Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), Bill 25, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I would like to put a few words on the record, Madam Speaker, regarding Bill 25, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act.
As the minister has pointed out on April 15 last, as he introduced the bill, the amendments contained within the bill are largely of a housekeeping nature. There are four issues with which the bill deals, four basic issues. The first issue is reciprocal exchange of licences.
All other Canadian jurisdictions have either bilateral or unilateral agreements with foreign countries regarding the use of their drivers' licences in Canada or the use of our drivers' licences in other countries. At present, reciprocal arrangements are limited to within Canada and the United States, and I believe there are some limited arrangements with NATO personnel as well. Therefore this amendment which authorizes the minister to enter into agreements with foreign jurisdictions regarding licence exchange is indeed timely. It is timely because at the brink of the 21st Century, we can expect to see many more tourists, many more business people coming to Canada, and vice versa. A lot of our people will be going overseas or into other foreign countries. Although it is true that we can drive in many countries with an international driver's licence, this still requires time and money, and there has to be a way of streamlining this. I believe that this is indeed a way of updating and modernizing, so we are very supportive of this.
As well, I am happy to see that the amendment builds in certain safeguards, namely licence reciprocity will only be considered where there is sufficient proof that the foreign countries licence qualifications are as stringent or more stringent than our own. I know that Class 5 and 6 licences, the requirements for them vary considerably from country to country.
I happen to know a bit about this, Madam Speaker, because some of my relatives in the Netherlands run driver-training centres or driving schools, and they inevitably talk about how hard it is to get a licence in the Netherlands and how easy it is in Belgium. Now, I do not know if that is true or not. So there are great variations, and we want to make sure for safety's sake that those people granted the right to drive in our country have licences whose requirements exceed our own or are as stringent as our own.
The second amendment, Madam Speaker, deals with repealing the need for fidelity bonds in the trucking industry. Since the trucking industry is now largely deregulated, whether we like it or not, there is little or no need for higher motor carriers to hold fidelity bonds for COD shipments. Other jurisdictions, for example Alberta and Saskatchewan, have also done away with these fidelity bonds. Since truckers from out of the province are not required to carry the bonds, it would place Manitoba truckers at a severe economic disadvantage should they be virtually the only ones forced to carry fidelity bonds. We have also checked with the industry, and they are very supportive of this direction.
Fidelity bonds, therefore, have become redundant. If there is a dispute between the carrier and the shipper, these disputes are normally resolved internally or they could also be resolved by litigation, as has been done in the past. As the minister has pointed out, there have been only three cases in the past 15 years where fidelity bonds were actually used.
The third amendment, Madam Speaker, involves altering the release-of-information provision regarding medical information. It is an attempt to make The Highway Traffic Act congruent with the new Personal Health Information Act. Only under limited circumstances can an individual be denied access to his or her personal health information. Prior to this, that is prior to this bill becoming law, a person could only access his or her medical records if the physician who supplied the report gave consent.
With this bill, The Highway Traffic Act fits in with The Personal Health Information Act, and access to medical information can only be denied if it endangers a person or identifies a third party who supplied the information in a context where confidentiality can reasonably be expected.
The last amendment, Madam Speaker, is a repeal of some unproclaimed amendments relating to a revised definition of commercial vehicle and requirements regarding the registration of leased public vehicles. These unproclaimed amendments are redundant because of the vehicle registration rewrite of 1994 as part of the MPIC Autopac 2000 project.
So we are pleased to support this bill, and we look forward to moving it on into committee stage. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 25, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): On a matter of House Business before we proceed, there will be a number of bills. I understand there is a potential that a number of bills could get passed, and it would be our intention, just so everybody knows, to set a committee for Thursday evening of this week, 7 p.m. [interjection]
Morning? I will come back to you later with this, Madam Speaker. Sorry for the interruption.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, Bill 21, The Communities Economic Development Fund Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Fonds de dévelopement économique local), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I would just like to make a few final comments. We are going to be passing this bill through the committee. It is a relatively minor bill. It gives additional power to the board of the CEDF in terms of its own affairs. I do want to put on the record, this is another example of the kind of vision that the Ed Schreyer government, the NDP government in the 1970s had. Here in 1998, we are still seeing the activity of CEDF putting in place that vision. The vision is of the ability of northern communities to be able to develop economically on a basis of community economic development.
I want to suggest to the government that into the next millennium, what we need is to build on that vision, the NDP vision of the 1970s, and adopt community economic development not only as something that is supplied in the case of the CEDF, not only as something that is supplied in the case of a few programs in rural development but as a keystone, a cornerstone, if you like, of our economic policy in this province.
I would like to point to our neighbours to the west in Saskatchewan. When they brought in their budget, they put community economic development first and foremost on their economic strategy. In fact, their budget document goes to some length talking about the community economic development strategies in that province, and they have had a very great deal of success by working with communities and regional development authorities. I point to what has happened in Saskatoon, for example, which is a world leader in using the agricultural community and the expertise of the university and applying it to world leading products. I put that on the record because I say we should be doing the same kind of thing in this province.
What we need as well is to recognize the role in terms of community economic development of both local governments, which is important, but also in terms of the co-op movement and also many of the community development corporations that we have in place, other organizations such as CUSO, women's organizations. I point to what happened in Ontario where women's organizations were fundamentally involved with the Rae government in terms of community economic development.
* (1510)
I am glad that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is listening because I say to the Minister of Rural Development, he should be arguing more within cabinet to get his department and community economic development higher up on the agenda. I want to see the next budget, if they care to bring in another budget before an election, include the same kind of profile for community economic development that we saw in Saskatchewan.
I say to the minister, learn from Saskatchewan, because the NDP in Saskatchewan has built co-operation with the co-op movement, and it has a strong strategy. I say to the Minister of Rural Development, he should save his breath for his cabinet colleagues, because they are not giving enough focus to community economic development in this province. I want to see the next budget document spend as much time in a high profile way as did the Saskatchewan document. I say that in a constructive way, because I can reference numerous things that can be done in this province.
I look at northern Manitoba. For example, there is a lot more that we can be doing in the area of marketing our products. I will give the minister a quick example, and I have raised this with CEDF. We have many aboriginal communities where people produce handicrafts, a major ability to do that, and I say to the minister, what we need to have in place is more assistance to communities on the marketing end and to development of co-ops.
I point to the minister, and I do not blame the minister for this, but this government, one of the first things they did was to get rid of the initiative brought in by Jay Cowan, the Minister of Co-op Development, a very significant initiative in the Co-op Development department. They basically have ignored co-op development, and there is a great opportunity in northern aboriginal communities on the co-op side, I say to the minister, because he is aware of this. There have been many criticisms of things such as the REDI program, which has had very limited success in northern Manitoba. It has done far better in southern Manitoba.
But, you know, there is a tale of two provinces. You could cut a line from Highway 1, you may go a little bit higher in some areas, but in northern areas of this province, including the Parklands and the Interlake, you still have persistently high rates of unemployment. You still have many communities which are very much looking for diversification. My own community of Thompson, for example, is going through tough times because of the economic circumstances, the mining industry and other areas.
But, you know, in northern Manitoba we have more than 20 percent unemployment right now officially, and that does not include a lot of people in aboriginal communities. I say to the minister, northern Manitoba in particular has been left out, left out, well, economically it has been left out of the kind of circumstances, and I look at what is happening, say, in Morden-Winkler and some of the areas around there, many of the communities in southern Manitoba.
I will go by the words of members opposite. There may be even labour shortages in some parts of the province. I know that is the case, and it is not the same as in southern Manitoba. We do not have a labour shortage in northern Manitoba. When I say we are being left out, I am saying economically.
There is a real problem, and you have a tale of two economies in this province, outside of the city of Winnipeg. You have basically south of Highway 1, there have been some difficulties in the flood areas, and I acknowledge that, but if you look at what has been going on in Morden-Winkler, there are labour shortages in many cases. In northern Manitoba we have an excess of people looking for work. We do not have the kind of megaprojects we have had, such as Limestone, in place. Mining is downsizing in Thompson. We have had the first direct layoffs really in Thompson history, direct layoffs, oh, and it is related to the price.
You see, I am saying to the minister, I am not blaming the government for the price of nickel. What I am saying is that northern communities are that much more anxious right now about diversification, and, well, the minister says they are helping northern communities. I am saying to the minister, you have got to help more. You have got to do more, and I give you specific examples.
