LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, February 19, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the
House and complies with the rules. Is it
the will of the House to have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime;
and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public
awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.
It gives me great pleasure today to advise
all members that the government of
These agreements will provide the
opportunity for this province to become a major player in a new and expanding
industry. We are using the government's
need for improved information and program effectiveness as a stimulus for
innovation and growth in the field of high technology. We in this government have the vision to
recognize the unique and innovative approach that Linnet offers in the use of
geographic information systems.
Mr. Speaker, with this agreement, the
province becomes a partner, acquiring a 24 percent interest in Linnet to
execute two projects that will utilize Linnet's expertise and unique approach
in two areas of high public priority. We
have taken a part ownership in Linnet for two reasons. The first quite simply is that we expect
Linnet to be successful and to generate profits through export sales. I believe that, by adopting Linnet's approach
for our internal requirements, we are in fact providing a form of investment to
Linnet and that we should have the opportunity to share in the company's
success.
* (1335)
The second reason is that Linnet's
contract will be providing a common base for various types of land‑related
information, information that is already in the public domain, which is owned
by the province and which Linnet will use under licence. Being a shareholder in the company and
therefore taking part in the corporation's decision making is a responsible way
of incorporating the public interest.
This is a clear example of how government can encourage economic
development in the creation of a new industry here in
Two demonstration projects will be
conducted using sophisticated computer technology. The first project for the Manitoba Crop
Insurance Corporation will use existing data and apply it in a graphic form to
the quarter section level of farm land.
This will lead to a better method of interpreting data and will support
the Crown corporation in its efforts to improve service to individual farmers.
The second project will provide a means of
integrating data from various sources to assist municipalities, planning
districts and utilities in meeting the demand of urban and regional
expansion. The project will demonstrate
this approach using the area between
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the government
still maintains the ownership of the information and controls the access and
distribution of the information provided through these projects. As I
mentioned, with this agreement, the province becomes a partner with I.D. Group
of
GIS is a growing industry. Experts predict that the industry will be
worth $20 billion to $40 billion annually by the turn of the century. For now,
One of the keys to
Our government has worked hard to build a
solid foundation for economic growth. We
have made a commitment to control spending and create a positive climate for
investment. Today's announcement is
another example of our government's commitment to fostering growth, supporting
innovation and establishing
*
(1340)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): It is statements like these, and the way that
the government has announced this statement following on a press release
yesterday, that give those of us on this side very great concerns about the
government and where it is going. Quite
frankly, no wonder there are 57,000 people unemployed in this province with the
stewardship of members opposite and the way in which they are managing our
economy and managing the assets of our province and the public of this
province.
These secret negotiations have gone on for
some time. I would note that there has
been absolutely no tendering at all about dealing with public assets and moving
them over to one private firm, a private firm that has close connections to
members opposite, the Conservative government and the province of the day. It is secret negotiations dealing with public
assets being moved over to a private company.
Even conservative
Mr.
Speaker, there is absolutely no explanation of how much this company is
worth. There is no correlation between
the amount of money the government is paid and the value of the company. The government could not provide any answers
to the media that was able to attend their last‑minute announcement
yesterday, because they do not have that information. They wanted to have this announcement almost
in the dead of night, having it late yesterday afternoon, tied to other press
conferences the government was holding on other announcements.
Mr. Speaker, these are public assets that
have been gathered over a number of years and have geographic and geological
information that is maintained by the public.
We have great concern on the pattern of this government opposite to take
public records and public assets and privatize them. In the 1980s, there was considerable
privatization of resources and utilities by Conservative governments, and now
private companies in the information society want to get and obtain a
considerable amount of assets and records in the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite is
correct. It is a tremendous potential
for growth of $20 billion to $40 billion, but the question is: Who is going to control that growth, and to
whose benefit will it be? Will it be to
the benefit of the public of
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely
no cost benefit in terms of jobs for the province of Manitoba in the
announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). We do not know how many jobs‑‑I
would suggest the minister should table how many jobs will be lost in the
public sector versus how many jobs will be gained in the private sector.
Mr.
Speaker, this company came to us when we were in government as well, and our
preliminary review of this project was that it was going to cost us
considerable jobs in the public sector and considerable rights of individuals
and citizens of the
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have an
announcement today, but we have very little information. We do not know what the people of
When we do not go to the public tendering
process, we do not know whether we have good deals or bad deals, because we do
not know what alternative deals there are for us to examine so that we can
justify in our own minds that we have the best possible deal.
We have only this government's word for
the fact that this is a wonderful deal.
Well, we had the NDP government's word that Unisys was state of the art
for our hospitals and was going to be the most miraculous thing since sliced
bread.
We had this government's word that the
Wang deal was going to be just a wonderful deal in terms of the computerization
of the entire operations of government.
Both of them have failed to live up to expectations, and the tragedy is
that we do not know whether Linnet is going to be a very exciting adventure or
whether it is not going to be a very exciting adventure. We do not know whether there were alternative
firms who could have done a better job, and we do not know any of those things
because this government chose not to ask for bids at large so that we could be
assured that they had cut the best possible deal for the citizens and the
taxpayers of the province of Manitoba.
I hope, Mr Speaker, that they have cut a
succcessful deal. I hope that the
interests of Manitobans will be protected in terms of their information bank
and in terms of their confidentiality. I hope this will be a moneymaker, but
because I have not been able to make a judgment any more than they have been
able to make a judgment, I have very serious concerns.
*
(1345)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the Nineteenth Annual Report dated March 31,
1991, for Legal Aid
I am tabling today the Twentieth Annual
Report for 1990‑91 of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission.
I am tabling the Annual Report for 1990‑91
of the Manitoba Police Commission.
I am tabling the 1990 Annual Report for
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 46‑The Jury Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the
House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 46, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
jures), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Attorney General have
leave?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Bill 47‑The Petty Trespasses
Amendment Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Perhaps if I try again, Mr. Speaker, honourable members in the New Democratic
Party will come to their senses.
I ask for leave to move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 47, The Petty
Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion), be introduced
and that the same be now read and received the first time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Attorney General have
leave?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied.
Mr. McCrae: So much for co‑operation.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
* *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the spirit that this House
exercised with respect to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) the other day‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Under Introduction of Bills?
An Honourable Member: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have
some very clear rules in this House about what items of business we deal with.
We are currently dealing with the Routine
Proceedings which is Introduction of Bills.
There are a number of bills that are listed that have gone through the
proper notice procedures. I know we have
a member introducing one of those bills today.
I would ask if it is in order for the
government, which has filed a number of bills which have not yet been placed as
part of the routine proceedings that are not yet in order, in terms of the
normal notice procedures, to stand to attempt to bring them through and then to
make the type of comments the Minister of Labour did, the extraneous comments. In fact, I would suggest that is not in
order, and we should proceed with those bills brought in in the normal
procedure, a number of which are waiting for introduction on first reading
currently today, Mr. Speaker.
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, the honourable
Attorney General had asked for leave.
Leave had been denied. Therefore, that settled the issue.
On the issue of the honourable Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik), if the honourable minister wanted to make a statement you
could have stood up during Ministerial Statements.
Bill 42‑The Amusements Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Now
under Introduction of Bills, the honourable Minister of Labour.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that
Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
divertissements, be introduced and that the same now be read and received for a
first time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Labour have
leave? No, leave is denied.
Bill 52‑The Pas Health Complex
Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motion
presented.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, just a brief explanation to the bill.
The Pas Health Complex Incorporated currently has a board of directors
consisting of 10 members. However, it
has attempted to expand the membership to 13 and that is to give the community
a wider representation at the board of The Pas Health Complex.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery
where we have with us this afternoon, from the
Also, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Round Table on the Environment
Project Review Process
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we want to formally welcome the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) back. I would hate
to admit that we missed him, but we welcome him back to the House. The animation has already been raised a bit by
your presence again, and we wish you a speedy recovery. We even note that your crutches, I think, are
colour co‑ordinated with the political party that you represent. We know that your injury is very
painful. We wish you all the best in
your recovery. We will try to keep you
off your feet, but we had better start with a question to the First Minister.
Mr. Speaker, we were proud to have co‑signed
the proposal with business to have round tables in all provinces and the
national government to have business, labour, government, environmental people
working together on the economic and environmental consequences of very major
projects. We applauded the provincial
government, including the Premier, when he agreed to chair a round table in
Since that time, we have been very
concerned and have expressed our concern that the round table in this province
has been a public relations exercise. In
fact, last year, I recall a public relations firm was hired for a quarter
million dollars, yet the major decisions dealing with our environment like Oak
Hammock Marsh, like Repap, like Rafferty‑Alameda, like Conawapa were not
being discussed and decisions being made in a round table in a sustainable
development way but rather the emphasis was on public relations.
Today, we find a document signed by the
Chamber of Commerce that again has said that this process by the government has
tended to be a public relations orientation.
They are now calling on a real sustainable development process for this
province.
I would ask the Premier: What action is his government going to take
to change it from a public relations exercise to a truly comprehensive decision‑making
body for jobs and the environment in our
*
(1355)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for his welcoming‑back remarks. I can assure him that dealing with my broken
ankle is not nearly as painful as listening to the rhetoric from across the
way.
Speaking of empty rhetoric, we know
exactly the situation that this province faced when we took office in 1988 and
did form the round table and did put in place the most extensive comprehensive
process for environmental assessment and review that has ever been seen in this
province. We know that, when we came
into place, we had Manfor up at The Pas, owned and operated by the provincial
government, which had never been licensed by the previous administration
environmentally. We had it being the
only pulp and paper mill possibly in the world that from time to time
discharged raw effluent right into the river without any checks and balances,
without anything being done to it.
We had them construct Limestone, the
largest hydro‑electric project in
That was the attitude that the
administration, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a part, put
forward. We put the round table in place
as a means of altering for all time and future public policy with respect to
environmental assessment and economic development.
I can say to the Leader of the Opposition
that that round table has been getting compliments from right throughout the
country. In fact, we had recently the
chairman of the education and information committee of the national round table
in Winnipeg at one of our round table meetings telling those present that ours
was the leading round table in the country in terms of the work that it was
doing, in terms of the development stage at which it was, that it was leading
in showing the way in a whole host of initiatives that were not being matched
by any other round table in the country and that we were in fact taking the lead
role in so many areas of round tables, showing the way in the development of a
sustainable development policy and implementing it throughout all levels of
government departments.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the
Premier does find the debate in this House painful. He should find it painful, with the number of
people who are unemployed and the number of people on welfare in the
The Premier announced last year at the
round table meeting, the public relations meeting that we attended, that we had
the best environmental act in the country, and we were proud of the fact that
we did pass that act. We also
congratulated the government for establishing the round table, but there is
absolutely no sense having a round table if the people who are participating on
it are calling it a public relations exercise. They are calling for an action‑oriented
round table.
I would ask the Premier: Will he be submitting major projects that
affect jobs and the environment to that round table for written decisions and
written advice to all the members of the public, and would he perhaps start
with the Conawapa project, where there is considerable debate going on in this
province on the timing of the Conawapa for domestic use of the province of
Manitoba?
Point of Order
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I know we have rules in this
House which ask members to rise, but it seems to me totally inappropriate to
ask the Premier to rise and possibly endanger his other ankle.
Mr. Filmon: I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr.
Speaker. Just to demonstrate how steady
I am, I want to assure her that I would not do anything that endangered my
other leg, and I thank her for her concerns.
I speak better and I think the microphone picks up better if I am
standing, so I will do it that way until I have a problem. Thank you.
*
* *
*
(1400)
Mr. Filmon: I just want to say to the Leader of the
Opposition, in response to his postamble, that it is not the rhetoric of the
opposition that is painful, it is the empty rhetoric. I happened to go through Hansard and read the
so‑called emergency debate on the economy that was instituted by the NDP
on Monday of this week.
Mr. Speaker, by leave, all parties,
because the economy is such a major concern, wanted to have the opportunity to
hear the constructive ideas of the NDP party.
There was not one new idea. There
was not one constructive suggestion.
There was just a lot of empty rhetoric from the New Democrats, people
who presumably have been sitting preparing for this session to resume for more
than two months. That is what is
painful, because these are serious issues that we have to deal with.
Our government is consulting and being
involved with Ministers of Finance right across the country. I am talking with Premiers almost daily. We are fighting similar battles, and we have
similar challenges, but what we get from the opposition and the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), the NDP party, is they are reduced to going back to
their old times of 15 years ago, the "should have beens" and
"what have beens" and "never was's." That is what is really
painful.
I want to say in response to his question‑‑[interjection] Well, if you want to have
a lot of preamble and postamble, I will have to respond to it, I am sorry.
The fact of the matter is that the
individual who made comment is not a part of the round table and does not
appear to be at all familiar with any of the work that the round table is
doing, as near as I could tell, Mr. Speaker, has not bothered to try and get
information on the round table efforts and is, from a distance, supposing what
it is and what it should do without any information. Of course, if you have that kind of
commentary based on lack of information or involvement, then you can have
misunderstandings.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the business community, the
labour community, the environmental community, the education community and the
government community is on the round table.
The whole idea is to get a group of people together to develop a
consensus on the major economic and environmental decisions before us. I am surprised the Premier would repudiate
one of the participants, one of the bodies that is part of the government's
round table because‑‑[interjection]
again the Premier‑‑I was absolutely surprised that he would attack
the integrity of an organization rather than dealing with the substance of the
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier very
simply, given the fact that there is a great deal of conflict in this province
about the timing of projects like Conawapa and the economic and environmental
consequences of this, and given the fact we have a round table that is
established in this province, would the Premier agree to submit this project to
that round table so that a consensus could be developed in our province about
major environmental and economic decisions, and we can move forward as a
province rather than having the debate that this round table that the Premier
chairs is only a "public relations body"?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat just so the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has some valid facts to base his statement on, not
commentary out of a news article, the Chamber of Commerce is not represented on
the round table. There are many business
people, labour people. There are people
from the environment community, and none of them have given that
criticism. This is a body that is not
involved with it, that does not appear to have much information on the work of
the round table, that has gratuitously made comment. That does not make them expert.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to changing the
forum under which the Conawapa project will be reviewed, I think it would be
totally inappropriate to take the Conawapa project review out of the hands of a
full and open public environmental review process, open to everybody to appear
before it, to expert witness and everything else, take it out of that kind of
public forum, which is the best forum, I would say, in Canada and put it into a
back‑room forum of a committee such as the round table, which is not
accessible to the public, not open to public debate and consideration. That would be the wrong way to go.
