtakes common sense and overtakes our need, as well,
to preserve those parts of our ecology and our natural heritage.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the first
time, we now have, I guess, a recognition in legislation that we are using up
our parks in many instances. I know
that, and certainly I represent an area where there are tremendous pressures to
utilize all of our natural resources regardless of whether they are in
provincial parks or in other parts of our Crown lands system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, mining communities
were and are and continue to be concerned about mineral exploration, the
development of mines within provincial parks.
When the
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am acutely
aware of the fact that we have to balance the needs of our society, the needs
to create wealth with our interest in protecting our provincial parks.
That leads me to wonder whether the
government is actually committed to doing what it has often said it is committed
to doing, and that is setting aside on a regular basis, on a continuing basis
lands to preserve our natural heritage. (interjection) The Minister of Energy
and Mines (Mr. Downey) from his seat talks about the lands they have set aside. As the minister knows, the commitment of the
government of the day is to set aside some 12 percent over time. The minister says we are well on the way to
that. Well, obviously, this bill changes
everything.
An Honourable
Member: Do you want to put all
your miners out of work?
Mr. Storie: The minister will have his opportunity to
speak. If he had been listening, he
would have been aware of the fact that I have been very careful to say, I
recognize the need to balance these objectives.
What I am saying is, the government, if
they want to proceed to actually set aside the land that they claim they are
prepared to, to protect our natural resources, then they should get on with
that process and they should‑‑(interjection) As the minister well
knows, there are many different ecological areas that need to be
preserved. The minister says, we have
established one. Well, that is quite true.
We have.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill also will
allow the government to undermine the existing parks system. The power resides with the cabinet in this
legislation.
An Honourable Member: A public decision‑making process.
Mr. Storie: Well, the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) says, well, we have consultation processes. Of course the Minister of Environment will
say that there is going to be public consultation, but we saw what kind of
public consultation the minister was really involved in when the government got
to act on the
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we want to
do is make sure that this process is a legitimate process, that we simply do
not as a result of this legislation run over the existing consensus that is
already in place in some of our parks. I
recognize and the minister does as well, the Minister of Natural Resources and
the Minister of Energy and Mines, that there are some contentious areas where
in fact this debate and the public discussion around the implementation of this
system are going to be very difficult, and we will be watching those
discussions obviously with a great deal of care.
What we are concerned about again is the
government's underlying philosophy and the actions that have shown their desire
on many occasions to ignore the natural consequences of what the government is
doing and what people in their effort to create opportunity are doing for the
sake of economic opportunity. That is
always going to be a difficult balance. But I am not sure the description that
begins on page 3 of this bill under the "Purposes of provincial
parks," is necessarily the best description that we could have.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to
leave that section. I know a couple of my colleagues also have concerns about
this section. I certainly understand
what the government is trying to do. I
think that what the government in consequence will be doing is giving itself
more flexibility and not less. I am
assuming that is the government's intention.
When it comes to the protection of our
natural resources, our natural heritage, I think that that is sometimes a
mistake to give themselves too much flexibility, because, as I mentioned,
whether it is at
So we will see where that goes. Obviously, we are going to listen with a
great deal of interest to what some of those who have spent many, many years of
their lives watching our parks system have to say about this. We are also going to want to see what the
mining community and the forestry industry has to say about this, because
obviously this bill will be of significant concern to them as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what I wanted to
spend some time on, as well, was the second part of this bill which deals with
the issue of service fees and the payment of taxes or levies in lieu of taxes
that the government is proposing in this legislation. I just had delivered to me a copy of the
people who have already indicated a wish to speak on Bill 41. I see a significant list of people, the total
is approaching 200. Many, many, many of
those people are cottage owners. Many of
those people are recreational cottage owners or people who lease land in our
provincial parks or in, in some cases, our unoccupied Crown lands, Crown
subdivisions.
* (1220)
I think that number of people indicates a
genuine concern for the direction the government may be taking when it comes to
fees that we charge people for, quote, service provided by the government to
cottage owners and private landowners in our provincial parks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is, in
essence, a complete user‑pay system.
It represents, in my estimation, probably a tripling or a quadrupling of
the current fees that are being paid by cottage owners to the government of
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we all know and
the government knows that the assigning of administrative costs in particular
is a very arbitrary procedure‑‑a very arbitrary procedure.
Obviously, there are going to be people out there concerned about the prospects
of paying for the fire suppression co‑ordinator and the deputy minister's
office, all of which can, from some perspective, be claimed to be part of the
administrative cost. So I think there is a concern there about where the
government is going with the service fees.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government is
also going to introduce‑‑and I should say, on the service fee
issue, that the government makes it very clear what basis it will use in
determining those fees. It says that it
is going to include amounts required to operate and maintain services, and it
goes on to list emergency services. Then
it goes on to say capital expenditures and the administrative costs, and then
it says that the government may use the fact that there is a surplus or a
deficit to help determine costs as well.