I always believe, by the way, in not just criticizing, and there is enough to criticize with this government. I mean, I could spend my entire time in this speech criticizing the government but, at the beginning, and I think the minister may have missed this, I said that CEDF is a good example. It started with a vision in the 1970s with Ed Schreyer. It has been continued by various governments. The current Minister of Industry, Trade and technology nearly destroyed it in 1989, but, you know, it survived that. It is doing well. It has got a good board, and I say that, you know, the board, they are obviously appointed by the government. I know their politics, but I say it on an individual basis, and I have said that, that they are a good group of people and the boards of CEDF have done well under various different governments.
I have a lot of respect for people who have been involved in the past, the NDP, Nestor Dolinsky, by the way, who is just recovering from a health difficulty, but he was involved in the 1980s on the board from Flin Flon. There are a lot of people who have been involved over the years. The current board, I give them a lot of credit.
I say that because, you know, my belief is that as northeners, one thing where we have an advantage, we fight during elections but we sure can work together in between elections. That is what the CEDF is based on. [interjection] The minister is talking about the one-stop shop, which is not quite a one-stop shop anymore actually. The Women's Enterprise Centre has moved out of the building, but I say to the minister, it was a positive move. It was a positive move with CEDF when it was moved to Thompson. That was about the one real advantage of decentralization in 1990, the movement of the CEDF office to Thompson.
I appreciate the minister does not often get the opportunity to sit in on CEDF hearings, but I have said this in the past. One time I actually put out a press release praising the CEDF for having a good year, but it was not published by the local paper, because they felt it looked too much like a positive PR thing for the government. I believe when things work, you give credit where credit is due. CEDF works. CEDF, if anything, can be expanded in the future. That is what I am giving this speech on the basis of.
You know, I think sometimes members opposite--I still remember a few years ago when the Minister of Education wanted to vote against something because I proposed an amendment in committee, and the Minister of Labour accepted it. It was the sort of thing that if I proposed it, she had to be against it. It was kind of a knee-jerk reaction.
I say to the ministers opposite, we have difficult economic circumstances, but all I am suggesting is that the model that could be followed is CEDF; the kind of model of economic development that could be followed is community economic development. There is a lot more that could be done. I can make specific suggestions anytime, anywhere to the minister, to anyone in this government about economic development.
It is something I have a great deal of personal involvement with. My background is in economics. I have taught community economic development for the University of Manitoba through IUN. I have been involved in the community. I have been pushing this for many years now. I believe in fact that the Department of Co-op Development should be in fact reinstated in the form of a community economic development department. I believe there should be some restructuring to bring in the programs and put them in the appropriate forum.
I can give the minister lots of suggestions, because the end result is that we cannot ignore the economic circumstances of the northern areas and many remote rural areas in this province. I say anywhere you go, the further north you get from Highway 1, the more you run into economic difficulties, higher rates of unemployment. Even, for example, in the Parkland Region, I know that the member will point to the need for greater economic diversity in the community of Dauphin and surrounding communities.
It is clear, that is part of the challenge. The same thing in Swan River. The same thing at Interlake. I would suggest very much in, well, Churchill, you know, we have difficult circumstances in Churchill with the rocket range not proceeding right now.
The bottom line, and I want to put this on the record because I believe that community economic development is very much the way for the future role of northern Manitoba, I mean on the kind of level we see in the province of Saskatchewan. I do not take away from anything that has been done by the government. I have said this in the past, I will give credit where credit is due on specific programs. When it comes to programs like REDI, which have not been applicable in northern Manitoba to the extent they should, the minister knows this is an ongoing concern of northern municipal leaders. I will give him suggestions on that too.
The reality is that we have to understand that in southern Manitoba, you have small manufacturing that is doing quite well. In northern Manitoba, we have not had the experience with that. We have difficulty in access to markets. For example, the member for Portage (Mr. Faurschou) represents the fourth largest city, community in the province. I represent the third, a very similar population, very different economies. There are a lot of things that could be done in Portage that you just cannot do in Thompson. So we have to look for different ways of supporting communities and working with them.
I believe, by the way, that you can make a difference, particularly in providing expertise. I want to suggest on the record too, more can be done in terms of tourism, particularly in terms of ecotourism in northern Manitoba. We are not even doing what the province of Quebec is doing.
I can tell you, I came down from Thompson on Monday. There were people from Germany who have come all the way from Germany to see our ecosystems, whether it be in Churchill, which is the major draw, but there are more and more people understanding that there is opportunity to not only go to Churchill but to access tourism opportunities through Thompson, through Flin Flon, which has a long-developed tourist potential. I say that has got to be built into our system.
We have a government at times that tends to forget that in terms of forestry policies, for example, in regards to Tolko. Concerns have been expressed there. I think they should be directly involved in making sure that there is proper harvesting of our forest resources. It does not hurt the environment and does not hurt other tourist potential, ecotourism being a classic example.
* (1520)
I raised this concern with Tolko recently, for example, on the bay line to Thompson. Local residents complain that logging is taking place right up to the rail line itself. While that may be within the cutting rights of the company, I am suggesting, and I have suggested to them in writing, that I think it would be advantageous to keep the kind of wilderness people want to see when they come on the trains, when they come up for reasons of tourism, to keep it visible and not to have logging, clear cutting of any sort take place up to a rail line, any more than you would on a road. You do not have that happen in roads. There are buffer zones that are built in. There are supposed to be buffer zones that occur as well. I say that those are positive examples.
We have got to start building that into our economic strategies. Tourism is one of the growth industries in the world. I say we are falling behind particularly in marketing ecotourism, aboriginal tourism as well. There is a lot of opportunity to take people on the trap lines. There are a lot of people who could get a lot of value added from that. We are missing the boat I think in terms of aboriginal handicrafts. We are not working as a government, providing marketing expertise.
I can tell you, the funding is often there. There are three or four lending agencies now, loan circles. The bottom line in a lot of cases: we do not have the kind of marketing and professional expertise in place to assist communities to chart their own course. I believe, Madam Speaker, there is no excuse that we have continuing high rates of unemployment in northern Manitoba. I believe that we can plot a strategy now. It will take a long time. But I look at it this way, and I want to put this on the record: I want to suggest that we adopt a policy in this province and we call it the aboriginal advantage. We have an economy which is increasingly faced with a challenge and that is a significant number of seniors, the growing age of our population, and the relative increase of our senior population as relative to our working population.
But, if you look at demographics, the growth population in this province, particularly if you look at the age, is aboriginal people. I believe if we worked in partnership with First Nations communities and Northern Affairs communities, if we put in place the kind of innovative education and training initiatives that were put in place in the 1970s by the Schreyer NDP government, the 1980s by the Pawley NDP government, I believe if we can train and educate that workforce and develop more opportunities in the community through community economic development, through economic development such as ecotourism, through other initiatives such as marketing the traditional handicrafts and traditional customs of aboriginal people, I believe we can be in a position of having a great advantage from that.
I believe aboriginal young people in many cases should be treated by this government, in their declining years here as a government, over their short period of time that they have left, as an advantage for this province. I talk to a lot of aboriginal people and my message as a northern MLA, who is proud to work with First Nations people, is it is time for governments to stop seeing aboriginal issues strictly in terms of problems. Yes, there are social problems; there are issues related to such matters as residential schools and other issues that have to be dealt with. But I say we should be dealing with aboriginal young people as the hope for the future of this province. If we can provide training and we can provide job opportunities for the aboriginal youth of this province, particularly in northern Manitoba, I say the sky is the limit in terms of economic development, and we going into the next millennium, I believe, become leaders in this country using our diverse population. I think also the fact we are relatively a small province.
I talked with representatives of the third largest city. We are still only 15,000 in terms of population. We can work together. Community economic development applies much more here than it would say in a large province such as Ontario, because we do know our communities. We are all neighbours in this province. We can work together. I say that, because at times I think the government has a shotgun approach to economic development. They do not understand that basis. They certainly do not understand it in the North. They have not worked co-operatively with northern communities. The Cross Lake situation most recently was a good example of that. We have a Premier (Mr. Filmon) that is very rarely seen in northern Manitoba. When I mentioned the Thompson airport in Question Period earlier, I know that he has on occasion been to Thompson. He certainly has not driven, but I do not expect that. He has not even been to that airport recently, so I understand why he is not all that concerned about the situation at the airport. I think that if there was no airport anywhere in northern Manitoba, this Premier would not notice the difference. But, if they closed it in Davos, Switzerland, he might have a real problem then. Or Geneva.