I know New Democrats did not have public
environmental assessment or review of Limestone, Mr. Speaker. That was a great, great failing. We are not going back to those days. We are going to have a full federal‑provincial
joint‑panel public environmental assessment and review process which will
be the best and most thorough in
Conawapa Dam Project
Public Utilities Board Review
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new
Minister of Energy and Mines.
The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has
criticized the government for proceeding to build Conawapa before it was
needed. The original PUB review wrongly
assessed that Conawapa power would be needed for domestic consumption in the
year 2000.
As the First Minister will not take this
to the round table, which is the committee which deals with jobs and the
environment, will the new Minister of Energy and Mines resubmit the Conawapa
project to the Public Utilities Board?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): I want you and this House to
know that this government has two new processes to the further development of
any Hydro projects, a complete environmental hearing process that everyone is
welcome to participate in; secondly, it has gone before the Public Utilities
Board, which fully endorsed the initiative that was established.
Listening to the Leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), Mr. Speaker‑‑and this is in the throne
speech, in 1988, he said, we will fight the mothballing of our Manitoba Hydro
program right down the line this session and the next session‑‑[interjection] the member who just asked
the question, in 1990 budget debate, and he is putting his position forward.
Yes, he does support the Conawapa project.
Now I am having a difficult time, Mr.
Speaker. With two new processes added,
creation of 25,000 person years of jobs, leaving the province of Manitoba with
a completely paid‑for project in Conawapa in the year 2022 and some $900
million worth of economic benefits to the province, that the member would ask
such a question, that he is now not supporting it, coming from northern
Manitoba.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, to correct the minister's
statement, we are not saying yes or no.
We are saying, do the job right.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable member, this is not a
time for debate.
Mr. Hickes: I would like to ask the honourable Minister
of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey): Is he
taking the advice of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) who said on
Monday that Conawapa is an environmentally benign project and urges cutting the
timetable for the environmental hearings in half in order to ram the Conawapa
project through?
Point of Order
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of order when there is a
deliberate misrepresentation of what the member has put on the record.
The debate, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
has already referred to, was in the course of the debate on the economy. It was a suggestion that was made out to
honourable members opposite that, if indeed it was jobs and more jobs that they
were looking for, now and immediate, then suggestions like looking at the
timeframe for the environmental hearings for Conawapa could be coming from
members opposite.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
An Honourable Member: On the same point of order.
Mr. Speaker: There was no point of order.
*
(1410)
Point of Order
Mr.
Hickes: On a new
point of order, I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources to read Hansard,
February 17‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Point Douglas does
not have a point of order. Your question
has already been put.
*
* *
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the other comment I would like
to make in response is that I am not sure that what is being commented upon by
the individual from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce is in fact the official
position of the Winnipeg Chamber. I will
refer to a news report that indicated the chamber has not taken a position as
far as I know on Conawapa. That is this
Mr. Cantor, who is now clearly indicating in a news report that it is not the
position of the Winnipeg Chamber.
Mr. Hickes: Can the minister tell this House whether he
or any member of his cabinet contacted Ontario Hydro or the government of
Mr. Downey: No, in fact, just a little bit of the
background for the member as well‑‑I will quote what his Leader
said. This was in 1989, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer said he was supportive of the
Conawapa project when it was first announced in 1989. In fact, he claimed he and Premier Pawley's
NDP government had signed an agreement between
No, we have not contacted Ontario Hydro as
to whether we want to change the deal.
We believe it is a good deal for Manitoba Hydro. We believe it is a good deal for
Conawapa Dam Project
Legal Opinion Request
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in December, the Liberal party
of
Will the First Minister now tell us if
they are committed to open government, as they committed in the 1990 campaign,
and will they now table the complete legal opinion and not just phrases so that
we can know how to fit the mistakes in with the rest of the copy?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Mr. Speaker, to the Leader
of the Liberal Party, we do have legal opinion which in fact indicates the deal
is authentic and the agreement is authentic.
There has been a portion of the legal opinion provided for the member,
and I think that all of the information dealing with the subject matter that is
pertinent to this has been provided to the member of the opposition.
Mrs. Carstairs: We do not share this government's fear of
tabling legal opinions or indeed its need to hide them. We would like to table the following legal
opinion which we commissioned, also from a reputable
Will this government now, on the basis of
this new agreement, table its opinion so that the two can be compared as to
which perhaps is the better legal opinion?
Mr. Downey: I am quite prepared to take the information
that the Leader of the Liberal Party has provided. I am quite prepared to assess what has been
tabled by the member of the Liberal Party.
Mrs. Carstairs: Obviously, they are not committed to the process
of open government.
Public Utilities
Board Review
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the former Minister responsible
for Hydro said he was not sure that the deal was still a good one, but that
Well, it is obvious that renegotiation is
indeed possible, and it is also possible to send all of the new information to
the Public Utilities Board.
Why will this minister not commit today,
in light of new facts, new very relevant facts, about need for hydro‑electricity,
about the validity of the contracts? Why
will he not refer the whole issue to the Public Utilities Board?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Because it has been reviewed
by the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, endorsed by the Public Utilities
Board, being a major benefit to this province both in long‑term benefits
as far as the economic benefits in some $900 million worth of value to this
province, the creation of some 1,000, the equivalent of some 1,000 25‑year
careers and jobs, or 22,000 to 25,000 person years of employment, and it has
been reviewed by the Public Utility Board and spoken to clearly by the Public
Utility Board that it is a good project for Manitoba based on the data that it
was essential to make the decision for the Public Utility Board.
Dutch Elm Disease
Funding Restoration
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear from
In
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in Winnipeg
2000 asking us to celebrate Winnipeg's quality of life, because when we lose
those 200,000 trees in Winnipeg, there are going to be 200,000 reasons for
every Winnipegger to remember this Tory government.
I would like to ask the Minister of Urban
Affairs: Will he recommend to the
cabinet, as the man who speaks for
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister then
acknowledge that what this reduction policy is, in fact, is part of his
government's continued program to offload and increase local taxes, given that
the estimated cost of removing the elm trees in
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, it has been the policy of this
government since it came to office that it would provide as much money as possible
to the City of Winnipeg from available resources with as few strings attached
to it as possible, unlike the former government, unlike my friend the member
for Concordia (Mr. Doer), who attached strings to a $30‑million bridge in
North Kildonan, and he sits there with a smile on his face.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Dutch elm
disease program, in addition to having the City of Winnipeg available to spend
the grants that are given to it by the Province of Manitoba on whatever it
likes, we are providing additional grant money to provide for replacement tree
stock so that, when those Dutch elm diseased trees succumb to that disease, for
which there is no cure, we will have a replacement stock available to put new
trees in place, of significant size.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister defend as
responsible management in 1992 the reduced support of a program which is labour
intensive, which offered employment to former welfare recipients in a city
where there is 12 percent unemployment?
How can he defend that? Will he
listen to the Chamber of Commerce at least, which asked his government to show
some leadership in sustainable development?
Will he ask the cabinet to replace and maintain the 1989 levels of
funding?
Mr.
Ernst: The member for Wolseley heard
in my earlier two answers, the City of
* (1420)
Pharmacare
Deductible Increase
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
This government also removed over 150
drugs from Pharmacare coverage. I would
like to ask the minister if he did a utilization review, the kind recommended
by the Centre for Policy and Evaluation that the minister referred to
yesterday? Did he do that kind of
evaluation in terms of health outcomes before heaping this incredible burden on
seniors, single‑parent women, low‑income residents, chronically and
terminally ill?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this year's
budgetary commitments, in which we expect to support the Pharmacare program in
the province of Manitoba to those same seniors, those same single parents,
those same families, those same Manitobans to the tune of approximately $5
million more, despite the decision we made to increase the deductible by 10
percent, taxpayers across the length and breadth of this province will be asked
to contribute an additional $5 million to the support of purchase of
pharmaceuticals by all Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, to answer the specifics of
the changes, other than the deductible to the Pharmacare program, I have to
answer to my honourable friend that the process that was followed, if she cared
to investigate, is the same one that was followed for a number of years that
Pharmacare has been in place, wherein all governments have accepted
recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee, composed of
professional pharmacists, wherein they recommend deletions as well as additions
to the Pharmacare list.
Those deletions have been made this year,
last year, the year previous, for the last 15 years in the
Clarythromycin Exclusion
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Why did this government discontinue
Pharmacare coverage for clarythromycin, a medication released on a
compassionate basis by Health and Welfare
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if I understand the nature of
the experimental‑‑I am not using the right word, but that
pharmaceutical, to my knowledge, has not been licensed by the federal
government to date.
In attempting to undertake trials to see
if it has efficacy for use in the general public, the supply of that
pharmaceutical was made available for those trials by the manufacturer. That free supply was discontinued, and it is
my understanding, and I will check with the department to assure the
information I am providing is correct, that the pharmaceutical is still not
licensed, but the manufacturer has discontinued the free supply of that.
Mr. Speaker, we have, in the last couple
of months, had it drawn to our attention that at least one individual who has
been supplied with that has been asked to pay for that. This is one of those areas wherein we do not
have a pharmaceutical which has been recommended for inclusion on Pharmacare
for any kind of reimbursement of program.
We are asking for consideration by our expert advisory committee as to
whether we can include and continue to supply free of charge this
pharmaceutical. To date, no decision has
been made.
Point of Order
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: I
would like to point out to the minister that it is in his own Order‑in‑Council
of December 18, 1991.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is a dispute over the
facts.
*
* *
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to, as my final supplementary,
ask the minister: Considering that the
costs of clarythromycin, about $367 a month, are prohibitive, denying AIDS
victims the right to treat such incidents as fever‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, I apologize for going on about the side
effects of this disease, but I would like the minister to tell this House if he
is prepared to show some compassion, as Health and Welfare
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I realize my honourable friend
has her questions crafted so she has to continue regardless of the answer that
I have given, but if my honourable friend would care to revisit my second
answer, I indicated that this drug was recommended not to be on the list. That was part of the Order‑in‑Council
from the expert advisory committee.
I also indicated in my second answer that
at least one patient's circumstances have been drawn to the attention of the
department, and we are asking that issue be revisited by the same group of
experts that made the original recommendation.
I went on further to say that I have to
date made no decision because I have not received a recommendation to do such
on reinstatement of that drug, but I have asked for that very reconsideration,
so the honourable friend ought to listen to the answer. It is fully under reconsideration by myself
and this government.
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Conawapa Dam Project
Cost Projection
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy and
Mines.
In this government's retreat to different
grounds to justify its slavish commitment to the Conawapa project, we have just
heard another one from the minister, which is that it is going to create 25
years of work for 1,000 people, was his statement. He cited that fact as his primary reason for
support of the Conawapa project, in view of the mounting evidence against it or
for reconsideration.
By my calculation, that works about to
$228,000 per person per year. That is
aside from the cost to the environment. Is
that in fact the good business sense that this minister is relying on for this
project, and will he indicate exactly what he perceives the cost per year will
be if not that, because that is exactly the calculation that he has given us
today?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
guess the critic for the Liberal Party may be having some difficulty in
understanding some of the impacts that a $6‑billion project will have to
the people of
After it goes through a proper
environmental hearing process, full extensive environmental hearing process,
there will be some $6 billion invested into the
At the end of the contract, the Conawapa
Dam, the year 2022, will be owned by the people of Manitoba, through Manitoba
Hydro, will have probably generated $700 million to $900 million worth of
economic profits to this province, and this is all done, and I can assure the
members opposite, as I can assure our members, this government is truly
environmentally conscious. It was
demonstrated so by the processes that we have put in place. We will live up to those commitments, but we
also have a responsibility, as did D. L. Campbell, who was a great Premier of
this province, as did Duff Roblin and Walter Weir and Ed Schreyer and Sterling
Lyon and Howard Pawley, who used Manitoba Hydro as a major economic generator
for this province.
I want the member to take a little closer
look at the total picture of what Hydro means to this province and not just
specific individual items that may in some way damage a great opportunity that
we have.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, truly passing strange.
* (1430)
Conawapa Dam Project Position
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Will the Minister of Energy and Mines not recognize the extremely unique
and rare coalition which has built against Conawapa, which now includes the
business community, environmentalists, scientists, the former minister? Will
this minister not recognize that the coming together of these groups has
probably never happened before in the history of this province? Does that not tell him something, that those
who represent the business community think it does not make business sense?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that we have
gone far enough in allowing the member for St. James to misrepresent what has
been said about the issue.
I would like to quote directly from the
individual who was quoted in the Free Press article that, I might say, was
based on a report that did not even refer to Conawapa in the report. It was taken a jump beyond by a reporter
wanting to make a story out of this. The
fact of the matter is, Mr. Cantor, when asked the direct question on the radio
this morning, said: The chamber has not
taken a position, as far as I know, on Conawapa. It is very unfair to draw a conclusion from a
comment I made to the effect that any Hydro development is environmentally
unfriendly.
That was the comment he made, not that he
had a problem with Conawapa.
He was asked further: So do you have any conclusions as to ways
that this project could be done to make it more harmonious with sustainable
development?
Not really, he says. We have not dealt with it specifically.
The question was asked by the
reporter: How does Conawapa fit into the
philosophy that the chamber expressed in its resolution dealing with the round
table? The answer is: Well, we are concerned.
We are concerned‑‑so this
makes the story. The chamber has not
taken a position. They did not refer to
Conawapa in the report. This is all
balderdash.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, will the minister come
to grips with the fact that this is on letterhead that says the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce, not Alan Cantor, but the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. James have
a supplementary question?