We have the prospect of not only doubling
or tripling or quadrupling the service fee, but also the prospect of that fee
changing significantly from year to year, depending on whether this emergency
service is required. Does that mean if
there is a cottaging area in the
If there was a fire in Bakers Narrows
cottaging area, and the Department of Natural Resources spent half a million
dollars suppressing the fire, would those costs be attributed to the park
district and therefore to the cottage owners in that area? So there are some unknowns in this which I
think are going to cause people some concern.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that the
more disconcerting part of this is the government's intention to impose a levy
in lieu of taxes on these park residents, people who actually use their cottage
as a permanent residence. I think the
concern here is that the government is not obligated by legislation to relate
that levy to anything concrete. It says,
basically, the government can set the levy by regulation, and it "need not
be related to the cost to the government providing services or defraying
expenses." It can be an arbitrary
levy. It does not have to relate to the
normal tax levy that might be applied to municipal property only a few feet
away, so that the government might have a different structure for its levy in
lieu of taxes than the municipality adjacent to that cottaging area. I think that is of concern.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
As well, the government is giving itself
the right to, in effect, place a lien on the property, which is new. Finally, I think the most damning part of the
bill is a lack of any indication in the legislation that the levy, which is
going to be really the taxes that these people may be forced to pay, is going
into general revenue. This bill could
very well do the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) in. There are approximately 450 cottagers in the
Flin Flon area, and this government is going to take $500 or $600 out of their
pockets, perhaps more‑‑we do not know what the levy will be.
(interjection)
Mr. Speaker, the minister may want to get
into that debate, and we know why the people in Flin Flon are struggling. It is because this of this government's
incompetence. I have explained that to
the minister on many occasions.
Mr. Speaker, what is going to be, I think,
disturbing not only‑‑(interjection) Well, the minister will have
his chance to put his words on the debate.
What is most annoying about this bill, I
think, to a lot of municipal officials is that the impetus to introduce this legislation,
to talk about a levy in lieu of taxes, was instigated by the municipalities
themselves. The municipalities are now
watching the government of
An Honourable Member: Another grab.
Mr. Storie: ‑‑a tax grab from cottagers in the
areas adjacent to our municipalities with no return to the municipalities. The original intention was to have that money
transferred to the municipalities; and, if this government does nothing right
in this session, it should make sure that happens, because that was the
intention when this discussion started a decade ago. Now, Mr. Speaker, the government is turning
this opportunity into another tax grab.
So we are very concerned about some aspects of this legislation.
As I indicated, I certainly, as a
representative of a mining community, want to be sensitive to the need for
exploration and the need to establish an economic base. We want to make sure that does not mean that
the government has a licence to undermine our parks system. There are some people in the province who believe
that is the government's ultimate intention that they, despite the rhetoric,
have no real interest in sustainable development, in recognizing the importance
of our contribution to protecting the flora and fauna of our province as part
of our country, as part of the universe.
Mr. Speaker, the 170‑some people who
have already lined up to speak, I am sure, are going to be sharing with the
government many of the same concerns that I have expressed in my remarks, and I
think the potential for significant amendments to this legislation is
there. I think if the government is listening‑‑for
example, if the government will listen to the municipalities that are going to
ask that the levy directly be transferred to the municipalities instead of
going to general revenues, I think that they can improve this bill
remarkably. If they are willing to
listen, I think that in the end, if we are asked to pass this legislation, we
may be able to improve it to the point where it is worthy of support.
Right now there are some shortcomings in
the legislation which need to be addressed, and I think that is true on both sides
of the legislation which is before us, both in terms of the park system and the
classification system and the intention of the government as well as on the
service fee side.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, the Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) suggests that somehow this government has contributed
$55 million to the modernization effort in Flin Flon. The minister has had it explained to him many
times that, had the government acted more expeditiously, many of the layoffs that
are facing our communities right now, the community of Flin Flon and the
community of Snow Lake, may have been preventable. The Minister of Energy and
Mines is going to have to carry that on his shoulders for a very long
time. Certainly, he will be long
remembered as one of the contributors to the problem and not one who is looking
for solutions‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) will have 18 minutes remaining.
Is it the will of the House that the
Speaker do not see the clock to allow the honourable government House leader to
advise us of some committees? (agreed)
House
Business
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the
Standing Committee on Economic Development will sit Tuesday evening next to
consider Bills 30, 31 and 33.
Also I would indicate that the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments will also sit Tuesday evening next to consider Bills 25 and
34, if necessary.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
The hour being 12:30, this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.