I must say I feel better, I sleep better at nights knowing that the Minister responsible for I, T and T (Mr. Downey) is off for another trip for one week in Geneva defending our interests. I am sure he defended our interests really well in Geneva, Madam Speaker, but I am only saying this because we--if there is a bit of a cynical edge here, it is because northerners, well, after 10 years of this government we are getting more than a little bit cynical.
But, you know, I do not want to dwell on the fact that northern Manitoba has very little faith in this government right now, because even so long as they are in government for one more day, I want them to be doing something for northern Manitoba. I look forward to the day--and I say this in all truthfulness. I believe there is a very good possibility in the next period of time that the government will finally have the courage to call an election. I tell you, the people of northern Manitoba and many people throughout rural Manitoba and many areas that this government has taken for granted for a long, long time cannot wait for the opportunity to get a change in government.
I loved the member's statement earlier, Madam Speaker. We were talking about rural policy. The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) talked about MTS, when he voted against 78 percent of his constituents. You know, I look forward to the NDP candidate in La Verendrye in the next election asking that member where the heck he was in 1996, which way he voted when his constituents said not to sell MTS.
This government has taken rural and northern Manitoba for granted now for a decade. I say to them enjoy it while it lasts. Count every day you have left in government as a blessing, because as soon as the people get the opportunity in an election, you better watch out and you better never, ever take for granted places in rural Manitoba where you have ruled, the so-called yellow dog country. There are a lot of voters in constituencies who have always supported the Conservatives who are now saying the Conservatives have not supported us. You better watch out, because there will not be anywhere near the kind of safe seats that you have taken for granted in the past. You better watch out because the people of rural and northern Manitoba are waiting for the opportunity. Call that election and you will find out.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 21 before it goes to committee. I recognize that it, in essence, assists in facilitating the Communities Economic Development Fund. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who is obviously fairly knowledgeable about this particular fund, spoke quite well in terms of the benefits of economic development. Government does have a role to play. Given that these are not necessarily what I would classify as controversial amendments--they are quite supportive--we would not have any problem in terms of seeing it go to committee.
But before I sit down, I just wanted to add a little bit to what the member for Thompson said. I can recall--and I am not too sure if it was through REDI or one of the rural economic development groups--when I was going through, I believe it was, an annual report, and in the annual report it made reference to lobsters in the province of Manitoba, where in Manitoba we would be raising lobsters for the local market. There are, no doubt, many different ideas that are out there, and government does have a role to facilitate where it can in many different ways, whether it is the rural Grow Bonds or HydroBonds or the Communities Economic Development Fund, capital type projects, that these types of things are necessary because it does assist in facilitating and diversifying, if you like, the local communities.
One of the reasons why I would ultimately argue that Manitoba and particularly the city of Winnipeg does relatively well during the highs and lows of a business cycle is because, relatively speaking, for our population, we are fairly well diversified. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talked about nickel prices and the benefits of having a diversified economy, that if, in fact, you have fluctuations in the prices of nickel, you are going to have individuals being hired sometimes in the business cycle; other times, they are going to be laid off.
* (1530)
It is nice to be able to have other sectors in which there is employment so there is more of a sense of security, so people can weather the storm, if you like, when it comes time for some form of layoff in one area.
Madam Speaker, we see that in many rural communities, in particular up North where there might be a mine closure or something of that nature, the impact is most dramatic. That is why when we look at initiatives such as the Communities Economic Development Fund that has been around for many years now, we have to recognize not only the short-term benefits but the long-term benefits. With those few words, we would like to see it go to committee. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 21, The Communities Economic Development Fund Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona? [agreed] And also standing in the name of the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) who has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): I am not going to use all of the 21 minutes. I just want to say that children are the most helpless element in our society, and therefore the helpless ones needs the concern and love of those who are strong enough to support them.
Of course, we expect parents to be the first ones to come to the aid of their own children. Without the parents, children will have to go through this world without any guide or help. It is only that we should realize that if we neglect our children, we are creating not only problems in our own family but also problems for the entire society as a whole. Therefore I would like to speak about the virtues of a good mother.
A good mother is one who can give comfort and stability and confidence and trust to their own children. To a child, a good mother means food. It means their bed, their warmth, their shelter. Children want to be near the mother whenever they can. If we take away children from their own natural parents, the child will be helpless and they will feel a lack of confidence and a lack of self-esteem and self-respect for themselves. There is no substitute for the care and love and concern of a mother. She is the ever-enveloping, nourishing, protecting element in the life of a young child.
Of course, when mothers are working because of necessity, economic necessity, they have to hire babysitters who are practically strangers to the child, and the child will have to be more or less dependent on these strangers. There are substitutes for parents but the substitute will never be as good as the mother herself.
In terms of Bill 4, we created the Office of the Children's Advocate to become an officer of the Legislature. This is good in the sense that it gives autonomy to the occupant of the Office of the Children's Advocate. It means the Children's Advocate can exercise independent discretion and relative independence.
According to the report of the subcommittee, it is this kind of relationship, direct reporting to the Legislative Assembly, that will ensure greater openness and greater accountability on the part of the occupant of the Office of the Children's Advocate. Moreover, it gives that person the opportunity to give constructive critical feedback on how the child welfare system and agencies are operating within the system with a view to improving the system.
We should remember that children are the future citizens of our country. They need all our love, our concern, our care. Just throwing dollars and money on the system cannot make up for the impaired psychological and social ingredients in the psyche when they are growing up when they feel that they are very insecure and there is no love and concern surrounding their environment. Whenever the infants are dying in their cribs, in their beds, whenever the children are hungry and crying, whenever the children cannot adjust and adapt to their environment, we are creating problems not only for ourselves but for the rest of our community. The neglect of children means the increase in delinquency, increase in crimes and violent behaviour among teenagers. Of course, if affects even our justice system. All of these are interconnected, and the more we pay more attention to the care and welfare of our children, putting that as the virtue in the highest order in our system, the less we will have problems in our society. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I have a few comments that I would like to make with respect to Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, and I will be fairly brief to give other members the opportunity to comment on this bill as well.
This is an important bill, I believe, in that it does make some changes with respect to the Child's Advocate. I can remember discussions that took place in this Chamber and in public with respect to the government's previous legislation for the enactment of the Child's Advocate, and I remember at that time, my colleague our critic for Child and Family Services pointing out very clearly that it was, in our viewpoint, very improper to have the bill at that time and the government indicating that they wanted to have the Child's Advocate report directly to the minister responsible for Child and Family Services instead of to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. We felt that it was important that the Child's Advocate have the opportunity and some latitude or freedom to speak out clearly on the needs of children that were in care and that Advocate could point out, without any fear of interference in any way, the needs of the system, the needs of the children of our province.
By the government bringing forward their earlier legislation forcing the Child's Advocate to report directly to the Minister of Child and Family Services and, indeed, to the government, which was the appointer of the Advocate, it put the Advocate under some difficult circumstances in having to, or being caught in a position where they would have to be answerable directly to their political masters for the individual who was holding the Child's Advocate job.
But this Bill 4 does make some changes to the role that the Child's Advocate does play within our province and allows the Child's Advocate now to report to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, which, we think, is a positive move. It will give us as legislators and as representatives, 57 representatives of our communities throughout the province, the opportunity to hear at first hand the comments of the Child's Advocate and, I hope, will give us the opportunity in future, too, to be able to ask questions of the Child's Advocate should those questions come to mind or we have issues that would be brought forward to us as representatives from our particular constituencies. So we think that would be a positive step.
I listened to the debate that is taking place in this Chamber now for the better part of a week with respect to problems within the Child and Family Services department. In fact, there is a crisis that is occurring within the department, I believe, from the information that I am seeing and hearing that leads me to conclude that there seems to be a portion of the minister's department at least or the minister herself that may be adrift in dealing with this problem. One only needs to look at the number of children that are in care and are being housed in hotel rooms in our province.
* (1540)
Like many of us in this Assembly, we have workers of the Child and Family Services agencies living within our communities, and we see them at different public functions and events. We have the opportunity no doubt on many occasions to ask them about their jobs, as we should all be interested in what is happening with the Child and Family Services agency itself. I have had the opportunity to talk with workers not only in my community but in other communities about their role and their job and the difficulties and any positive things that they see within their job.
One of the things that has come to my attention over and over is the caseload that these workers have to deal with. It is quite clear that they are quite stressed out as individuals, and that it makes it very difficult for these people themselves as caseworkers to deal with anything other than the fires or the crises that come to their attention on a daily basis.