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chamber of Commerce
is the spokesperson, the largest spokesperson for the business community in
this province.
Is the government saying that we should
not listen to the Chamber of Commerce's concerns? Should we disregard what this single largest
business organization in the province has to say about the business sense of
this deal?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Time for Question Period has now terminated.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe our normal
tradition is to allow the question to be answered. I would suggest that we allow the‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson
for that instruction. I have been
advised by the Clerk that indeed the honourable First Minister is entitled to
respond to the question.
*
* *
Mr. Filmon: The member makes the point finally, and that
is that we would indeed listen to the Chamber of Commerce and to any interest
group in this province. That is why we
have set up a Public Utilities Board review of this project. That is why we will have the most complete,
thorough and comprehensive public environmental assessment and review process
ever carried on in the history of this province on this project, and we will
listen to anybody on it.
The point that he misses completely is
that the person who wrote that report as a committee member of a chamber
committee, said, as a chamber committee chairman, I will even grant: The chamber has not taken a position, as far
as I know, on Conawapa. It is unfair to draw a conclusion from a comment I made
to the effect that any Hydro development is environmentally unfriendly.
He went on further to say that they have
not dealt specifically with Conawapa at all.
In fact, it is not mentioned in the report. Therefore, it is an absolute total
fabrication to suggest that they have made commentary for or against Conawapa,
the wrong basis upon which anybody but a Liberal could make an argument.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? Leave? Leave has been granted.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise in
the House today to pay tribute to a member of my constituency, Joan Ingram,
with her rink consisting of Dorothy Rose as third, Lori Bradawaski as second,
and Elaine James as lead, in their winning the Senior Ladies Curling
Championships this past weekend, and will represent Manitoba in the Canadian
Senior Ladies Curling Championships in March.
I would ask all members in the House here today in wishing the Ingram
rink well at the Canadian Senior Ladies Championships at
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Interlake have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
* (1440)
Mr. Edward Connery (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
An Honourable Member: Ask again.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Interlake have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Clif Evans: I wish to congratulate Joan Ingram and her
rink on winning the Manitoba Ladies Senior Curling Championship, and we all on
this side of the House wish her well in the Canadian championships. Thank you very much.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would call second
reading of Bills 5, 9, 15, and I then ask for leave to do second reading of
Bills 21 and 34 which have been distributed.
That would require leave. If
there is time after that I would then propose that we revert to debate on
second readings, Bills 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 38.
SECOND
Bill 5‑The
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 5, The Manitoba
Advisory Council on the Status of Women Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
le Conseil consultatif manitobain de la situation de la femme, be now read a
second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Mitchelson: This afternoon I am pleased to speak in
support of Bill 5, the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women
Amendment Act.
This amendment would see the name of the
Council changed to the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council. As all members of this House are, I am sure,
aware, the Advisory Council's mandate is to advise the government of
As I am sure all members are also aware,
there are a number of groups and organizations that, while having different
mandates, are also dedicated to promoting equality for
This shared acronym and similarity of
names has caused much confusion by community groups, members of the media,
individuals, even members of this House, and the bureaucracy. The Action Committee regularly receives calls
for information regarding meetings or activities sponsored by the Advisory
Council, and vice versa. Often public
statements made by one or organization are attributed to the other.
The confusion of names and acronym causes
difficulty for women and women's groups because often they do not realize there
are two different organizations with two different mandates and different
functions. Unfortunately, Madam Deputy
Speaker, this confusion causes problems and difficulties for many, including
the very people these two organizations are intended to serve and represent.
I have introduced Bill 5 to once and for
all resolve the confusion of names between the two groups. The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women was established by Order‑in‑Council in 1980 and ensured
permanence by the passage of the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of
Women Act in 1987.
While the name of the Council will be
amended as a result of this bill, the intent and the mandate of the Council
will not change. I am certain that all
the members of this House will agree that since the Action Committee was
established prior to the Advisory Council, the onus is on the Council to make
the necessary change, which will solve this problem.
It should be noted by members of this
House that not only does the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women
support this bill, but so do a variety of other
They are:
The Manitoba Women's Institute; Pluri‑Elles Inc.; The Provincial
Council of Women; North End Women's Centre; Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre;
The Original Women's Network; The Aboriginal Women's Unity Coalition; and the
Canadian Congress of Learning Opportunities for Women.
These groups representing
They have asked for this amendment. These groups recognize that this amendment is
literally one in name only. The mandate
of the Council will not change in any way.
The Council will continue to act as the advisory body to the government
on issues of concern to women which, I must stress, are issues of concern to
all Manitobans regardless of sex, race, culture or creed.
Unfortunately and to our detriment, too
often women's issues are seen as exclusively social issues such as child care
or health care. These issues are not
solely the concern of women but of all of society.
I cannot stress enough that all issues are
women's issues. This includes economics, financial planning, regional
development and resource development and allocation. All issues are women's issues and women's
issues are everybody's issues.
We have all observed with great interest
and participated in, either formally or informally, the current constitutional
debates. These debates have underscored
the necessity for each of us to be vigilant and aware in a wide variety of
areas, for example, the division of powers between federal and provincial
governments and economic issues.
If women's and all of society's needs are
to be addressed, the Council, in keeping with its mandate, has actively
participated in and represented
Throughout the current constitutional
process, as in other legislative, social, political, cultural and economic
processes, the council will continue to advise government and focus on issues
as diligently and as forcefully as it has done in the past.
In keeping with its responsibility to
represent
* (1450)
The council has also taken the initiative
to establish its presence throughout the province and with all women's
organizations. It has focused much of its
time on creating and strengthening the link between itself and women's groups
and, in fact, undertook a tour of rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, the council has
worked hard and diligently to advance the concerns and interests of
With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would like to encourage all members of the House to support this name change,
and I want to indicate clearly that the change of a name does not necessarily
mean that there will be a change of mandate.
We value the contribution that the Advisory Council has made to the
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): I am delighted to be
able to speak on this particular bill.
Although I have not received a copy of the bill, I will accept the
minister's comments that it is simply a matter of changing the name. What I really want to do is to put on the
record the respect that we have for the Manitoba Advisory Committee on the
Status of Women.
They have done excellent work on behalf of
women throughout the
Throughout the whole constitutional
debate, particularly when I would enter into conversations with government
officials in
I was at a conference in October of last
year in which they paid tribute to Justice Bertha Wilson, the first woman to be
appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This was a symposium on her work and her contributions to the Supreme
Court, but it focused on her Charter judgments, because the Charter judgments
were a jewel, I think, in her crown.
I was at that symposium for two
reasons. First and foremost, I would not
have heard of the conference if it had not been for the fact that my husband
was a classmate of hers and that is why we were invited. I went because I wanted to learn more about
her Charter judgments which, like the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women, went far beyond their concern just about the rights of women. They went and dealt with the rights of
aboriginal people. They showed her
concern for minority groups, particularly members of visible minorities and,
yes, they showed her concern for the rights of women, and that is exactly what
the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has done.
A very prophetic statement was made at
that seminar. It said that if you are a
white, Anglo‑Saxon, thin Protestant male you did not have to worry about
Charter. The more I thought about that
the more I realized that I did not fit into very many of those groups. I was white, so I fit in that, but I am not
Anglo‑Saxon, I am certainly not a male, I have never been thin in my
entire life, and I am not a Protestant.
Perhaps that is why I had to be more concerned and why the Charter has
always been of more concern to me than it has been, I think, to many others
within our society.
That is why I particularly have valued so
much the role that the advisory council has taken on the whole issue of the
Constitution and particularly its references to Charter, but it is certainly
not alone in their accomplishments. They
have published papers, they have put together booklets, they have responded to
the needs of vulnerable people, not just women in our community. For that they must be congratulated, and they
must be encouraged to continue their very fine work. If it makes them, quite frankly, feel better
to have a name change, if that is more reflective of their need in 1992, then
we are delighted to support the legislation, and we are prepared at this point
to allow it to go immediately to committee.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 15‑The Highway Traffic
Amendment Act
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant le Code de la route, be now read a second time and be referred to
a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make a few
comments on this bill. I have taken the
liberty of passing out spread sheets for my critics on this. This is a very simple bill. There are only three areas here, and I would
just like to give a little bit of a prelude to that and then make reference to
the three areas that are involved in the bill.
The
Department of Highways and Transportation forwards a bill to the Legislature on
an annual basis to make routine housekeeping amendments to The Highway Traffic
Act. Given the mandate and the scope of
this act, typically our annual housekeeping bill is quite large. This is due, in large part, to the fact that
the act has never been comprehensively rewritten for over 20 years. I am pleased to announce that the Department
of Highways and Transportation has undertaken a project to completely rewrite
The Highway Traffic Act over the next two‑ to three‑year
period. This project will result in
significant consultation with numerous stakeholders including
We look forward to this project, producing
a new Highway Traffic Act that will be both legally reliable, user‑friendly
for the public and far easier to update and maintain. Overall, this should alleviate the
Legislature from the burden of considering large, annual housekeeping
bills. For this reason, less urgent
legislative matters are being held and will be addressed in the omnibus rewrite
of The Highway Traffic Act. Therefore,
this year's housekeeping bill to amend The Highway Traffic Act is limited to
three issues.
Firstly, amendments are proposed to ensure
I might say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
this is an issue that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) had raised at various
times in our discussion last year about one of the trucking outfits, whether
the inspections were regular. This
should address that aspect of it.
Secondly, on behalf of
I might indicate that the request has come
from the law enforcement agencies to make an exemption for them in this case,
and if members have some concern about it, I am sure the law enforcement people
would be prepared to sit down and talk with us jointly on that. They have given many examples to myself about
the difficulty that they have when you have somebody who is not co‑operating,
trying to belt them in the back seat of a car.
* (1500)
The third area that we have, an amendment
is proposed to broaden war veterans' exemptions from paying vehicle
registration fees. In the past year, it
came to our attention that war veterans are exempt from paying the registration
fee for their passenger cars but not for their private trucks, and this is
being corrected. Again, it is a very
minor thing, but it has created some anxiety out there with the veterans and we
are trying to correct not an infraction, I guess, but a discrepancy that has
been there for a while.
Madam Deputy Speaker, a clause‑by‑clause
explanation of the amendments to The Highway Traffic Act, as indicated, has been
provided to the opposition critics, for their full consideration, and,
therefore, it is my pleasure to recommend this bill to the Legislature. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 21‑The Provincial Lands
Amendment Act
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I ask leave of the House to move Bill 21, The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les parcs
provinciaux, at this time, seconded by the honourable Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey).
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave?
An Honourable Member: No. No
leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
House Business
Mr.
Enns: Madam
Deputy Speaker, just simply acting on behalf of the House leader (Mr. Manness),
I think the indication had been given that on the adjourned debates on second
readings that we would begin with 7, 8 and 10, but I would ask that you call
Bills 11 and 12 first. I understand
there is some indication that there will be some speakers on those bills.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 11‑The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
To resume debate on the second reading of the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 11, The Bee-Keepers Repeal
Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les apiculteurs.
Is there leave to leave the bill remain
standing? Leave? Okay.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
rise to speak to The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act. I must tell the House that I had my research
staff examine this bill in detail and, to say the least, it is not the most
substantive piece of legislation that has ever come across my desk.
According to my research, the assets,
obligations and liabilities of the association are to be transferred to the
Manitoba Honey Marketing Board, which seems totally appropriate at this point,
and it does nothing to confuse it with the bee act. Therefore we should be able to give it ready
passage. We are prepared to do that,
Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be the only
speaker to speak on it.
Because the Manitoba Honey Marketing Board is to be endowed with these
new powers and abilities, I think it is an appropriate moment to put a few
remarks on the record with respect to marketing boards.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was with some
sadness that I listened to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) on Monday
give a defence for why he had not signed the declaration in support of Canadian
supply management. He stated it was
because the declaration was not a balanced position; it was only in support of
supply management and not in support of the negotiations presently being
undertaken at the GATT round. That is
simply not true.
The opening statement of this declaration
on behalf of supply management is very clear.
The opening statement says: Fully
supportive of all elements of the balanced position pursued by the federal
government in their proposal of March 14, 1990, to the current round of GATT
negotiations in agriculture. It said
very clearly that those on supply management, most of which find themselves in
marketing boards‑‑all of them in fact which find themselves in
marketing boards‑‑were very supportive of the balanced
position. They then went on to express
their concerns about supply management, but they did not express their concerns
on only one side of the issue. They also
expressed their concerns about the balanced position.
I think the Minister of Agriculture has
made an error in judgment here. Knowing the
Minister of Agriculture, as I do, I do not think it is particularly unbecoming
of him to say, I made a mistake. Lots of
material crossed his desk. I think
somebody made a judgment call here, and I think they made a judgment error.
We are going to have some rallies across
this country on Friday. There will be
one in
I believe the Minister of Agriculture is
with them on this issue. If he is with
them on this issue, and if he could bring himself to sign this, then I would be
able to bring myself to congratulate him on recognizing that a paper too
quickly moved across his desk and that he will in fact recognize that the
support of a balanced position is one that this government could undertake and
do it before Friday.
With those short comments on the record I
am delighted to be able to support Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers Repeal
Act. I will be the only speaker and we
would like to see it go to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe that the process that was begun last
fall in which we could get legislation into committee prior to those last few
days where we are voting on amendments with, quite frankly, not the time and
thought that should go into them as legislators. If we can speed that process up and
concentrate our energies into debating things which are truly of a nature which
requires debate, requires consultation, requires long committee hearings, and
we could do that in an orderly way then this entire Chamber would be doing its
job properly and not as unfortunately has become the tradition of this House on
all sides. I think it is time to correct
that.
I think we made a good first step in
December. I would have liked to have
seen more substantive legislation introduced in December, but if we can get
that within the next few days, and that is why we were prepared to give leave
today, then we can get some real debate going in this House on substantive
matters.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1510)
Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry
Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
To resume debate on second reading of bill (Bill 12, The Animal
Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur L'elevage)‑‑is
there leave to leave the bill standing in the name of the honourable member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Agreed.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am pleased to speak today on Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act. This was another bill which we sent off to
our research department and reviewed ourselves.
I must admit we did not come back with a long detailed document as to
just what was involved in this particular piece of legislation.
The bill does three things. The bill establishes that artificial
insemination, embryo implant or embryo transfer technicians no longer have to
reside in the region which they serve.
It says that it removes reference to the Manitoba Semen Distribution
Centre because that no longer is a government agency and it increases fines for
violation of animal artificial insemination provisions. Those seem to be the three things which this
bill does at this particular point in time.
I would like to address all three.
Firstly, the location of the technicians
no longer having to reside in the region which they serve is one which causes
us some concern. We think that wherever
possible this should be undertaken. They
should live in the region which they serve. Unfortunately, that may not be very
practical. It may not be practical when
we are in many cases reducing the number of technicians which they have and
because, quite frankly, there is not one that can serve every single region in
which they serve.
My concern‑‑and I wonder if it
is appropriate to put this in legislation‑‑is that as I read the
bill there is not even any requirement for them to live in rural
However, I think there are means by which
such encouragement can be offered. I
think if you look to hiring people who have homes in Winnipeg, then the
likelihood is, if possible, they will maintain their homes in Winnipeg;
however, you can look to hiring people who make a commitment to living in rural
Manitoba, even though you cannot enforce it.
Certainly, we have an ability to encourage such dwellings in rural
So we will not be making any amendments to
the act because to make an amendment would perhaps lead to a Charter challenge
on that particular aspect, but I want to encourage the minister responsible to
do everything in his power to make sure that these people dwell, wherever
possible, in rural
As to the references to the Manitoba Semen
Distribution Centre, which was privatized last spring, I was not opposed to
that distribution centre being privatized and therefore am also not opposed to
the deletion of it from this particular bill.
I think that it was an agency of government that has gone into the
private sector, but I find a certain amount of irony today, in standing up and
saying that it is a positive thing that this has been privatized when the
government announced today that they were going to take ownership in 25 percent
of a firm.
There is a certain amount of illogic here‑‑
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Twenty‑five years
ago it was a proper thing for a government to do what we are now revealing; 25
years from now it will be proper for us to get out of the Linnet thing. It is all a matter of timing.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) has said that perhaps 25 years from now will be the appropriate time for
them to get out of Linnet Graphics. I
think the question may be, was it an appropriate time to get in it today,
particularly when a bill came up for debate in which they had privatized
another aspect of government.
An Honourable Member: . . . ideologically driven, you could never
change and that is the difference between us and . . . .
Mrs. Carstairs: It is quite interesting for a member of the
Conservative Party to talk about not being ideologically driven. It has been my
experience to date that there has been no other party with the possible
exception of the New Democratic Party that has been so ideologically driven. Unfortunately, they are ideologically driven
from the right. Just as tragically
enough the NDP are ideologically driven by the left, and there is never a
balanced position, unless of course the Liberal Party is in attendance.
Finally, they have increased fines for the
violation of animal artificial insemination provisions. I think there is a logic to ensuring that
artificial insemination is conducted scientifically and with appropriate controls.
Tragically, we live in a society that if
we do not have appropriate controls, they will be violated. Tragically again, if there are not
appropriate fines, then we find that people will violate provisions which are
clearly necessary in order to make sure that the processes are scientifically
viable.
It is unfortunate, however, that while we
are here today making sure that we have appropriate fines for violation of
animal artificial insemination provisions, the federal government is still not
addressing some of those issues that need to be addressed with respect to
humans. I do not want to get into that
debate today, but I think we are wise to do it with respect to animals. I think we are equally wise to do it in all
of those ethical decisions with respect to human beings.
I
hope that we will see that kind of legislation coming forward at the federal
government level in the future to ensure that not only the medical profession
is involved in ethical considerations, but so too are consumers, so too are
citizens who have concerns for these particular issues.
With that, the Liberal Party is more than
prepared to have this go into committee stage so that once again we can free
the Order Paper for much more substantive pieces of legislation.
Bill 7‑The Real Property Amendment
Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), second reading of Bill 7, (The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels) standing in the name of the honourable
member for Thompson. Is there leave‑‑
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak on this
bill, The Real Property Amendment Act at second reading stage.
I think it is important to initially
reflect on the kind of comments that are appropriate for the second reading of
a bill, the kind of comments I will be making today, because I am somewhat
disturbed that in recent days we are departing, not only from the traditions of
this House in terms that there are readings of bills, but also the
parliamentary traditions that have been established over many centuries and
that are particularly important when one looks at the consideration of bills.
We have, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker,
as I think most people are aware, including many people outside of this House,
three readings on any particular bill.
We have the first reading, which for all intents and purposes might be
more equivalent to a notice of motion, although there is a separate item of
notice that many organizations have.
* (1520)
We have the second reading, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that is for the purpose of listening to debate between the minister
and other members of this Legislature, the minister proposing the bill before
us, as to the basic principles of the bill. I am glad that the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) agrees with that, and I hope that we will perhaps remind
some of his colleagues who in recent days have departed from those traditions.
We have seen ministers refer to specific
sections of bills and introducing for debate on second reading particular
bills, mostly notably the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). On this particular bill, Madam Deputy
Speaker, yesterday, we saw the minister, rather than get up and talk about the
basic principles of The Real Property Amendment Act, talk about‑‑and
in fact, he spent most of his time talking about the Land Titles Office going
back to various debates in 1988 and subsequent to that.
This being the minister who was supposed
to use his time to give us an explanation as to the intent, the purpose of this
bill, who instead used it for the purposes of another extraneous debate. Indeed, I will deal with that in a minute,
because since he has raised this in the debate, and I noticed your ruling yesterday
that this matter was not out of order, and indeed it is difficult in
determining relevance whether it was out of order or not. Since the minister's comments ruled in order,
I will be addressing those comments.
I also want to reflect as well on the
parliamentary process as we are dealing with this particular bill and other
similar bills. I want to reflect on the
process we have, the provisions for notice, the provisions we have for placing
matters on the Order Paper, and just how important those are, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I think the government has
indicated as it has indicated today on various bills, it has lost track of what
has happened in this particular session.
In this particular session we have moved
to more of a normal‑‑if anything in this Chamber can be considered
normal‑‑schedule. That is
very much the result of co‑operation between the opposition and
government. If one looks at the
traditions in any House, the role of an opposition, I think one has to give the
greatest credit to the opposition parties for getting us into this position
today where we are indeed‑‑we sat earlier than we might
normally. We are dealing with Estimates
in a more normal schedule. We are
dealing with the budget in a more normal schedule, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That is because the opposition parties
said that we needed to get back to that type of schedule in this House. Let that be made clear on the record, clear
on the record. The opposition in this
House made that accommodation.
We saw today that the government wants us
to go further, Madam Deputy Speaker.
They want us to throw out the rule book. They took great offense when we
indicated we would not be giving leave in terms of bringing matters that were
not on the Order Paper onto the Order Paper and dealing with them immediately.
Not only that, they had various ministers get up and provide various editorial
comments as to why we were somehow not co‑operating, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in this Legislature.
Well, let us understand why we are
debating this bill today, and why we would not give leave for other bills. We are debating this bill today because
notice was given prior to Christmas‑‑ [interjection]
Point of Order
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order,
please. I appreciate because I listened
to my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) introduce this bill at
second reading, that he‑‑and I think is a good practice‑‑gave
fairly wide scope as to the nature of the bill.
He perhaps embroidered a bit more in terms
of some of the history with respect to the Land Titles Office operations or
some of the difficulties that it had in terms of the delays in servicing the
public, but the honourable House leader for Her Majesty's Official Opposition
knows full well that he is now really stretching the point. I was listening to him, after reminding us
all that second reading of a bill is to debate the principle of the bill before
us, he is now really not coming anywhere near that. We are now talking about some offence or a
grievance that he had with respect to the way the House operated this
afternoon.
Surely we are dealing with the Land Titles
Office bill, or a bill having to do with the Land Titles, and that it would behoove
him as a House leader to provide us, even those new and not so new in this
House, as a bit of a role model, which I know he is capable of, because he
looks at himself in the mirror and he sees Stanley Knowles in front of himself‑‑
[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I assume the
honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was drawing the Chair's
attention to the fact that the debate on second reading of the bill should
indeed be relevant to the bill under debate, and the honourable Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) indeed did have a point of order.
I would remind all honourable members that
debate should be relevant to the bill on second reading.
Point of Order
Mr.
Ashton: Madam
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, a new point of order. I would point out, and I would ask for your
ruling, if it is appropriate for a member to stand without indicating any way,
shape or form, he was rising on a point of order and then have the Chair assume
that he was rising on a point of order and make a ruling to that effect. I would ask if you would peruse Hansard to
determine if indeed the minister had risen on a point of order, because I do
not recall him making that comment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the honourable member for Thompson's (Mr.
Ashton) point of order, I indeed will take that under advisement. I was under the assumption that he indeed
rose on a point of order, and that is why I ruled in that manner, but I will
take it under advisement.
*
* *
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to
continue debate on second reading of Bill 7.
Mr. Ashton: As I was indicating, I was giving the
background on this particular bill and the process it had followed through, and
why we are dealing with second reading on this particular bill currently. I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) would realize why we are dealing with it today, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because it went through the normal process. In fact, prior to the break that we took,
notice was given to opposition parties.
We were aware of the specific subject matter in its general sense.
We had the opportunity to look at the
printed bill which is always distributed following first reading, because that
is a key process. When we have second
reading we have the notice that we had as of yesterday because it was
officially on the Order Paper. The
minister made explanatory comments, and we were able today to be able to stand
as I am and debate this bill in its principles, based not only on the general
sense that we should somehow be dealing with this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker,
but based on the printed copy of the bill and also the minister's comments.
In this House when we deal with second
reading on this or any other bill, it is important for members of the
opposition to compare both the stated printed word, which in many way, shape or
form may be literal, may not be exactly what we think it is. We have had many times where bills have been
reviewed through committee, wording has been changed.
This bill in particular being a technical
bill, I am sure there may be presentations at committee expressing concerns
about some of the technical aspects.
Indeed, we have had many bills where even though we have agreed to the
general principle, we have subsequently, Madam Deputy Speaker, in other
sessions amended that bill because of the legislative process that takes us
through these readings and makes us scrutinize every bill through various
different stages. That is why I am
speaking on this bill today.
It is not simply in this province
sufficient for the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) on this bill, The Real
Property Amendment Act, to introduce the bill and somehow expect that it should
be passed through every single stage in one day, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is not appropriate, and I hope that
government members would not expect that to be the case. In a democratic system, in the parliamentary
system in particular, there is role for debate as there indeed will be on The
Real Property Amendment Act, so that we can scrutinize the principle on the
second reading and deal with the greater details in the future. I think that is important to reflect on.
Today on this particular bill we will reflect
on the principle. I know our critic will
also have some comments, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), because we
indeed will be participating in the debate on this bill. In this particular bill, having had the
opportunity to both see the bill, go through the proper notice procedures and
listen to the minister's comments yesterday, then today having the opportunity
to debate those bills, we will indeed be passing this bill through to second
reading in committee stage to take it to that further step, because we feel
that is the next appropriate step.
We can move now because it does not
require that great a scrutiny at the second reading stage when one is dealing
only with the question of the principle of the bill. That is important, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very important because I think
members opposite should understand exactly what the commitment of the
opposition parties has been on this bill and other bills. Our commitment on this bill and other bills
this session has not been to give up the right of an opposition, as indeed in
this particular bill, to stand and say‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I would sincerely request that the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) please do as he is suggesting that
all honourable members do and keep the debate relevant to the principles of the
second reading of the bill. I feel I
have been extremely flexible and have allowed considerable latitude, but I am
having great difficulty interpreting your remarks as directly relevant to the
bill on my desk.
* (1530)
Mr. Ashton: I made direct reference to the fact that we
were passing this bill through to committee today. I believe, if you would refer to my comments
and refer to Hansard, you might find that is in standard keeping with debate on
any bill to give an indication as to what the intentions of the parties are,
Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very
relevant because in this particular case this particular bill following my
comments and the comments of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) will be
passed through to committee.
I would hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
would be considered in order because I believe we give that kind of indication
on a regular basis when we deal with bills and that is exactly what I was doing
in this case, indicating this bill, because the basic principle of this bill is
a technical change to The Real Property Act.
Some technical changes, perhaps, require scrutiny at committee stage
where we can receive legal advice as to its specific import. We believe that is the type of bill that we
can deal with as we are dealing today.
In fact, we will be passing this bill
through subject to the Liberals or other members of the Chamber, Conservative
members, dealing with this matter. We
will be passing it through one day after it was introduced for second reading‑‑one
day!‑‑because there are cases such as this bill where the principle
is fairly basic.
In other bills, and we will see as we
debate them, as they come up for debate in this House, there may be more
complicated matters of principle. There
may also be disagreements in principle, in terms of ideological differences,
referring to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) earlier and his comments
on ideology or differences of philosophy, differences of approach.
In this particular case, though, we have a
bill where it is a fairly straightforward bill in terms of some technical
changes or some Latin phrases, for example, that have been changed in this bill
to English.
I am surprised we still have Latin in our
legal system. I would have thought after
all the debate in this House over official languages that we could at least
eliminate a language that has not been in common usage for some two thousand
years and have legal terms explained in the English or French language in a way
that is comprehensible to all.
In fact, I would suggest, and I know other
members of our caucus‑‑I see that the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis)
would suggest, and we will debate this later when a particular bill comes up on
this matter‑‑that we might also go further than the type of changes
contemplated in this bill and have all bills written out not only in lawyer's
English but in "English" English and "French" French, in
common‑day usage so that all members of the public can understand our
legal system, can understand the precepts of our legal system and, indeed, so
that we will have a far more accessible legal system.