I know I have had opportunity to call the local Child and Family Services office in the community of Transcona and to talk with the staff there with respect to complaints that I would get from time to time coming to me from my constituents. Of course, I have to respond to those complaints and then find out what we can do to resolve the issue. I always call upon the Child and Family Services workers who are very diligent in responding to my calls and to providing me with the necessary information and support where and when they can, based on restrictions that they have with respect to confidentiality.
They have often indicated to me that they cannot deal with all of the cases immediately, that quite often they get families who are in crisis that they have to deal with immediately, of course, which takes the caseworkers away from doing the visits to the homes where you may have families who are in moderate or high-risk situations, that the caseworkers should be going to those homes to visit those particular families. It does create problems when the caseworkers themselves have to spend a great deal of their time--and, in fact, I believe even the directors of those particular centres have to spend a great deal of their time--dealing with the crises in their day-to-day operations.
If you look at the number of bed nights that the ministry has to pay for out of their budget, because it does come out of the Child and Family Services budget, I believe the number is some 71,000 bed nights that the department has for children who are in custody, or in apprehended situations that Child and Family Services are responsible for, up to prices as high as $124 a night for those rooms. I mean, that is an extensive amount of money that you have. In fact, if you extrapolate those numbers out over the basis of the year, that would be nearly a 200-bed hotel filled full time every night of the year.
So you have made an extensive commitment to the hotel industry of our city and our province here by the number of hotel rooms that you have utilized for the care of children. I do not know what rationale you have to have children housed in those situations. I look at the amount of money that is involved in situations like this, and I have to ask myself: are we as our society and our children who are apprehended because of high-risk situations--are they not better served to have those children where and when, hopefully as early as possible, placed into foster home situations to allow them to live in a more normal family setting?
I know they come from difficult situations; otherwise, they would not have been apprehended in the first place. But, one has to think that those children are taken from their school settings--first from their family, and then from their schools settings--and taken back to a hotel room and locked up in a hotel room every evening of the week. Now, I do not know what happens to these children on weekends or if you have holidays, but no doubt these children are in care in those hotel rooms at the same time. So they do not have a semblance of a normal family life that one might expect or would want for those children, considering they already come from distressful situations.
So I would think from my viewpoint and from the viewpoint of my constituents that it would be better to take those monies that you are now spending on supporting the hotel industry by housing those children in those hotel rooms, and converting that money into the foster care, into foster families, to encourage more foster families to come on stream.
I know in talking with foster families in my constituency--and I can think very clearly of one particular case. The foster family had foster children for a number of years, and they had encountered a number of serious situations, children who came to them from fetal alcohol situations, from physical, mental and sexual abuse in their own families for those children, and then coming into the foster home situation. Those foster families had to deal with the baggage that came with those children, and it was very distressful on the foster family and the foster family's children.
There were problems within the structure in that the children who were apprehended were acting out in many, many ways, and it created much distress. So I take my hat off to those people in our province who are foster parents and foster families because I think they do a great service to the children of this province who have been apprehended by Child and Family Services.
I would think, having talked to this one particular family, that they had to get out of being a foster family. They could no longer cover their cost of operation, and they were taking money out of their own pocket to have children come into their home as a foster home. I would think that the amount of money that the ministry is now spending on housing these children in hotels--it would make more sense to reimburse the families, the foster families, and to encourage more people to become foster families for the children who are in care.
Madam Speaker, with respect to Bill 4, it was my understanding that there was an all-party committee that toured the province and consulted with Manitobans and that this was a process that had not been used for a great period of time other than dealing with the Constitution of our country. We think that this was a positive step and that there was some response by way of Bill 4 now that would allow for hopefully other all-party committees to travel the province, consulting with Manitobans on changes that we should be making to not only our child welfare system but also, perhaps, to other areas of jurisdiction of government.
Madam Speaker, we have listened to the comments that have been made as a result of the inquest that recently is being held here in the city of Winnipeg with respect to I think it was baby Sophia and the shaken baby syndrome that has occurred, and we are seeing more and more cases of this. If you look at the caseload and the comments that are coming from that particular inquest, I do not know how anyone could conclude anything other than the caseworkers finding themselves at a point where they cannot deal adequately with the crisis situations that they find themselves in and are spending a great deal of their time just putting out the fires or handling the crisis versus visiting the families that are moderate to high risk, as I have indicated earlier.
I have a great deal of sympathy and support for the caseworkers by having talked to them. I know that those caseworkers are very, very dedicated to their particular profession. They want to do what is best for the children and the families, and they would very much like to be able to do that job efficiently in the sense of being able to visit all of the families for which they hold the case files. I know that those caseworkers get calls on evenings and weekends and sometimes on their holidays having to do with crisis situations, and they have to respond. Yes, perhaps they may be compensated in some way, but it does interfere with their personal lives, and I do respect them for a taking a very professional role in dealing with these cases and wanting to be part of the solution.
Madam Speaker, there are problems within the Child and Family Services agency that we have raised here, my colleagues have raised, with respect to the role of the Child and Family Services agency, but we think that if the minister would consent to having some type of a review, an independent review on the problems that are happening within her department with respect to caseloads and the climbing number of child deaths related to shaken baby syndrome, I think that we could come up with some constructive solutions to that particular problem. I know that the caseworkers themselves and the directors of those agencies would like to have the opportunity to have some input into that process as well.
So, Madam Speaker, Bill 4 is somewhat of a positive step in that it does allow the Child Advocate to now report to the Legislative Assembly versus to the minister and government. We think that that is a positive improvement, but there are other steps that can be taken within the Department of Child and Family Services to improve the overall operations of the department. We hope the minister will heed the words of those members of this Assembly and members of her own department working on the front lines on a day-to-day basis because the longer we go, the more at risk we put the children and families by not dealing with that situation.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 4, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
* (1550)
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), Bill 12, The Addictions Foundation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre les dépendances), standing in the name of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on The Addictions Foundation Amendment Act. This is a rather short bill that might appear to be minor. However it is my understanding that this gives the government more power, and that is something that always concerns us. I think the public would be concerned if they knew that this bill was giving the government more power.
The reason is that quite often with increased power goes less accountability. I think that is our main concern, because it is my understanding that this bill allows the government to make grants and not have to be accountable to the public through Orders-in-Council. Quite often, we in the opposition and the media, the only way we find out what the government is doing is through Orders-in-Council.
It is a rather interesting process, because when the Orders-in-Council do not contain anything significant or controversial, we tend to get them right away. When there is something that the government wants to hide, they tend to delay giving us copies of Orders-in-Council. Without this kind of printed information that we would normally get, it could take months or years or the necessity of a Freedom of Information request or perhaps waiting until Estimates to get the kind of information that we as the opposition or any party in opposition needs in order to keep the government accountable.
We know that there are a number of bills on the Order Paper in this session, which do the same thing that allow ministers to change regulations without going through Orders-in-Council, and we are opposed to that in principle. I think, if this government was in opposition, they would probably be opposed as well, but, of course, they are in government, and they do not think about being in opposition. They do not think about accountability. They do not think what the public would think of them having more power and less accountability. However, after the next election, all of this is going to change, and then, of course, the government having been defeated will repent of their ways, and they will be back harping about government accountability.
So I would like to use this opportunity to talk briefly about some of my concerns about gambling, since the bill--[interjection] The government members would like to dredge up some ancient history, but I would remind them that there is a difference between being in solidarity with someone and being opposed to a certain kind of activity.
I would like to use an example. I know that a few years ago, some of the members, I think, particularly a women's group at Charleswood United Church, were raising money to donate to POWER, Prostitutes and Other Women for Equal Rights. Now they certainly did not support the activity, but they supported the organization that provides assistance to people in that trade, the kind of assistance being to get them out of that activity. So, I think, it is possible to express one's support for people in an organization without necessarily supporting the kind of activity that is going on.
I know what the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) is referring to. I think that is a very good analogy. Maybe he would not understand it, but that is my analogy. I guess the minister does not agree with it. In doing research to speak on this bill, I came across a brief that was sent to the Manitoba Lottery Policy Review Committee in June 1995 by the Winnipeg Presbytery United Church, of which I am a member, and they talk about a Christian perspective on gambling. They point out that gambling is basically based on greed.
Certainly that would be one of my major objections as well to gambling. They point out that there follow harmful social consequences related to the breakdown and destruction of individuals, families, and communities. Certainly I have seen that in my constituency of Burrows where many people are low income, but, nonetheless, some of them use opportunities to gamble.