I would note also some of the comments
that were brought in yesterday by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) on the
Land Titles Office and its relation to this bill. In fact, he went on quite extensively, and I
have Hansard in front of me, on 480 and 481.
I really found that rather amazing because I am wondering if the
minister has read his own bill.
Is this minister somehow suggesting that
this bill is the Land Titles Office bill?
Is he somehow suggesting as one might, and members of the public reading
Hansard might, glean from his comments on pages 480 and 481 of Hansard from
this session, that somehow this was part of the government's agenda to deal
with what they saw as a backlog at the Land Titles Office under the previous
administration, the previous NDP government?
Indeed, if one was to read those comments,
one would find that would be the only conclusion that could be made. I have gone through the bill, and I can see
no particular reference in this particular area, but yesterday his comments
were ruled in order.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the minister
wants to talk about the Conservative solution to land titles, and if he wants
to talk about this as somehow being part of their solution, I would suggest
that the real reason that there has been a reduction in the backlog at the Land
Titles Office in many ways is to do with the recession we are faced with. I mean we have got a reduction in the number
of real estate transactions, a reduction in the number of housings being
built. No wonder people are using the
Land Titles Office less frequently.
There is a recession on.
Yet the minister continues to stand up and
try and resume debates from three or four years ago and somehow put this bill,
his own bill, in that context. I can see
nothing in this bill that is going to make any difference in terms of the Land
Titles Office situation. I mean,
essentially as I have said, it deals with some Latin phrases. There are a few provisions that deal‑‑I
am not saying there are not any provisions of this bill, but this is not
anything to do with the debate that the minister has introduced in this House
on the Land Titles Office backlog that took place in 1988, as he suggests, and
that it has somehow been resolved. It is
resolved due to what? Due to the
recession we are faced with.
I was particularly astounded‑‑and
the reason I made my comments earlier about why we are here debating this bill
in second reading, what the purpose of second reading is‑‑when the
minister, in his flights of fantasy here, talked about those left over from
those Neanderthal hordes, who were once in government in this province.
This was part of his introduction of this
bill for second reading, I mean, this minister talking about Neanderthals. If he wants to see Neanderthals in this
Legislature, he need only read his own comments, he need only look in a mirror,
because that is the only description I can find appropriate for his
comments. To throw those type of
comments across the way on Bill 7, The Real Property Amendment Act, I find that
somewhat amazing.
He continued, and I have Hansard in front
of me, and made reference to comments that had been made by Gerry Mercier when
he was critic for opposition Roland Penner.
Six years, he was responsible for the Attorney General's department, for
Land Titles in this province. Madam
Deputy Speaker, here we are in 1992 and the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) is
redebating the debates of 1986, 1987, 1988.
I am wondering if that does not indicate something, if that does not
indicate something about this minister and this government. I mean, this minister, if he was going to
launch into comments on this bill, on issues where Attorneys General have
stalled, this centre could have referenced aboriginal justice. My opinion is relevant as his comments on the
Land Titles Office in 1992, but, no, he chose to reference the situation, the
debates of 1986, 1987 and 1988.
I would suggest if we are indeed going to
try and get this Legislature back to a more normal course, one of the ways we
could do it on bills, such as this bill, would be to deal with the contents of
this bill, to deal with it in the proper fashion, following through the
procedures, and in this particular case, on Bill 7 at second committee stage,
dealing with the principle and not bring in old debates, Madam Deputy Speaker,
from 1986, 1987, 1988.
We could revisit those. I could spend a considerable amount of time
rebutting the‑‑I believe the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
called it‑‑"revisionist history." I could use a less kind term for it for the
statements in here from the Minister of Justice. I could rebut. I am sure the member for Flin Flon could
rebut every last one of those kind of comments that were in here, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that he made, not only in passing, he spent probably about two‑thirds
of his speech introducing the bill for second reading with gratuitous comments,
gratuitous attacks, resumption of debates from 1986, 1987, 1988.
We could, all of us, all 20 members of
this side of the House, respond to each and every one of the points raised on
the Land Titles Office and point to the real reason for the slowdown. As I said earlier, the economic conditions we
are faced with, something the minister I am sure would have to, on reflection
of the facts, admit is the real cause of the situation and has nothing to do
with the actions of previous governments as he suggests, and is in no way,
shape or form going to be affected in any major way by this bill, which is
essentially a series of technical changes.
* (1540)
Madam Deputy Speaker, if we indeed are to
have a new approach in this House, which I indeed would suggest on bills such
as this, in many ways it is probably the more traditional approach that we had
for many years whereby we had a more normal calendar, we had greater notice
period, and we were able to deal with these types of bills in a more orderly
manner. The first step that this
government should do is to cut the extraneous rhetoric, to cut the kind of ridiculous
political rhetoric‑‑Neanderthal hordes! This is the real property bill that the
minister is bringing in and he is talking about Neanderthal hordes. [interjection]
No, I know the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) did not think it was relevant, but I would point out, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that those comments were ruled in order and that is why I am
responding to them now.
I do not want the record of this
Legislature to leave the kind of comments the minister made yesterday, when he
should have been explaining the principle of this bill and what it means for
1992, for the minister to be able to go off on a tangent and somehow leave that
kind of rhetoric on the record of this Legislature, to waste the time of this
Legislature with that type of rhetoric.
That is not the role of ministers on second reading, and I look to the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst). I
know he would not engage in that kind of rhetoric if he was the minister
responsible for introducing this bill. I
would trust that, because I think he knows that the bottom line is, if we are
going to have a more orderly resolution of debates on this type of bill the
best thing is to stick to the specifics.
Indeed, I have referenced the main
specific principles, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this particular bill. They are, as I said, essentially technical
changes, and I do not wish to repeat some of the comments that were put
in. There are provisions related to the
service of notice request to lapsed caveats, judgments of liens. That is indeed one part of this, as the
minister did briefly point to. There are
provisions that would allow district registrars to vacate caveats without
notice. Indeed, I mentioned earlier the
Latin phrases, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is a series of technical
changes. That is why we do not feel
there is that much in this bill in the way of major principle, at least that is
apparent, to spend a great deal of time.
That is why we are going to be passing this bill through today. That is why indeed I have spoken for a few
minutes. Our critic will be speaking for
a few more minutes. That is the way the
business of the Legislature does function.
I would point out, this is probably the
first time in many years where a bill that received second reading only
yesterday is now going to be passed through in 24 hours at the beginning, we
are on Day 12 of the session. Indeed, we
did have a break period, so one could argue that we have certainly been aware
of these particular bills for longer.
Indeed we have. We have had the
printed copy, we have been able to review it, and that is why we are in this
position today and that is how we can continue, I believe, to set a new course
in this Chamber in terms of getting back to a more orderly disposition of
business that avoids the situation we have had in years past where similar
bills to this, without great import in terms of principle, have been dealt with
in the last hours of the session.
We are not dealing with this bill in the
last hours of a session. We are not
going to be debating it extensively.
This is the type of bill that should spend the majority of its time in
the period leading up to second reading, and following second reading, when we
move it into committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, should be available in an orderly
fashion to members of the public, and I am sure to members of the legal
profession, because I believe they will have the greatest interest in this
particular, so that they can study this bill, which has only essentially been introduced
in this House as of yesterday, so they will have some time to deal with it
before it is passed through committee and returns to this House on third
reading stage.
This is the final suggestion I would like
to make to the minister and the government in this particular regard, and that
is not to now rush this bill into committee out of the assumption that because
we passed it today it should somehow be in committee the following day, or
Monday or Tuesday.
I would suggest now would be an appropriate
time to set something of precedence so that we give members of the public the
opportunity on this bill to look not only at our debates on the principle,
which in this case will be relatively minor compared to other bills, but also
the specifics, so that they can give us the kind of advice and judgment, so
that actually we may be able to have a more meaningful debate on this bill on
third reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last number
of years, third reading debate in this House has tended to become very short,
if it exists at all, and has not reflected on some of the changes that have
been made, or should have been, as were recommended by the committee.
So once again this is the way that bills
of this type should be dealt with, without the kind of rhetoric we heard from
the minister. They should be dealt with
in an orderly fashion. They should be
reflected upon in terms of the principle.
If there is not significant principle, as in the case of this bill, it
should be moved to committee. That is
exactly what we are going to be doing following comments from the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), our critic.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I
welcome the opportunity to comment on Bill 7, the amendments to The Real Property
Act in Manitoba, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, just by way of a general
background, discuss The Property Act itself in the sense that it is a
fundamental act of the province and of our Legislature dealing with the land
Torrens system, which has been in place in Manitoba and the western provinces
for many, many generations. It deals with the rights to property, something
that we hold fundamental to our legal, social and political system.
All matters dealing with The Real Property
Act are of some significance in that they affect not only the legal questions
dealing with land, but they affect the day‑to‑day workings of every
single Manitoban in terms of their houses and their real estate and the
allocation in buying and selling of those particular properties.
Generally the largest asset an individual
holds in terms of monetary value is property.
In that case, it is generally real property in the form of home or land,
and it is of great significance to all Manitobans, so matters dealing with real
property amendments are not something that should be taken lightly by anyone in
this Chamber.
My comments would have been generally
confined to rather short comments but for my surprise and utter disappointment
with the comments of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) yesterday in
introducing this particular bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have two major
complaints in this regard. The first
complaint is that I would have hoped, given that it is a technical bill and given
it is a legal bill, we would have had some kind of a spreadsheet outlining the
changes vis‑a‑vis the particular act. Now I have taken the liberty of reviewing the
hundreds of sections in the act and trying to fit in the changes and trying to
determine what the changes are.
I would think as a matter of courtesy that
the minister would have provided us with some kind of a spreadsheet in order to
incorporate these changes, particularly when you are dealing with matters of a
legal nature and particularly when you are dealing with matters that affect so
many citizens. A wrong word here or a
wrong change there, Madam Deputy Speaker, can fundamentally affect the rights
of thousands of people. It is not
something we take lightly on this side of the House.
It is something I urge the minister to
consider, a spreadsheet to changes of this kind to allow us‑‑much
like the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) provided for
the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) today on his bill. It would improve debate, and it would also
ensure that perhaps errors would not be incorporated that could otherwise be
incorporated because of the technical nature of the changes.
My second disappointment, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is the‑‑and I have to say, shame on the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) for his comments yesterday. In his comments, the minister spoke in
Hansard yesterday approximately 17 paragraphs in terms of this particular bill,
four of which were devoted to what the bill was about and 13 of which were
ranting and raving rhetoric. Surely,
that is not appropriate for a minister when introducing a bill of this nature
to spend the majority of his time on political rhetoric and virtually no time
dealing with substance and dealing with matters of importance.
Thirteen paragraphs devoted to rhetoric on
the Land Titles Office and three or four paragraphs dealing with the substance
of the bill is completely inappropriate and, I suggest, a very disappointing
performance by the minister. I would hope
that we will not see that kind of thing again in this House, because it
generally serves to lower debate and serves to detract debate away from the
principles and the substance of the bill, which is what we should be doing at
second reading. I would urge the
minister to perhaps control his rhetoric in matters of this kind.
* (1550)
In fact, in dealing with the substance of
the land titles and the minister's claims that the line‑ups have
decreased, I think a certain amount of it has to be attributed to the fact that
there are no longer 7,000 real estate transactions in the province. In fact, they are way down to 1,500 largely
due to the economic recession that we are in and largely due to the hands‑off
approach and lack of any kind of policy by this government to deal with the
economy. If fingers have to be pointed,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fingers have to be pointed at this government. In fact, as the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) indicated, if there is any lack of initiative, the minister perhaps
should be chided for his lack of initiative in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
and other areas of justice.
Returning to some of the specific
substances of the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, at least for more analysis of the
bill, it appears that they are largely technical in nature. I personally, at least if I understand the
principle, welcome the fact that an individual who executes an instrument at
Land Titles or lien, can also be the same individual who can discharge it. That makes sense to me. As I recall from practice, both
professionally and advising individuals, that particular type of an occurrence
will assist individuals in registering caveats and liens and the like and
taking them off without having necessarily to engage the same individual or a
professional person to do it and may, in fact, assist individuals in dealing
with matters of that kind. In addition,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also recognize that many of these amendments dealing
with the Latin phraseology of "lis pendens" are put into effect in
order to co‑ordinate this particular act with many of the rule changes
that have been made in the Court of Queen's Bench rules and the rules that
apply to that particular jurisdiction.
In order to incorporate those changes, many changes have been made to
the act.
Generally, it is other than that in terms
of general principles, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It appears to us at this point that the amendments are not
inappropriate. We will be looking
forward to public presentations in a matter of this kind, particularly as I
indicated earlier, because of the potential far‑reaching effect of
changes to an act, a complicated act, I might add, Madam Deputy Speaker, of
this kind, a wide‑ranging act, The Real Property Act, and the effect
these changes can have on land distribution, on litigation, and on matters of
this kind. We will be looking to those
particular changes, and as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), indicated we
will be allowing passing this bill at this stage.
I generally will close my remarks again
with reiterating the point that if the minister wishes for debate to proceed in
an informative sense, I would urge him to neglect and refrain from the
rhetorical references and the revisionist history and the political dealings that
the minister engaged in yesterday. It
certainly does tend to lower debate in the house, Madame Deputy Speaker, and
does not serve the public of Manitoba well, nor does it serve members of this
Chamber. So those comments on the bill,
we are prepared to pass the bill to the committee stage.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be the only
speaker on behalf of the Liberal Party speaking on Bill 7. Like the other two parties in this Chamber,
we too would like to see this particular bill passed through to committee stage
today, in hopes that sometime in the future with the proper notice that we will
be able to receive in the proper and much better fashion into a committee so
that, in fact, if there is any one, any members of the public that would like
to have some input on it that they are given some sort of due notice that would
allow them to make presentation.
The importance of real estate and property
is one that we should all take very seriously.
After all it affects virtually every citizen in the province in one way
or another. The Land Titles Office has
been a subject of debate, a subject of questions. Since the last election I can recall the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards) asking a number of questions to the minister
regarding the backlogs over at the Land Titles Office, Madame Deputy Speaker,
because like everyone in the Chamber we were somewhat concerned in terms of the
length of time it was taking to process.
That is basically because you have the residents, you have buyers and
sellers that have monies tied up as a direct result; you have real estate
individuals that have commissions that are waiting to go through the Land
Titles Office. It provides a service to
all Manitobans. Anything that goes
toward improving that service is something that should be done in a very
serious and, if at all possible, in a quick fashion.
We understand now that the Land Titles
Office is from seven to 10 days, at least I believe that is what I picked up
from the minister's comments the other day, which is much better service as
compared to two, two and a half years ago, where we were looking at well over
40, 45 days in order to get something through the Land Titles Office.
I understand that it updates some of the
procedures at the Land Titles Office, with hopes that it will be better able to
facilitate registration. In fact, the
act also has a number of other somewhat minor changes that, no doubt, will be
addressed once we go through the committee stage and go clause by clause with
the bill. On that note, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we will allow Bill 7 to pass through to the committee stage. Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 7. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 8‑The Garnishment Amendment
Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), (Bill 8, The Garnishment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
saisie‑aret), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie), set as second reading.
Is it the will of the House‑‑stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon?
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I will be the only speaker on this side of
the House with respect to this bill.
As we indicated, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
the co‑operative atmosphere on this side of the House we will be passing
this bill through to committee today in order to allow the government to move
on a number of areas. I note with
respect to the bill, The Garnishment Act, again another bill of great significance,
maybe not affecting lives on a daily basis as did the previous amendment to The
Real Property Act, but in a very significant fashion The Garnishment Act does
have an impact on citizens on a day‑to‑day basis. In fact, anyone involved in litigation or in
any kind of a maintenance situation will be greatly affected by the provisions
contained in this particular act, The Garnishment Act.
I commence my comments again by suggesting
to the minister that it would have been more appropriate and much more helpful
if he would have provided us, all members of this House, with a copy of his
spreadsheet, again dealing with the changes in the act.
* (1600)
While they appear to be largely technical,
I again reiterate that when we are dealing with matters of this kind that are
of a technical, legal nature, it would be more helpful to have a spreadsheet
before us that would allow us to deal with the changes. Again, while it is not as difficult as dealing
with The Real Property Act, it has literally hundreds of sections. This act, The Garnishment Act, is much
smaller, Madam Deputy Speaker. Nonetheless, it would be a useful principle to
engage in, in this House, to have a spreadsheet that would permit us to deal
with the matters raised and to juxtapose them correctly in order that we can do
our business on this side of the House and deal with the bill in a concrete and
a proper fashion.
I am very pleased also that the minister
was able to restrain himself in his comments yesterday with respect to the
bill, in that he dealt with the proper procedures in dealing with second
reading and that is he dealt with the matter in principle and stayed away from
the rhetorical musings that he participated in, in the previous bill.
As indicated, in principle there do not
appear to be any significant changes that will directly affect the lives of
Manitobans to the extent that we on this side of the House would be prepared to
hold up passage of this bill or subject it to undue scrutiny, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I note that changes are being
put into place to deal with a ruling of the Court of Queen's Bench in October
1990, and that the amendments in general will deal with those particular
changes and as well will put The Garnishment Act in line with other garnishment
acts in other jurisdictions in the country.
On that basis members on this side of the House are prepared to pass
this matter on through to committee.
I also note the act deals with some of the
issues of duration of maintenance orders and matters of that like. Obviously I cannot discuss the specific
subsections. I note that most of these
changes appear to be largely of a technical nature and dealing with the court
ruling from 1990 in order to align the act and to permit some definitional
changes, specifically those dealing with Manitoba employers, including the
government.
Therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the
spirit of co‑operation in this House and largely because the minister
largely dealt with the bill, as was appropriate, we will deal with it
accordingly. I, on behalf of members on
this side of the House, for the New Democratic Party opposition, am prepared to
pass the matter to committee stage.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am somewhat
encouraged first to hear the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) say
that we want to co‑operate and the member for Kildonan say we want to co‑operate. In the spirit of co‑operation, I feel
somewhat obligated‑‑and fortunately we did have an opportunity to
discuss The Garnishment Amendment Act within our caucus, and just to add a very
brief comment regarding it, I understand that Bill 8 really is some minor
variations along with some definitions and punctuation changes, that it is a
piece of legislation that we have no problem whatsoever in terms of allowing to
go to the committee stage.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we will
leave it at that and let it go to committee stage at which time the critic will
take the opportunity to speak on it.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 8, The Garnishment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
saisie‑arret. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 10‑The Manitoba Hydro
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes). Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 14‑The Highways and
Transportation Department Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), Bill 14, The Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): With leave I would ask that it remain
standing in my name, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona? Is there leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: It is agreed.
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach),
Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan
River (Ms. Wowchuk). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Bill 38‑The Manitoba Evidence
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr.
McCrae), Bill 38, The Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
la preuvre au Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Interlake (Mr. Evans). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave. It is agreed.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we would certainly be willing to
move private members' hour earlier and call it five o'clock perhaps with a
brief recess. I do not know if that is a
problem for the other parties.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we would
be willing to grant leave if we were to deal with Resolution 28 which I believe
the government was wanting to deal with.
Failing that, we would have to wait until five o'clock at which time our
resolution would be coming up.
Mr. Speaker: We are trying to ascertain whether or not we
are going to call this five o'clock. We
will decide whether or not we are going to call it five o'clock. We are just simply trying to ascertain
whether or not there is leave of the House to call it five o'clock.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Then we will not be calling it five o'clock.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have leave
to advance Resolution 28 for private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Would there be leave of the House to advance
Resolution 28?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Okay, leave is denied there.
The honourable acting government House
leader, sir, what are your intentions?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, if there
is not a willingness to move to Resolution 28, then I suggest we recess till
five o'clock for private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to recess till
five o'clock? Agreed. This House is now recessed until 5 p.m.
The House took recess at 4:09 p.m.
After Recess
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr.
Speaker: The hour
being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with
leave, I would move, seconded by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that
the sponsorship of Resolution 10, Aboriginal Justice Commission, currently
standing in the name of Mr. Carr, be transferred to Mr. Cheema.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have
leave to change the sponsorship for Resolution 10? Leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Lamoureux: Again, Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would move,
seconded by the member for St. James, that the sponsorship of Resolution 18,
Constitutional Referendum for Canada, currently standing in the name of Mr.
Carr, be transferred to Mrs. Carstairs.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have
leave to move sponsorship of Resolution 18?
Leave? That is agreed.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask again if there would
be leave of the House during private members' hour to deal with Resolution 28,
Postal Rate Increases for Rural Newspapers, moved by the member for Turtle
Mountain (Mr. Rose).
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to move
Resolution 28? No? Move it forward? No, leave is denied.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 2‑Renewal of Core Area
Initiative
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux),
that
WHEREAS phase II of the Core Area
Initiative Program is being wound down without new funding commitments; and
WHEREAS the first two phases of Core have
begun the process of revitalizing Winnipeg's inner city; and
WHEREAS the Core Area Initiative contributed
to significant advances in training residents of Winnipeg's inner city to
achieve improved standards of living in harsh economic times; and
WHEREAS such training of individuals is
the key to building a Manitoba economy with a high level of prosperity and
social justice; and
WHEREAS further work must be done to
solidify the advances made in the first two phases of the program; and
WHEREAS among the inner cities of five
comparably sized Canadian cities, Winnipeg is the only one to have registered a
decline in median family income over the past fifteen years; and
WHEREAS 55% of Winnipeg inner city
families earned less than $20,000 in 1985; and
WHEREAS any improvement is contingent on continued
emphasis on the social and economic needs of the community; and
WHEREAS programs which have received
widest appreciation and support from residents are those related to meeting
their special needs for support services, education, training, housing and
neighbourhood improvements; and
WHEREAS funding for the Child Parent
Centres was cut just as they were beginning to have a significant impact on
inner city life.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the government of Manitoba to consider
renegotiating the Core Area Initiative for another five year term, with
particular emphasis on job training, education and social services for core
area residents.
Motion presented.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is, I believe, quite
fortuitous and very important that this resolution comes forward at this time.
I am very pleased that it is coming forward early on in the Order Paper for
debate because we have an opportunity and potentially a crisis which is looming
very close. We need a new Core
Agreement. We have seen the benefits and
have learned some lessons, I am the first to admit, from the first two phases
of Core. However, there is no question
that the benefits of the Core have far outweighed any of those who have
detracted from the success of its various programs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by indicating
and referring members to a very current study done by the Urban Institute at
the University of Winnipeg which I happened to read just last week as it was
published. That study said, and it
reviewed some 500 residents of the 10 largest Canadian cities‑‑that
study concluded that Winnipeggers more than any other city did not look
favourably on their core and on the downtown centre of their city. There is no other city in this country which
has people thinking poorer of the inner city.
That was the conclusion of that assessment, and that was a poll
commissioned by the institute to be done by Angus Reid.
Overall the city of Winnipeg ranked in
terms of the way the people felt about the city eighth out of 10. That is not great, Mr. Speaker; in fact, it
should be far better than that but there were some positive sides of the many
factors. Winnipeggers felt the
friendliness was a key. Interestingly, we
did not finish dead last on climate, so Winnipeggers themselves actually do not
mind the winters that much as it turns out. [interjection]
As the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) says, he loves the winters. You certainly, I think, once you live here,
learn to live with it, learn to enjoy it and make the most of it. There is a lot to be made of it.
In any event, the critical issue for me
was that Winnipeggers felt so poorly and thought so poorly about their inner
city. Now I personally feel that there
are many positive aspects which are going on in the inner city. Of course, one of those is The Forks
development, and that serves a certain market of the city, that serves a
certain sector of the city. In terms of
being a place to live and raise children and have as a workplace and a place of
residence, The Forks, quite frankly, does not address that. It is a market, it is restaurants, it is
recreation and that is good, but in terms of the inner city residents the
programs which the Core was operating in respect of training, housing and
improvement of recreational facilities for the local residents in the inner
city neighbourhoods, Mr. Speaker, that is already being and will continue to be
sorely missed because the job was not done.
I guess the question is, will the job ever be done? Well, probably not, but I will tell you it
has come a long way. It has come a long
way since the first Core Initiative. I
have had the pleasure throughout that time of calling myself a resident of
Winnipeg, and I have seen what the Core has done.
One of the things that I come across all
the time as the member for St. James is that people think I represent only
residents who live past St. James Street.
My constituency goes all the way down to Toronto Street, and I come by
this issue honestly as a representative of an inner city community. I know the consequences of 55 percent of
family incomes being $20,000 or less. I
know the consequences of that, because I see those people and meet those people
and hear from those people on a daily basis.
I certainly am the first to admit I do not live and feed my family and
house my family for anywhere near $20,000.
I am the first to admit that.
* (1710)
I know, and I submit that we all know in
this House, how hard that must be to live a life of decency and integrity and
feed and clothe and educate one's children on $20,000 a year. In today's marketplace, for a family that is
just nothing. That goes nowhere, Mr.
Speaker, and 55 percent of the people in some of these communities are living
on less than that. It is a very, very
difficult life for them.
Many of those residents simply do not have
the ability to take vacations, to provide the amenities of life which break the
monotony which give people a break and give them a chance to spend time in a
recreational environment with their children. They simply do not have it in the
normal sense that more affluent Winnipeggers and Manitobans think of it. They vitally need, and believe me they use,
the community clubs and the parks and the slides and the swimming pools. They use them as a life line, whereas most in
this House, and those who have larger family incomes, they can find those
things elsewhere and oftentimes they do.
Not that they do not use and appreciate these public facilities as well,
but the truth is on a daily basis it is not critical to have them, and for many
of those residents, it is.
I was very pleased, for instance, to see
the decision which City Council made on the Sherbrook pool. That was an important hurdle to get
over. With respect to the new recreation
centre which they are going to be building in the west end, the commitment has
been made, and there has been a reprieve at least for the Sherbrook pool for
some period of time. Although it is not
a complete answer, there has been a reprieve.
Mr. Speaker, the Core Area Initiative offered those people some hope.
Mr. Speaker, the other key aspect I want
to focus in on is housing. I had, and I
think many had the privilege of‑‑and elections do that, you go to
thousands of doors. I was amazed in the
inner city neighbourhoods the sense of pride that people had in their homes and
the number of them that were fixing up their homes and doing significant
repairs and improvements to their homes.
The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
indicates, what about slum landlords? No
question that is a problem when people who do not live there own these places
and function on them being run down.
That is part of the game. They
are not in it to improve the house or the neighbourhood, and we have to deal
with that. I agree with that.
I was personally extremely encouraged‑‑and
this in the last election when I had the opportunity to walk every street as
most of us did‑‑to see the number of people who were, even with
meagre income, investing in their homes and were taking a lot of pride in their
homes.
It boggles my mind, and it always has,
that we do not as a province, and with respect to the city, spend more money on
maintaining and enhancing those inner city communities. We have the schools there, we have the fire
department, we have the community clubs, we have the infrastructure, and
frankly we have beautiful developed neighbourhoods with trees and all the
amenities of urban life. Yet, many of
those neighbourhoods are seriously decaying.
In my experience, an inner city
neighbourhood reaches a point beyond which it cannot be reclaimed. There is a point at which it just goes into
the abyss and it becomes extremely difficult to get residents and governments
to commit to reclaiming it.
Most of our inner city neighbourhoods are
not at that point yet, and we know the lessons of other cities, in particular
in the United States, that have let that happen. We simply cannot allow that to happen. Our neighbourhoods remain for the most part
places where people are trying to make decent lives. That is extremely encouraging because in
other cities you will find that at a critical point the inner city residents
abandon it. Those who actually want to stay and raise their children abandon
it, and it is left completely for the slum landlords, Mr. Speaker. Thankfully, while they are present,
neighbourhoods in this city still have the advantage of having loyal citizens
who take part in community groups and who get together in residents'
associations and make their voices known‑‑more so at City Council
than here, but nevertheless make it known.