I remember a few years ago talking to the former owner of a restaurant, Grandpa's restaurant, and he was telling me that he had children hanging around in his restaurant at suppertime. They did not have any money to buy anything off the menu, and he would ask them if their mothers were home, and why were they not at home? They would say, no, their mothers were not home. Where were they? Well, they were at McPhillips Street Station, which is quite close nearby. He would ask them: did they have any food at home? They would say, no, they had no food at home. So he would give them french fries, which has zero nutritional quality, zero nutrition in french fries, but it filled their stomachs. He felt sorry for these kids, so he would feed them.
Now I think it is deplorable when governments encourage gambling and advertise gambling in a massive way to get more people to spend more money in spite of the harmful consequences to individuals and families. This brief points out a study which indicated that people in the lower economic sector of our community spend the greatest amount of money on gambling. So I think it is unfair for any lotteries corporation, regardless of what province it is in, to encourage people, especially people who cannot afford it, encourage by way of advertising to do more gambling.
Governments, of course, like this kind of revenue because it is an alternative to taxation which is compulsory. You could describe gambling as a voluntary tax. The United Church brief says, and I quote: it is not surprising that those with the least material possessions are the most susceptible to the hope of winning the jackpot. These people thus pour into the provincial treasury a far greater percentage of their incomes than anyone else. Use of gambling as a revenue-raising device means that these least able to pay often pay for projects and budget expenses enjoyed by wealthier segments of our society. As government policy, this constitutes a regressive tax. We are opposed to a regressive taxation system.
I would have to agree with this. In fact, as a matter of conscience and as a member of the United Church, I agree with the concerns raised by the United Church and submitted to the Manitoba Lottery Policy Review Committee.
I have the government's press release that came out after the executive summary and working group document were published. I think people will remember it because it was chaired by a former member of the Legislature. It also had some language that was quite memorable; VLTs were called the crack cocaine of gambling.
We have seen that in other provinces attempts are being made to lessen the effects of VLTs by slowing down the machines. Now, it will be really interesting to see if that actually slows down the revenue to government or not or whether it was just a sop to critics of gambling.
` But I notice in the minister's press release that it says that a further review by the Gaming Commission of the concept of municipal plebiscites will be undertaken. Well, it will be interesting to know if that review has happened since June 1996, and if so, what the results are. Certainly the Gaming Commission has not announced what their policy is, so we are sort of going to drift past the municipal elections this fall without any plebiscites in spite of the fact that a great many people, especially in rural Manitoba, are concerned or are in favour of plebiscites.
We have been lobbied on this issue. In fact, we have collected signatures on petitions on municipal plebiscites, and we have met with people who have been greatly affected by addiction to gambling. The Globe and Mail, in a long article called Governments and Gambling, talked about some of the individuals in Manitoba who have had very serious consequences for gambling. They say that on November 8, 1997, furniture refinisher Dennis Wynant locked himself in his garage, started his car and ended his life. The 56-year-old man from Winnipeg Beach, Manitoba, left a series of suicide notes, including one he sent to the media that blamed video lottery terminals for his desperate act. It says, and I quote: "I lost in two years over $125,000 because of them. They cost my life."
* (1600)
A bank statement showed that he made page upon page of debit card withdrawals at two local hotels in which the lottery terminals were installed. Although he was apparently $40,000 in debt, he played the machines for several hours on his last day. His son, 29-year-old Glen, says that he, too, is a compulsive gambler. I have met with Dennis Wynant's widow and with the son and with some of his siblings, and it is very sad to hear their story about how their father was addicted to gambling and committed suicide as a result.
So this family had been very zealous in collecting signatures on petitions and in trying to institute plebiscites so that people could be, I guess, protected from themselves--that would be the best way to describe it.
This Globe and Mail article points out that Canadians spend an estimated $20 billion a year on gambling, and I would like to conclude on this note, Madam Speaker, because it is a rather dramatic finding that in 1995 Manitobans handed over more money to government-run gambling ventures than they spent on food as measured by Statistics Canada's basic grocery hamper.
So I think we have a serious problem in our society when people are spending more on gambling in Manitoba than they are on food. It shows the great extent to which gambling has grown in our province, aided and abetted by governments of all parties and encouraged by governments because of the easy way that this revenue comes in and encouraged through advertising. I believe it is preying especially on the weak and the vulnerable and redistributing income, not in a fair and progressive way from high-income people to low-income people. Many studies suggest and support that income is being redistributed from low-income people to higher income people in our society.
With those few remarks, I will conclude.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): We understand that the bill aims to reduce the amount of paperwork and administrative costs associated with government. In fact, Madam Speaker, once again we have another bill that is before us that does away with the need for Orders-in-Council, and I think that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) brings up some good points with respect to that and which I would concur with most.
The idea of Orders-in-Council is one of the tools or mechanisms which are quite often used to hold government more accountable for its actions, and we see something else being taken away from Orders-in-Council. I am not necessarily convinced that that is, in fact, the best thing to do because then once again government is assisted in its abilities to be able to say that it is not us, it is them, and point the finger to other groups.
Again, the member for Burrows makes reference to the whole gambling issue, which is an excellent example. Given that it is on the Addictions Foundation, I think there were appropriate examples that were being provided, Madam Speaker, where actions are taken and the roles of oppositions are marginalized to a certain degree because of government's decision to pass the buck, if you like.
Looking at the bill, as I say, it comes across as wanting to streamline the process, and no one would necessarily knock streamlining, but I am very concerned about the overall appearance of this government wanting to do less through Orders-in-Council when, in fact, Orders-in-Council can provide a higher sense of accountability, not only for opposition parties, I must add, but also for fellow cabinet members or government backbenchers and so forth. With those few words, Madam Speaker, I would like to see it go to committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading Bill 12, The Addictions Foundation Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, we understand the purpose of this bill is to allow for the seizure of cash under a writ of seizure and sale. Certainly we support that purpose and will support the bill on second reading. It has been a gray area to now as to whether or not there can be a seizure in civil law of cash or cash equivalent. I know from personal experience that there have been seizures of cash, if my memory serves me correct. But if there is any doubt as to the legality of that seizure, then there certainly should be clarification in law. We were wondering whether there has been a decision in the court or a challenge to a seizure of cash that has led to this bill. So because the law is clarified, it will provide additional tools to a creditor to obtain justice.
What goes along with this bill are some thoughts about the government's recent move to privatize the functions of the Sheriff's Office as it relates to the seizure and sale of property. We raised the issue I believe it was two sessions ago, when the government introduced the privatization legislation that the government had not demonstrated the need to privatize the services. It had provided no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever, and indeed in other provinces such as Saskatchewan, they found that there was no cost benefit to privatizing, and indeed in British Columbia, after privatizing, they discovered a lot of problems. We are looking at, again, using the Sheriff's Office to seize and sell the debtor's property.
Even a study done within the Department of Justice in Manitoba showed that there were serious misgivings about privatization. That study recommended renovation rather than privatization. But what is more important in the context of the privatization ideology of this government and what it has done through legislation is left unprotected trust accounts under a privatized scheme. There was no protection in law in the legislation for trust accounts, and there was no requirement for a liability protection or coverage, no requirement for bonding in the law. This raises the spectre here of a lack of checks on what becomes of seized cash once it is taken from the debtor. We would have liked to have seen those kinds of checks put into the legislation. It is important that cash that is seized is safeguarded, given that it is such a liquid asset. We asked the government why it did not put in place, for example, some kind of a receipt system, or some kind of a recording system, to help ensure that seized cash is protected, particularly in view of the ideology of this government to blindly move to privatization.
* (1610)
Now we understand that the privatization plans of the government have not gone well. We understand that the services are still being performed by the Sheriff's Office which, I think, speaks the support of our concern about the government's ideological move a session or two ago. So with those thoughts, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to see the legislation proceed to committee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I did not actually read through this particular bill, but I was provided some input on it, Madam Speaker, and, in essence, the amendments allow for civil enforcement officers to seize cash or cash equivalents when exercising a writ of sale or seizure, so I have been informed.
It also allows for the Department of Labour to use these seizures to recover lost wages to pay back creditors. I think that is a very positive and fairly straightforward amendment, and I would like to see it go to committee.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 14, The Executions Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), The Water Resources Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aménagement hydraulique, standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just a few minutes to address The Water Resources Administration Amendment Act. I am very much looking forward to hearing presentations at the public hearing stage on Bill 16, because I am afraid that many people affected by the flood of 1997 have not been listened to by this provincial government. So I am very much waiting to hear some submissions on this particular bill brought forth by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings).
Just a bit of a chronology here. On April 24 of last year, we on this side of the House asked about contingency plans for southern Manitoba if the levels in the floodway would exceed the predictions of 59,000 cubic feet per second. The answer that we got from the Premier was that the water would have consequences upstream and then said that it would be a human judgment decision.
On May 5, the NDP raised concerns about the flooding of Grande Pointe and the inaccuracy of predictions leading up to it. The Premier replied that flow patterns were difficult to predict. On May 6, we on this side of the House asked that the government waive the deductible on the compensation package. On that same day, the Premier responded by saying that the residents in the Red River Valley should accept some responsibility for, in his words, consciously building on a flood plain.
Two days later, on May 8, we on this side of the House asked the government to waive depreciation on essential items. We had to wait until October before the government, under mounting pressure, decided to move on the depreciation of these items. One week later, on May 15, we on this side of the House asked for assurance that there would be public participation in the Water Commission hearings following the flood. What we got in return, though, was that the government allowed public presentations to the Water Commission but held meetings with government officials in secret, which was contrary to the act, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not only that, but what was worse was that the government then went on and held its own press conference disputing the submissions that the flood victims themselves made. At that time, there was no interim report to be released to the public.
On three separate occasions, May 21, June 19 and December 11, we, on this side of the House, asked for assurances for funding for Water Resources staff and technology. On May 21, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) responded that funding cutbacks did not affect forecasting ability. No new money for Water Resources staff is allocated, I might add, in the 1998 budget.
On July 30, our side of the House called on the government to speed up claims due to the extreme financial hardship of victims. What we find is that over 100 people remain out of their homes a year after the flood.
On November 26, the NDP called on the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to apologize for the hardhearted comments that he made about citizens living in a flood plain, and again on November 26, the Premier repeated his comment that flood victims have to accept some responsibility for living in the same flood plain as the rest of us in the province.
Since the flood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government has had many opportunities to atone for the confusion and for the hardheartedness that they showed the victims of this flood. A Natural Resources' submission to the Water Commission itself declared that the protocol for the floodway was not followed during the flood crisis. The City of Winnipeg's submission to the Water Commission pointed to the need for increased staff and technology, despite what the minister has said, through water resources and better communication from the province.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the International Joint Commission interim report has pointed out the need for sufficient experienced flood forecasting staff at all times. It went on to point out the need for improved communication. It also indicated a need for a review of the current emergency plans and the need for better flood forecasting models that include overland flooding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Ernst & Young post-flood report indicated a lack of information sharing and communication. The report, on page 28, went on to say that some felt there were political barriers to open information sharing. It also reported a lack of worst-case scenario emergency plans. Ernst & Young also pointed to a lack of information technology and overworked provincial staff. Ernst & Young also indicated a lack of trained resources to administer compensation programs and the need for earlier implementation and better co-ordinated programs. It went on to say that people endured unnecessary anxiety waiting for compensation programs, and that was on page 52 of the Ernst & Young flood report.
I just want to wrap up my comments by quoting again from Ernst & Young in which they pointed out a need for proactive and better-defined compensation programs. On page 54, they say, and I quote: the human element of the emergency was not given enough consideration. Many problems encountered with DFA programs were compounded by the trauma of impacted residents.
Given those comments, I look very much toward the public hearings when people who are affected by this flood can come and tell this government once again some ideas on how they can better serve the people who were caught by the worst flood in this century. With those few words, I pass this on to the public hearing stage. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is, in fact, a very interesting bill, given we had the flood of the century just last year. I am sure each and every one, I do not even need to say you, I know how involved you and others that were directly impacted in terms of the water inside the constituency, individuals such as you, the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and other MLAs from the Chamber, that put in an inordinate amount of time to make sure that they could do whatever is possible in order to save as many valuables as possible.
But having said that, I do believe, as the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) points out, that there is a high level of interest with respect to future floodproofing. There was a great emotional toll that was taken on the collective society or the province, if you like. For many, it is still not over. We are still trying to deal with some of those problems today from last year. At this time last year, just the sheer numbers of individuals that had their lives turned upside down as a result of that particular flood is just overwhelming.
I look at Bill 16 and understand the purpose of Bill 16 is to ensure that we marginalize to the greatest degree the potential impact of another flood in the Red River area, and I think that that is a very strong positive. From what I understand, really what is happening over time, we have now seen at one point where the requirements for floodproofing or that flood plain, if you like, was at the 1979 plus 2 feet flood level to today, where it is actually at the 1997 flood level plus 2 feet.
* (1620)
What is important in recognizing this particular piece of legislation is that we are seeing the provincial government playing a stronger role in ensuring that individuals that are building in the flood plains, in the traditional flood plains, are now being requested in a very formal fashion to ensure that they are going to be above the 1997 plus 2 feet into the future for all future construction.
I think, in short, that that is a positive step. The government will have the opportunity to actually say no to someone that wants to be able to construct and wants to be able to do it in a certain location in that location or it is not being built up to the point in which it would address that flood plain concern, that the government has the ability now, if and when this bill passes, to disallow that. I understand that the department will be playing a fairly significant role in the whole issuance of permits because, in some areas, the infrastructure might not necessarily allow for it at the local level. So the government is attempting to fill in the gap. I think, again, that can be a very positive thing.
Given that the bill could be going into committee in the next couple of days, I am not sure how many people will be showing up to express concerns. This is one of those bills I am sure that if there was an advertisement that was put into the newspapers regarding Bill 16 that what we would see, no doubt, would be a lot of people wanting to participate in the committee hearings because of so many experiences that occurred last year. I think that could be a positive thing.
I would suggest to the government House leader (Mr. McCrae) that he might even want to reconsider having Bill 16 coming to committee this Thursday and schedule it at a later time so that Manitobans have a better opportunity to know that this bill is going before committee so that they, again, will have the opportunity to come forward and express their concerns.
Well, with those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are prepared to see this particular bill go to committee. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 16, The Water Resources Administration Amendment Act.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted--and also standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington who has unlimited time.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am going to speak today about the actual elements or the principles of Bill 36, and I would like to start with a few comments about the process.
I spoke quite substantially last time about the process that Mr. Cuff followed in his preparation and delivery of his report to City Council and how the list of who he spoke to, and the timing was very inimical to an open democratic process, certainly, in connection and in comparison with the large number of public hearings and public input and time frame that was part of the process in the other major changes to The City of Winnipeg Act that have preceded the Cuff report and Bill 36.
I think probably one of the reasons why there has not been a whole lot of consultation under Cuff, and certainly in Bill 36, is that the minister on November 27 stated in the Free Press that he did not see any of the recommendations being particularly contentious, although he expects to hear from various lobbies that could be affected by some of the decisions. I circled the word "lobbies," because I think the people that have expressed concerns and will continue to express concerns about the elements of Bill 36 do not constitute what we normally think of as a lobby. They are individuals who have experience with City Council. They are city councillors themselves. There are groups that have paid close attention to the local processes and the local situation with City Hall over the years. They are not lobbies the way we consider the word "lobby" to be used, and I think it is rather offensive of the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) to say that only people who have special interests are going to make presentations who are concerned about these recommendations.
His saying they are not particularly contentious just flies in the face of everything that he had heard about even before his comments in the newspaper last November. So the minister has not taken this process very seriously, and, consequently, the citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba have lost out on that.
John Kubi, who is the chair of the East Kildonan-Transcona Residents Advisory Group, has written on many occasions to the minister talking about the issues in Bill 36 and the Cuff report before that. One of the things that he has raised is that we need to submit the council recommendations and Bill 36 to a comprehensive public consultation process which would include public hearings at times and places convenient to the public, unlike the Cuff report process which went through in three weeks at City Hall with one morning of public hearings where only four people were able to make presentations.
Mr. Kubi and others, including the official opposition and a private member's resolution that we have before the House, have stated that it is essential that we have public hearings on Bill 36 prior to the committee process after second reading. The reason we need that on Bill 36 is because we did not have that. The people of the city of Winnipeg and other interested parties did not have that opportunity when dealing with the Cuff report, and it is incumbent upon the provincial government to provide that public hearing process.
Well, those requests fell on deaf ears, as we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we are going through with Bill 36 without the ability of the citizenry to be able to make their views known. The Council of Women of Winnipeg wrote in November last year to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), pointing out a number of concerns, one of which was that they suggested that because this bill is coming forward during an election year, like six months before an election, that it might be appropriate to wait until after the election to see if the next City Council still has the same concerns and wants the same processes to go through.