I want to address one other key point and
that is the issue of consultation. The
Core Area Initiative, and there may indeed be a new Core, we all hope there
will be, but the Core must be the result of a process which gives it legitimacy
and credibility into the coming years.
If the inner city residents and the stakeholders in the inner city are
not given adequate opportunity to have their voices known, Mr. Speaker, indeed
it will be off on the wrong foot. I
suggest to the government that they will have a very difficult, if not
impossible task, of trying to recover credibility.
In fact we have learned from the
groups. I remember being in a press
conference a couple of months ago with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen),
the New Democratic critic, and we had heard from the Urban Futures Group and other
inner city groups that they were not being adequately included. That saddened me because they were not
specifically asking that everything they say be accepted. What they were asking for was an opportunity
to be consulted, to have their voices known, for there to be some process which
led to the development of a new Core.
Mr. Speaker, to have that message brought
forward that, in fact, that was not occurring was a great regret to us and I
really hope that this particular debate today is, as much as possible on this
issue, nonpartisan, and I say that with sincerity. The truth is the core of this city, while I
know many members are from rural Manitoba and may not have personal experience
living there or visiting often, is a critical provincial issue. That was recognized long ago when the initial
Core Area agreements were struck. It is
a provincial issue. I encourage and I
have seen, and we have noted the spoken commitments of the minister to a new
Core. What has been lacking has been the
consultation process. What has been
lacking thus far is any overall commitment to a new Core. Believe me, the pain is being felt today, Mr.
Speaker, for not having it in place.
Today.
Today, people are thinking differently
about the inner city as a place to remain because this is not in place. It is important for those people. They know about it. They are extremely well educated on the Core
issues and what it did. I have been amazed to see the level of sophistication of
inner city residents throughout the city on these issues. They know. They are aware of what the
programs were and they used them, Mr. Speaker.
The success of the vast majority of those was without question, and so I
focus particularly, and I ask members opposite to focus particularly, if they
would, on the housing and the training aspects and come to grips with the Core
Area agreement today because it is needed today and, in fact, it was needed
yesterday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of
Government Services): It is a
pleasure to rise today and speak on the Core Area Initiative. I will not expand on many, many virtues of
the Core because I could sit here today and talk about the core area for
probably two hours.
However, in order to discuss the Core Area
Initiative agreement and the possibility of its continuation, Mr. Speaker, I
believe it is useful to put in historical context of the core area. As mentioned by the previous speaker, the
core area had been experiencing steady decline as a result of the North
American‑wide trend to suburban development. Thirty years of rapid suburban growth had
left significant physical, economic and social deterioration in the inner city
in its wake.
The physical environment in downtown
Winnipeg and surrounding neighbourhoods was characterized by the deteriorated
commercial buildings and substandard housing stock. The area's businesses and industries were
fighting a losing battle with the suburban‑based enterprises that were
developing. Also, the governments
recognized that social conditions in the core were much more difficult with the
number of residents being unemployed and on the social assistance program.
The three levels of government also
recognized that continued core area decline would encourage the further
migration of people and employment out of the inner city and this, as the
downward spiral, would continue to the detriment of Winnipeg as a whole. As a
result, the government recognized that a comprehensive strategy was required to
address the core's multiple problems.
In 1980, the Lyon Conservative government,
and I believe the minister at the time, Gerry Mercier, signed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the federal government and the City of Winnipeg to
revitalize the core area of Winnipeg.
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker, the result was the Winnipeg
Core Area Initiative which commenced in 1981 with a budget of $96 million
shared equally by the three governments.
When the three governments looked, their broad objectives of the Core Area
were to provide, first, increased employment opportunities; second, encourage
industrial, commercial and residential development and revitalize the physical
and social environment. Thirdly, there
was a problem with the social and economic participation of the core area
residents in development opportunities, so it was their job to further these
opportunities.
At the time, a separate Core office was
established to administer this agreement, co‑ordinate the activities and
deliver the comprehensive set of programs that addressed the agreement's
diverse objectives. By 1985, Mr.
Speaker, the general consensus was that the Core office was achieving a very,
very large degree of success in meeting these objectives. I shall expand on these successes in a
moment.
The three levels of government recognized
that in order to maintain the necessary momentum of Core and because of the
scope and complexity of inner city problems, continued efforts were
required. As a result of the first Core,
a second Core agreement was signed in 1986 with $100‑million budget. This agreement retained the same overall
model, but it should be noted that it also recognized that the circumstances of
the governments and the particular core area had changed over five years. The objectives of the agreement were therefore
modified and some of the programming was changed to reflect these altered
circumstances.
I think this is a very important fact to
acknowledge today as the second Core agreement nears completion. It was understood that as circumstances
change so must the responses, same as we did out of the first Core Area
program. The three objectives of the
renewed agreement had settled, but there were clear differences from those of
Core I. These new objectives after
consultation by the governments was, first of all, to stimulate investment,
employment and economic growth; secondly, again, support the physical, economic
and social revitalization of the inner city neighbourhoods including the
provision of special employment opportunities; thirdly, maximize the impact of
physical and social investment of core area revitalization through strong
central co‑ordination.
I was the provincial minister responsible
for Core for much of the second agreement, so I am very aware of what the
initiative has accomplished. It has
accomplished a great deal over its 11 years.
The Core Area has brought about a truly unique degree of
intergovernmental co‑operation and co‑ordination in addressing the
urban revitalization issues. Without it,
we would not have had the north of Portage.
Without it, we would not have had The Forks. Also, it is unique. It is one of the first and one of the only
tripartite type of agreements in the world.
I would like to note at this time,
however, the contribution that Jim August, the former general manager of Core
made in facilitating this tripartite co‑operation. Jim‑‑who else could have worked
along with three levels of government and three masters and accomplished what
he did as general manager of the Core.
Jim should be recognized for his hard work and his efforts in that co‑operation.
Two agreements have spawned a large number
of revitalization activity, and I will just broadly explain a few of the large
projects. Twelve hundred projects have
been funded including over 600 in the economic stimulus area and over 400 in
the area of community and neighbourhood revitalization. The Core Area Initiative expenditures have
stimulated an impressive amount of public and private investment. By late 1990, the Core Area expenditure of $150
million had levered almost $500 million in additional investment. The two agreements, employment and training
activities, have been especially successful.
Over 2,800 jobs and 7,000 person years of construction work have been
created; over 2,100 people have been trained, 84 percent of whom have been
placed in the employment rolls.
What makes these figures even more
impressive is that the training has been targeted to persons who have lacked
the education and skills to obtain employment, to the new Canadians who have
faced language and cultural barriers to employment. Anyone who attended any of
the graduating classes of the different schools would recognize the
exhilaration, excitement and satisfaction that these people obtained by
attending these Core Area programs. Core
Area has had a significant impact on the quality of inner city housing. Over 1,250 units of housing have been built
and over 7,000 units have been repaired under the two Core Area programs. Overall, significant and lasting improvements
have been made to the physical, economic and social fabric of Winnipeg's core
area.
However, there are both negative and
positive aspects to a tripartite agreement which involves joint decision making
by the three levels of government. Often
the governments approach the negotiating table with different priorities and
perspectives. In this particular case,
it has been two types of government who have come from both the federal and the
provincial scene. The only one who has
been the same partner at the table is the city of Winnipeg. Due to the difference in the mandates of the
three levels of government, the concerns that they want to see addressed by the
Urban Revitalization Strategy are not necessarily the same view. The length of time it sometimes takes to come
to a common understanding is very problematic.
Although formally the first and second Core Area Initiative agreements
ran consecutively, in fact, the second agreement was not signed by the previous
provincial administration until October 10, 1986, a full seven months after the
official start of April 1, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, this delay meant that the
second agreement lost almost a year before it became really operational and, in
some cases, programs were not started until well into the second or third year
of the agreement. It is for this reason
that when I was Minister of Urban Affairs, I pressed for and got a one‑year
extension of the present agreement. The
delay between the first and renewed agreement also created a hardship on many
of the social service agencies that were looking to the initiative for project
funding. The uncertainty made it
difficult for these agencies to do any long‑range financial or program
planning.
Which leads me to one of the other
negative factors of the Core Area Initiative agreement. Too many, and I must stress, too many
organizations and agencies have become dependent on Initiative funding. Since that funding is time limited, it
creates demands on governments for replacement funding which cannot always be
met given our limited resources.
Mr. Speaker, the Core original intent was
to kick start to get different organizations and different employment
opportunities going. I know that
community services and facilities program of the renewed Core Agreement was
designed to attempt to address the problem of short‑ versus long‑term
funding, but in final analysis a time‑limited agreement which can only
provide short‑term project funding may simply not be the best way to
respond to high‑needs groups.
Another lesson we must learn from the two
agreements that we have learned from the two Core Area Initiative Agreements
concerns geographical boundaries and eligibility. The intent in establishing a limited
geographical area was to provide a focus to revitalization activities and
funding. However, the fact that
boundaries were really only arbitrary meant that high‑needs people in
areas that happened to be outside of the boundary were excluded from receiving
the benefits of the Core Area Initiative.
* (1730)
These are just some of the issues and
problems that have to be looked at before a decision can be made with respect
to a new tripartite urban revitalization agreement. The first Core Area Agreement was designed to
respond to conditions as they were in 1981.
As I have noted, the design was somewhat refined when the agreement was
renewed in 1986 to meet changed circumstances.
In 1992, the circumstances are again different and to just do more of
the same would not necessarily be the best use of our scarce resource.
For instance, the lower interest and high
vacancy rates of today make inappropriate a housing program that was designed
to respond to the conditions in the '80s.
Another example of how needs change over the time is the considerable
decrease in demand during the second agreement for funds to improve Core Area
community facilities. I believe it shows
that the first agreement was successful in its goal of developing and enhancing
that met the needs of inner city residents.
There is no question that the Core Area Initiative was an innovative
approach to urban revitalization. It was
an experiment, and I believe that it worked.
The conditions that prevailed in the inner city in the early 1980s have
not been completely turned around but there have certainly been very
significant improvements.
Urban and economic redevelopment in
Winnipeg remains a priority for our government.
We are aware of the benefits to be had from the three levels of
government working in co‑operation with one another. Discussions are taking place, and I know that
the honourable Jim Ernst, the now Minister of Urban Affairs, is co‑operating
with the federal and the city governments on a redevelopment approach that will
best meet the economic, physical and social revitalization needs of Winnipeg in
the 1990s.
I am optimistic that these decisions will
lead to a consensus of just what the new approach should be. Mr. Speaker, I briefly tried to give you some
facts in regard and some history in regard to the Core Area Initiative. I do have my pet projects that, in days to
come, and as we debate different projects, and as we debate different bills, I
will address them at that time. I felt
that a little history on where we are at today so that people will understand
that not just this government needs time to consider their priorities.
Other governments in the past and
especially the previous administration had to take time to look at the concerns
that were necessary, the very many changing concerns that all governments have
to look at today and address at that time.
Again, I am optimistic that we will look at those concerns and come back
with some type of tripartite agreement, and I know that the speakers after me
will have their criticisms upon the time taken.
I just want to stress to them that it is not easy to sit down with two
other levels of government and come up with a solution that is acceptable to
everyone.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, it is often difficult to find out
where this government is placing its priorities, but it certainly does not seem
to be the city of Winnipeg.
The Core Area Initiative in particular has
often seemed to me to be the phantom of Winnipeg. You see it here; sometimes you see it there;
sometimes it is in the federal government's lap; sometimes they are blaming the
city, but meanwhile there has been no renewal of the Core Area agreement.
Sometimes the meeting has been close. On October 1, 1991, Mr. Ernst, the minister,
said that the new Core Area deal was close to done, umbrella agreement
possible. How many times have we seen
newspaper articles like that?
It is close. We are meeting today; we are meeting
tomorrow; we are meeting next week.
Missed meetings: Mr. Epp could
not make this meeting, the mayor could not make that meeting. If it were not such a catastrophe for the
people of the inner city, it would be a comedy, and certainly leaning to the
farcical.
We have heard "one‑year
extension" from the minister. He
has argued, in fact, that this was required because some programs did not get
off to an early start and maybe that is true.
Maybe I will accept some of that.
It seems to me that a good deal of the political hay that has been made
out of that one‑year extension is just that‑‑it is Tory‑speak
for no more dollars.
What we have seen in the case of the Core
Area Initiative is delay, procrastination.
We have seen the abandonment of programs. I would particularly have liked to have heard
the minister address that issue.
The Inner City Foundation: One million dollars put aside in a specific
program, publicly announced, publicly committed to by three levels of
government. One million dollars which was
spent, not in the way that it had been voted, not in the way that this
government, the federal government and the civic government had committed
themselves to, but spent for entirely different political purposes‑‑one
million public dollars.
It seems to me that the federal
government, in particular, had no intention of allowing a foundation to spend
that kind of money, and so the pressure was exerted to turn it to alternative
uses. Well, we have seen over the last
year and a half, two years, public meetings that the minister has been invited
to, and the minister is always hopeful.
It is always a good sign when the minister is hopeful.
He said at every public meeting that he is
hopeful of a Core Area Initiative. Here
we are, February 1992, and we are not one inch closer in the public record to
any agreement on the Core Area Initiative.
We have had pledge cards brought to the
Legislature by the Urban Futures Group.
Pledge cards which have been signed by the mayor, but no commitment from
this provincial government and no commitment from the federal government. What we see is an abandonment of the inner
city of Winnipeg since 1988 and we certainly do not see any leadership coming
from this provincial government. The
federal government equally must bear some of the responsibility, a considerable
amount of the responsibility I believe, for distancing itself from the City of
Winnipeg.
They are also trying to distance
themselves, I think, from urban commitments in other parts of the country. I do not believe it is just Winnipeg at this
particular time, but the new constitutional arrangements have yet to be made
and at the moment the federal government does indeed have a firm commitment in
legal and constitutional terms to urban development and urban
regeneration. It is certainly not
showing that face in Winnipeg.