We are at the very end of the current mayor's term of office. She has stated that she is not prepared to stand for a third term. This Cuff report reflects her ideology. It reflects the current City Council's ideology or some of them, and the next City Council will have to live with that ideology. Had it been at the very beginning of a City Council term, there would have been less concern, but we agree with the Council of Women of Winnipeg that the timing has been very poorly thought out, or, perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not poorly thought out, because I am convinced that the provincial government has been working hand in glove with the mayor in shoving these radical changes through with the minimum required public input and public process. So I think probably they are very happy with this process.
Some of the elements of Bill 36 that are very concerning to people, not only to us on this side of the House but to other citizens, I will discuss in a little more detail. One of them is the change from a three-year term to a four-year term. Now, the minister says that this will provide for long-term planning, that three years is just not long enough for long-term planning. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you can plan if you have the will to plan. City Councils have been in existence in this province for decades, in some cases for almost a hundred years, and the vast majority of them over that time have as their limit three years.
* (1630)
There is a good reason for a three-year term. That is because, particularly in the City of Winnipeg, given the structure of the City of Winnipeg's council, it is essential that the city councillors have their accountability kept at a high level, and if you put the City Council elections every four years and now The Municipal Act is going to make that happen throughout the province, what you are doing is you are making City Council less accountable. In the absence of a representative form of government like we have at the provincial and the federal level with oppositions and party politics, you do not have the checks and balances at the municipal level that you do at the other levels of government, therefore you need to have a shorter term, so that city councillors can be held more accountable.
Most particularly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the context of the other provisions of Bill 36 which are antidemocratic, which do not provide for accountability or transparency or citizen participation, the change from a three-year term to a four-year term is not seen as a positive thing.
I did a little survey about the situation throughout the provinces of Canada. I have not heard from P.E.I. and Newfoundland yet, but of the other provinces in Canada, only the Province of Quebec and the City of Halifax have four-year terms. Every other province with the exception of not knowing about P.E.I. and Newfoundland, all of the others have three-year terms, so we are flying in the face of what is happening throughout the country of Canada, and I think that this is a very bad situation.
Another element that is very concerning to us and to others is the fact that the legislation in Bill 36 allows for a much broader definition of what can go in camera. Now, you want, if you have a democratic process, to have as small an amount of your business of a legislature or a city hall, city council, municipal council, parliament, to be in camera as possible, because in order to have a democratic system, you have to be able to see what is going on. The decisions have to be public, the debate has to be public, the vote has to be public wherever possible, so you want to have as small amount of in camera items as possible.
Currently, a matter can go in camera for a standing committee or the Executive Policy Committee if they follow the by-law governing in camera activities, standing committee or Executive Policy Committee. Currently, council discussions, with the exception of personnel issues, those debates are all public. Now, in Bill 36, the council, as well as the Executive Policy Committee, a committee of council or a subcommittee of council, can all have their meetings in camera. There is a by-law that is going to allow, is going to determine, what items can go in camera, but that by-law is a by-law passed by a majority of City Council. When we get to the fact of the powers of the mayor and the antidemocratic elements there, this again is a very, very disturbing situation.
Also, the votes that are taken in camera do not need to be recorded. So decisions that are made in camera by a subcommittee of Executive Policy Committee, by a subcommittee of council, by the Executive Policy Committee, by a standing committee, by the council as a whole, any of those groups can now hold things in camera, and those votes are not made public. So we, as citizens, have no way of knowing who has voted on what side of what issue. Again, it is a diminution of the accountability of city councillors, and this is not something that we, as citizens, should be prepared to countenance.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, Councillor Glen Murray has said in the newspaper, and we agree with him, the public has a right to know what is being done and who supports it or not. That is absolutely basic. You cannot have democracy and you cannot have accountability if that is not happening. Councillor Lazarenko has said have your debate in camera if you want, but the decisions should come to council for a vote so that everyone knows exactly what every councillor's position is on every single issue. This does not happen in Bill 36.
One of the largest groups of changes that are taking place in Bill 36 is the elimination of the requirement for there to be community committees and for the elimination of any mention of the residents advisory groups. Now the minister says this is okay, because council will now have the ability to decide what form public consultation will take. It provides for--and this is a wonderful word used by this government in many ways--flexibility. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not flexibility that is happening here. It is a reduction in democracy, it is a reduction in citizen input, it is a reduction in accountability, and along with the other changes, this is a very negative one.
Mr. Brian McLeod who lives in the Charleswood constituency has written several letters outlining the positive things that have happened as a result of community committees. He says as one example there was a recommendation that there be an arena built next to a community centre. There was a great deal of support for that proposal and there was a great deal of opposition to that proposal. Because they had a community committee process, both proponents and opponents came to the community committee. The discussion was held in public, the city councillors heard the concerns, and they made a good decision.
Community committees had a concrete street installed in the vicinity of a 7-Eleven which cleared up an unsightly area and improved safety for children to and from school. They had a garbage bin removed from a public street because of safety concerns, and school children were unable to use the sidewalks because of potholes and mudholes, and this was changed as a result of the community committees. If there had not been community committees, none of this would have happened. If you do not have citizen input in community committees, then you have a situation where the lines of communications are stultified. They are not allowed to work in the way where they are supposed to.
The council has recently sent to the Executive Policy Committee a recommendation to come up with alternatives for community committees, but, again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Executive Policy Committee, under Bill 36, is not going to reflect the consensus of the council as a whole. Because of the processes under Bill 36, we could have a situation where the Executive Policy Committee could very easily recommend that there be no statutory requirements for citizen participation; that each city councillor decides how he or she wants to communicate with their residents, their citizens. In many cases, they could decide they do not need to, that it is not a big issue, that there is not a problem. This is not the way we want to go.
The minister says this will give the city more latitude to hold public hearings on a broad range of issues. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the city can now hold hearings on a broad range of issues. It has control over what it wants to do, but it now has the requirement to pass these elements through community committees so that the citizens have a delegated statutory opportunity to make their views known to the councillors of their area. That is not going to happen. It is not going to be required under Bill 36.
* (1640)
I quote from--well, no, I am not quoting. I am just also talking about community committees. They now offer the citizens of Winnipeg a chance to discuss local concerns with their local elected representatives. The meetings are held in the evening in the community so they are accessible. Issues can range from traffic issues, safety concerns, planning and development matters, and capital budget reviews. Community committee is the only regular meeting held in the evening, when most residents are able to attend, and this is not going to be required under Bill 36.
John Kubi states: this move and the elimination of RAGs is not a move to a more to a more democratic and representative city government. On the contrary, it totally ignores the fact that citizen participation in matters which affect the quality of life within their communities and neighbourhoods is necessary not only during an electoral process, but also through other formal ongoing political means. Occasional selective consultation, as proposed by some councillors and the consultant, Mr. Cuff, is not the way to strengthen participatory democracy in local government and is certainly not a blueprint for the 21st Century. An important statutory vehicle, ensuring a basic and universal access for citizens to their local government, will be removed if these recommendations are adopted, end quote. I could not have said it better myself.
Another major area in which basically several things are going to happen is that the mayor has an enormously enhanced role, and the minister agrees to this. The mayor can now cast a tie-breaking vote in addition to the original vote, so the mayor will now have two votes in the case of a tie. There is not a single mayor in the country that has the kinds of powers that George Cuff and the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer) are going to give this mayor, whichever mayor it is. The mayor will now appoint all members of the Executive Policy Committee, as well as chairs and members of standing and all other committees, and the mayor can suspend the chief administrative officer, who has replaced the board of commissioners, for up to three days--can suspend the CAO for up to three days on his or her own recognizance--no requirement for any kind of Executive Policy Committee or council input.
Greater flexibility and latitude to council is what the minister says is going to happen. What the greater flexibility and latitude to council does is that it eliminates the requirements for community committees, it eliminates the residents advisory groups and allows the council to hold in camera hearings. How is this providing greater flexibility and latitude? It eliminates democracy from the City Council of Winnipeg.
The legislation also provides for greater scope for the Executive Policy Committee, again the minister. The Executive Policy Committee can establish subcommittees and the mayor appoints all the members of that subcommittee. The Executive Policy Committee can now have final authority on issues given to it by by-law or by resolution, and a resolution does not require the public hearing process that a by-law does, so Executive Policy Committee has an enormous amount of power.