Why do we not see any changes in this
policy, Mr. Speaker? Was it a poor program?
Well, we have heard from the minister that it was not a poor program,
and I think he did a reasonable job in telling the Legislature the
accomplishments which were there and which are recognized, I think, on all
sides of the House.
It was not a poor program. There were parts of it which we might want to
revise; there are some things which in hindsight we might want to have changed,
but when we come to write the history of Winnipeg for the last half of the 20th
Century, I think that the Core Area Initiative will shine and that it will
shine out as a beacon of hope and of sanity for the people of the inner city,
and indeed for all the people of Manitoba, because what happens in Winnipeg
affects everyone in Manitoba.
It is not just my view, Mr. Speaker, that
it was a beacon of sanity and hope. As
we all know, and as I have commented in the House before, the Core Area
Initiative won an international award for its achievements. In awarding that IDA downtown award, there
were several elements of the Core Area Initiative which were selected as important
and as models for the rest of the world. It was the tripartite model which took
their attention, a major collaboration between three levels of government for
the first time in North America to address urban revitalization issues.
Second of all, the international committee
was struck by the private, nonprofit and public partnerships which were used to
lever the investment, private investment particularly, into the redevelopment
of Winnipeg's core area. So they
commended to the members of this international organization this type of tripartite
model. They also commended the sense of
community pride and ownership which had been stimulated by the staff and by the
programs of the Core Area Initiative.
They drew international attention to the substantial employment which
had resulted for residents of the core area who have been and continue to be
traditionally underrepresented in the labour force in this province, and
particularly in Winnipeg.
It was not a poor program, Mr. Speaker,
and like the minister, I have also attended the graduation ceremonies at R. B.
Russell and other places and seen the effect that it has, not just on the
individual who has been through the course, or the training program, or the
literacy program, or the English programs of the Core Area Initiative, but on
the entire family who are present in large numbers at those awards
ceremonies. The Core Area Initiative
touched not just individuals; it touched families and communities.
It made an impact for many people. It was not just for institutions, for businesses
and others, but it made a difference for people who were able to get the kind
of basic language training that they had never had before, people who found in
it the opportunity to renew their careers, people who found the opportunity to
find decent housing in the repairs and the redevelopment of the Logan
community, for example; the housing programs, where more than 8,000 homes were
inspected and the inspections led then to rehabilitation of houses. Eight thousand homes in the city of Winnipeg
is a substantial number and, again, the impact of that upon the economic and
social life, not of just the individual, but of the family and the community
are very important for us to remember.
* (1740)
Employment and training and housing, I
think, are the two issues that we would all agree upon, are the important areas
where Core Area made a difference. I
think also we should look at the last Core Area agreement and we should look at
the impact that it had upon riverbanks and upon heritage. In both of those areas the Core Area had an
impact. For example, you will find that
The Forks redevelopment and the riverbank program that goes along with that,
done in conjunction also with Parks Canada, has become one of the major
recreational forces in Winnipeg within a very short period of time. So the amount of money that was devoted to
that, that could be pooled together, that tripartite agreement that the
International Downtown Association drew our attention to, really had an impact
here.
If you look at the most recent recreation
study in the city of Winnipeg, you will find that at the top of their list, 80
percent of the people gave an indication that their first and important
priority in Winnipeg recreation was going to The Forks. So I think the riverbank walk, The Forks, has
been very important as a result of the Core Area Initiative in providing the
recreational opportunities to inner city people.
So it was not, Mr. Speaker, a poor
program. We would look for different
programs and some amelioration of existing programs and probably some different
focuses in a new Core Area Agreement, just, I think, as the minister has also
indicated. He has his pet projects, so
does the community.
I am interested by the former minister's
response, because one of the most hopeful signs when he was minister was that
he did agree. In fact, he set a date for
public hearings organized, initiated by the province for an evaluation of the
last Core Area Agreement. I commended
him on that at the time, and I think all our party would have offered our
commendations on that. I think he had
the support of the Inner City Foundation.
It was a short time period that he was offering for those evaluations
and presentations but, nonetheless, it was a commitment to public hearings and
public evaluation.
What we have seen since then, since the
ministry has changed, since the federal government has indicated its lack of
interest in a new Core Area Agreement, we have seen an abandonment of that
initiative and ignoring‑‑closed doors when they come to the
Legislature‑‑of the inner city groups in Winnipeg.
Mr. Speaker, it was a program which
brought some advantages and some changes to the lives of families in the inner
city. Have conditions changed? Should
we, perhaps, be arguing that there is no longer any need for the social
programs, for the programs to ameliorate poverty, for the programs to redevelop
recreational areas and to upgrade the housing of the inner city?
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the
changes that we have seen across Canada and in urban areas particularly have
affected Winnipeg very severely. In
fact, what we have seen in spite of the efforts, in spite of the very good and
successful efforts of the Core Area Initiative to stem the effects, the
dreadful and tragic effects of poverty in the inner city, that it has been only
that. It has been a holding operation
and that the increase in single parent families, the increase in the poverty
and the level of poverty that we see there are ones that must still hold our
attention as a major most significant priority for any government in Manitoba.
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Homelessness, lack of food, empty
cupboards, lack of clothing, lack of shoes, lack of warm clothing. If any of the members had been at the meeting
that we held at St. Matthews‑Maryland, all the west end NDP MLAs in
January, those are the kinds of stories that they would have heard. They would have heard of the great increase
in the use of food banks in Winnipeg, the increase in child poverty, the great
difficulty that people in that area of my constituency are finding in trying to
find affordable, decent housing.
I am sure that all urban inner city MLAs
have heard from constituents who are finding tremendous difficulty in finding
decent housing, people who are having to pay more than 40 percent of their
monthly income just to find a decent room over their heads and over the heads
of their families. No wonder people are
increasingly turning to food banks because they have no alternative and,
particularly with the ending of the Core Area Agreement, there is no beacon of
hope. There is no beacon of sanity left
on the other side of this House.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the problems that
inner city Winnipeggers face are very real problems. One of them, of course, is the role of this
provincial government, a government which is so ineffective in Ottawa. People who for years, I assume, have paid
their dues to the federal Conservative party, who have applauded Dorothy Dobbie
and Brian Mulroney and Jake Epp for years, who have contributed to the creation
of those policies and yet now find themselves ineffective without a voice in
the federal government, cannot bring the federal government to the table on the
Core Area Initiative. Is it the case
that the provincial government does not want to bring the federal government to
the table? They have said time and time
again that this is not the case, so we must conclude that in fact they are
totally ineffective in bringing this.
Is it perhaps, second of all, that the
provincial government has no idea what needs to be done in the city? I am prepared to believe that some of that is
true, but they know very well that the inner city Urban Futures Group is well prepared
to tell them, that they held their own public hearings over a year and a half
ago, that they produced 90 briefs and that they are prepared to enter into co‑operative
management and co‑operative direction of a new Core Area Agreement.
The province, however, continues to add
to, to create and to intensify the poverty in the inner city. They offload onto the civic government. They offload training in colleges onto private
schools. They offload assistance to
Parent‑Child Centres and cancel them, the very ray of hope that many
single‑parent families‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ben Sveinson): Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley's time has
expired.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise
this afternoon to put some words on record regarding the Core Area
Initiative. I would just like to respond
to the member's resolution. I would like
to speak about how the Core Area Initiative came to be an event in essence.
When
it was first conceived in 1980 the initiative was clearly in a response to the
inner city needs and concerns of the time.
I think one of the things we are quite aware of here in the city of
Winnipeg, and being an urban MLA, is the fact that the city of Winnipeg does
play a very important part in our economy here.
One of the things that is very striking about the city of Winnipeg, as
has been pointed out by the member, is the heritage and the buildings of the
city of Winnipeg.
* (1750)
We are fortunate that we have some very,
very fine old buildings that have endured and have been preserved in a sense
that they are here for future generations.
Some of the finest buildings in Winnipeg have come under the care, if
you want to call it, of the Core Area Initiative in the fact that they were
able to take advantage of some of the funding for regeneration and
revitalization of some of these buildings that are now put back into the public
mainstream. It makes it quite a draw not
only for tourists, but for people in the sense that the visual effects of
Winnipeg have the advantage of the preservation of some of our older buildings.
I just would like to commend and have that
on the record in the fact that some of the visual identification has been associated
with the Core Area Initiative.
As was mentioned by the previous Minister
of Urban Affairs, in 1980 the Core Area was first brought into being, and it
was recognized that the core area was having a negative impact on the whole
entire city and was recognized by the government. This is why the government signed a Core Area
Initiative with the federal government and the City of Winnipeg in 1981.
The agreement reflected the tripartite
understanding that the needs of the inner city crossed jurisdictional
boundaries and that a comprehensive approach was required to address severe
problems of physical, economical and social deterioration in the core.
I recall back shortly into the mid‑'80s
when I was involved with the community centres and sitting on the community
centre boards in what we call District 5 of the city of Winnipeg, one of the
areas that was part of the area that I was involved with was the St. Boniface
area or the St. Boniface catchment area, if you want to call it. At that time a group of citizens wanted to
get together and expand and modernize the Notre Dame arena. At that time the Core Area Initiative funding
was available, and they took advantage of it at the time.
The results in that particular community
have been actually very, very positive and very astounding in how it brought
the community together. It brought the
people together for the funding. It
brought the people together for the volunteerism that is involved with
community centres. The community centre
since that time has become a very, very viable focus point not only for
community groups but for organization and for recreation.
The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) was
correct in saying that a lot of the recreation facilities, social facilities
and community facilities that were expanded and growing during that time were
very paramount in coming to fruition because of the Core Area Initiative. Recreation and social events play a very
important part in the community. When we
look at some of the other areas that have benefited, it all brings people
together under various other programs.
It was something that I became aware of.
It was something that I became closely associated with and can recognize
the needs that came about with that.
As was mentioned, too, was the fact that
there was close to 2,000 people who were trained, inner city residents, during
the employment training that was under the Core Area Initiative, and the fact,
because of the regeneration, that it also brings shoppers and sightseers. One of the biggest draws in the area downtown
is the Forks area. The Forks has become
quite a focal point not only for a gathering point, which it was made for, but
it has become a focal point for future developments and possible other commercial
endeavours and expansions.
The Core Area Initiative has served as a
focus point and as a flash point, if you want to call it, for attracting
additional private investment. I believe
it was mentioned by the former minister that it generated almost, I believe it
was, $500 million in additional investment during the time of the Core Area
Initiative, $5 million which went into the economy, went to create jobs, and
the jobs created taxes which this government needs to pay its bills. It becomes a cycle in a sense, so the
investment is coming back to help us in a sense.
We must look at the impact not only to the
visitors but, as it was said before, the people who are involved with the
various programs. It gives them a sense
of accomplishment, too. It becomes an
ongoing circle.
I could not help but notice when the
member was up, one of the items that she mentioned was the fact that the
criticism that sometimes these things take and the fact that the now minister
for some reason seems to be slow on the draw, in her opinion, but we have got
to look back at when the Core Area Initiative was in effect which was from 1981
right up until, it is just finishing up now.
We have to look at the Urban Affairs
ministers that were in government at that time.
If we recall that the NDP ministers of Dolin, Desjardins and Doer were
the ministers of Urban Affairs during that time. So we must look at these three former NDP ministers
in a sense of what type of speedup or what type of involvement, what type of
commitment they had with the Core Area Initiative, because the Core Area
Initiative did come under the previous administration.
There was a fair amount of responsibility
of slowdown or of speedup of decisions that had to be associated with the
former government. The Urban Affairs
minister at that time, during the last‑‑I believe it was from 1986
to 1988, was the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
There was a fair amount of closeness and
awareness by that minister as to the Core Area Initiative and its
benefits. There is a responsibility not
only for the present minister to go forth and try to bring back a reasonable
settlement between the three levels, because the governments on the three
levels must be aware of all aspects in negotiation of an agreement that is
satisfactory not only for the city, but for the province and the federal
government. The federal government must
play a key role in the funding.
As mentioned, being a tripartite
agreement, there must be the three levels of government. The federal government at this time is one
that we must be aware of in its situation and the fact that funding in all
areas has to be very paramount in what comes about.
The member is correct in saying that
riverbanks and the riverbank enhancement and the beautification is a very
important program not only here in Winnipeg, but in all areas. Here in Winnipeg, we are fortunate where we
have the two rivers that flow right through the centre of town, if you want to
call it. Any type of beautification
along the river is something that must be enhanced and overseen in a very due
and diligent manner.
The problem of bringing forth the design
and the complications of design is something that is addressed on an ongoing
basis, and with the termination and The Forks being the centre, if you want to
call it, where the pathways and waterways come together, the walkways and the
beautification of the river are very, very important.
In fact, if we remember rightly, back in
the election campaign, back in 1987, I believe it was the then Premier Howard
Pawley who made a commitment of spending $100 million on the 10‑year plan
to clean up the Red River and the Assiniboine River. The campaign pledge was made during the
election. However, shortly after the election I believe it was, and I am
quoting from The Globe and Mail of January 5, 1987, that they, I do not think,
were able to implement all the promises‑‑until we get over the
current financial restraints.
Here we have a government and a member
telling us of the importance of the river campaign and the river cleanup, and
at the same time the then former Premier Pawley is making a commitment of a 10‑year
$100 million plan to clean up the Red and the Assiniboine Rivers and then
shortly after reneging on the promise.
Then the minister who was responsible at that time for Urban Affairs was
the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). One
can wonder what type of influence and what type of concern he had in the
cabinet, when being the Urban Affairs minister why he would not want to further
pursue the fact that the importance of river cleanup and of the quality of
water, not only coming into Winnipeg but going through Winnipeg and going up to
the North, to where the Red River is used as a source of drinking water, that
these things are not always kept in proper perspective and cleaning is properly
followed.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
As mentioned, the river is something that
must be under constant supervision and the fact that there is no commitment by
the previous Urban Affairs minister under the Pawley government shows that
these commitments are something must‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am interrupting the honourable member
according to the rules. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) will
have three minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).