What happens, what the impact of these changes is that there are huge increases in the power of the mayor and, by extension, the Executive Policy Committee. Let me go through it for you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), but I have a couple of members that are on fishing expeditions at this time. If I could ask them to keep it down, I would appreciate the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to have the floor.
The honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), to continue.
Ms. Barrett: Let us go through the powers that the mayor has and see how it plays itself out. The mayor now appoints the six members of the EPC, and they--the mayor and six members, so seven members recommend to council the names for the speaker and the deputy speaker. Therefore, the mayor has directly and indirectly the power of an influence over a majority of City Council, because those EPC members, the speaker and the deputy speaker all have not only highly visible powers, but they get more money.
So the mayor has a huge amount of power. The mayor and his or her cabinet, because basically this is what it is, control virtually every element of council business. They decide what decisions should go to subcommittees, they decide what subcommittees are going to be established. Council decides what standing committees are going to be in place. Council decides what in camera elements are going to be in place. The mayor and his or her cabinet have complete control over what happens at City Council.
What it means, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that half of City Council now could have virtually no power or influence at all. Currently each councillor must be on at least one standing committee, that is gone. Currently most of the decisions have to go to council, that is gone. Currently the mayor does not have the right to appoint all the subcommittees and the members of the subcommittee, that is gone. So not only do you put an enormous amount of power in the hands of the mayor and the cabinet, but you potentially disenfranchise half of the residents of the city of Winnipeg.
When you add to that the huge decrease and the influence of the electorate, we have got a real problem on our hands. There is no requirement, as I said, that each city councillor sits on at least one standing committee, so half of the city councillors, each of whom represents 40,000 people, remember, population more than any other municipality other than the City of Brandon, which has 10 city councillors, huge amounts of residents, half of those, eight of those city councillors could have virtually no avenues for input into City Council decisions.
The election every four years, as I have stated, reduces the accountability in the electorate. The elimination of the RAGs and the community committees means that the citizens have even less regulatory statutory input into decisions. So if you are a councillor who is on the outs with the current mayor--and remember the next mayor will not be the current mayor--we could very likely see the election of Councillor Murray as mayor and that would be exactly--[interjection] You have to take a look at the implications here.
Councillor Murray, by the way, is on record as saying he does not appreciate nor approve of the changes that are being suggested in Bill 36 and does not need them as mayor--[interjection] Oh, oh, the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) says that as a man of honour, if Mr. Glen Murray is elected mayor, he would not use these changes, which to me says by a logical extension that she does not believe they are good changes either, if, as a man of honour, he would not use them.
All of the elements in Bill 36, when you put them together, reduce accountability at City Hall. They reduce democracy at City Hall. They reduce the openness of City Hall. They reduce the citizen participation at City Hall. They are unnecessary. They are not only unnecessary, but, if I can use this word without being called to order, I would suggest that the potential implications of Bill 36 are evil, in the sense that they give the possibility of an oligarchy or even, as one person has said, a dictatorship.
* (1650)
I mean, we are talking logical extensions here. When you have a mayor who has the kind of power that the mayor will have under Bill 36, the ability to have under his or her sphere of influence a majority of City Council, when they have the right to have a break-in-tie vote, in addition to the right to vote as a member of City Council, then the mayor will have a second vote in the case of a tie. When you have the reduction in the ability of citizens to have input into City Council, you have--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member again. Could I ask the honourable minister if she could refrain from shouting across the room. The honourable member for Wellington has the floor at this time.
Ms. Barrett: I do not see how any person who pays attention to these things could deny what I am saying. It is there in black and white. You just have to take it to its logical conclusion and you have a real threat to democracy. We have had a threat to democracy throughout this whole process, starting from the beginning of the Cuff report all the way through to the elements in Bill 36. There is a very clear thread that moves throughout this process, and it is a thread that I have spoken of in my earlier comments.
I would like to talk a bit about, and quote a bit from, an article written by Peter Diamant who is an ex-deputy minister of Urban Affairs and an ex-city councillor--[interjection] And writes in the Winnipeg Sun about urban issues. Very knowledgeable, both from a theoretical and a practical perspective. He says, in his May 5 column, the powers of the mayor, already the most powerful of any mayor in Canada, are to be further strengthened. The few avenues citizens have to access the political decision-making process, community committees, and RAGs are given their death knell. Accountability in City Hall is already in question. Closed-door meetings and four-year terms will further reduce the responsibility and accountability of city councillors.
And he makes a very interesting point. The citizens as a whole are not asking for these changes. Nobody came out of the woodwork and said, oh my goodness, we need an oligarchy here at City Hall. We need an even stronger mayor. Nobody did that except the mayor. The mayor is the one who initiated this whole process, and the dead hand of the mayor is going to be felt if this bill goes through, long after she has left the mayor's chair. Well, not for long after, because I am going to be on record right here today in the presence of my Leader and say that many of the changes, if they go through without amendment, many of the changes in The City of Winnipeg Act that are in Bill 36 will be reversed under an NDP government, because we believe in democracy. We believe in accountability. We believe in transparency. We believe in citizen participation, and Bill 36 eliminates or severely curtails all of those fundamental things that we as social democrats believe in and that, frankly, I am surprised the members opposite do not believe in, which is clear.
It is clear that they do not believe in democracy and accountability and transparency, or they would not be supporting Bill 36. But, no, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are following along with what the current mayor wants to have done. I do not know what rationale they are using, and I would hope that some of them actually put some comments on the record before the end of this debate.
Peter Diamant's column says that Cuff's proposals, and I quote: "are perilously close to an elected dictatorship." As I have said in this House before, all of the elements are there, every single one of them. He says, and I quote: "What this legislation does is decrease the size of council to eight powerful members, and eight after-thoughts. Eight members controlled by the mayor, behind closed doors, will make all the decisions."
It is very clear to us on this side of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Bill 36 is a piece of legislation that cannot be allowed to go forward in its present form. I am not sure exactly what would make it--I would actually be most happy if the government would come to their senses, see the light of day and remove the bill from consideration. We on this side of the House would be very grateful for that to happen. The residents of the city of Winnipeg would be very grateful for that to happen, and the government, itself, would be doing a very positive thing if it pulled Bill 36 from the legislative agenda.
However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not expect that to happen. This bill reflects the thinking of not only the current mayor but of the Premier (Mr. Filmon). This Premier does not run an open government. The changes to many of the bills this session which take away the responsibility or the requirement for Order-in-Council decisions which is an element that allows for some public understanding of what has gone on and public accountability--many of the pieces of legislation in this session remove that requirement and give the minister power to make regulations and to do things that before he or she could only do under Order-in-Council.
Again, this is in the guise of, quote, flexibility and streamlining. This government has used words that we all agree with. We all think that there should be flexibility in our legislative processes. We all believe in streamlining so that efficiency and effectiveness can be the order of the day, but we do not believe that the changes that are in Bill 36 or in other pieces of legislation during this session do that at all. They eliminate democracy from the city of Winnipeg. They provide for cabinet-style government without an opposition, without any checks and balances on this very small group of people.
Here are eight people in a city of over 600,000, moving toward 700,000. Eight people will potentially control everything that happens, all of the decisions that are made by City Council. This is not democracy. It is not open government. It is not accountability. It is not transparency. What it is, as I have said before and I will continue to say and others of my caucus colleagues will continue to say, is a travesty, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It provides for a corporate vision. It provides for a board of directors who are accountable to their, quote, stockholders, and those stockholders will be the residents in the wards who are lucky enough to have city councillors who are part of the inner circle, who are part of the cabinet.
I would suggest to members opposite that they take a very close look, because if this bill passes and if the likelihood actually happens that we elect Glen Murray as the next mayor of the city of Winnipeg, many of the residents represented provincially by these members in the government benches from the City of Winnipeg are likely to be outside that position of authority.
An Honourable Member: That is not right.
Ms. Barrett: And we do not believe that is right either, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
We think it is important that every representative in the City Council has an opportunity to reflect and respond to the needs of their citizens. Bill 36, in its current configuration, does not allow for that. It allows for the the probability of an oligarchy and the possibility of an elected dictatorship. That is not what we on this side of the House want. That should not be what the members opposite want, and it most certainly is not what the citizens of the city of Winnipeg want. Again, Madam Speaker, I will say that come the next provincial election, Bill 36 will come back to haunt this government, as well it should. It is a dreadful piece of legislation, and it should never have seen the light of day.
With those few words, I will conclude my comments on Bill 36.
* (1700)
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).