LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
February 26, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): I must inform the House of the unavoidable
absence of Mr. Speaker and, therefore, in accordance with the statutes, would
call upon the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Mika Simes, Cheryl Hawrychuk, Jonas Johnson, and others, requesting
that the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by
considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Margot McEdward, Chris Herrera, Bob Monpetit, and others,
requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child
abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): 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
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
* (1335)
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
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I am pleased, Madam Deputy Speaker, to
present the 1990‑91 Annual Report of The Forks Renewal Corporation.
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
the attention of all honourable members to the gallery, where we have nineteen
Grade 5 students from
Also with us this afternoon, we have
twenty‑eight Grades 7 to 9 students from
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Federal
Budget
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Premier was
recently at the First Ministers' meeting in
We concur with the Premier's assessment of
the state of the Canadian economy and the state therefore of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask
the Premier: There are thousands of
Manitobans now on social assistance, there are 57,000 Manitobans now
unemployed, does this federal budget provide any hope for the thousands of
Manitobans who are suffering the most in this recession? Does it provide any hope that there will in
fact be employment opportunities for them and their families in the 1992 year?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a number of
aspects to the federal budget that obviously address some of the concerns that
have been raised by various critics, observers and people who have met to give
advice to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
One of the areas that some provinces hold
out great hope for in job creation, investment and obviously getting people
back to work is the RRSP idea of people being able to take up to $20,000 out of
RRSPs to invest in a home that will stimulate the housing construction in this
country. Housing construction
traditionally, I might say, has been pointed to by Liberal and New Democratic
governments and others as being the quickest way to get people to work, so that
is one aspect that presumably is targeted toward job creation.
The budget, without going into detail,
indicated that the federal government was interested in pursuing with the
provinces the national highway program that would involve presumably investment
in long‑term infrastructure and in construction. I believe the surveys that were done by the
former government, the NDP government, indicated, I think, that close to 60
percent of every dollar spent on highway construction was for jobs. Again, you have another aspect of that budget
that does that.
You have the aspect of the budget that
transfers child credits into the hands of low‑ and middle‑income
people, giving them more dollars to spend.
Obviously, those dollars spent in the economy will flow through in the
way of creation of jobs to some degree.
There are other aspects of the budget that
do have that aspect to the budget, that does involve job creation, that does
involve stimulus to the economy and that does involve improvements over what
would have happened if, instead, we had followed some of the proposals of New
Democrats which would simply raise taxes, raise the deficit and stifle the
economy. That would have been a disaster, and I certainly would not accept that
kind of recipe for resolution to our problems, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1340)
Canadian
Centre for Disease Control
Construction
Schedule
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a little surprised
that the Premier was not disheartened with the 10 percent unemployment rate
prediction of the federal government. I
thought he would have been much more critical of that kind of double‑digit
unemployment target. I guess that is
why, unfortunately, Manitobans are having 57,000 people unemployed in our own
province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the specific‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the Leader
of the Opposition would not want to misrepresent my remarks, so I point out for
him that I said that unemployment was unacceptably high in
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister does not have a
point of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the former New
Democratic government obtained an agreement with the federal government to
develop and build a virology lab in
On countless occasions‑‑in
fact, I have the Hansard in this House‑‑the Premier has talked
about the forthcoming announcement of the virology lab to be built in the city
of
The Premier told us after the First
Ministers' meeting that we would have to await the federal budget to find out
whether the virology lab was in fact going to be built this year to both create
jobs and health excellence that certainly New Democrats believe is important to
our economy.
I would ask the Premier: Has he been advised by the Prime Minister or
any of his other contacts whether the virology lab negotiated by the previous
government will finally be delivered by this government in the
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that the public
does not give a great deal of credibility to the claims that the Leader of the
Opposition makes about things happening, so we will just leave aside his
preamble.
I will say that, as the Leader of the
Opposition knows and as many people throughout
At that time, we also had been pursuing it
by virtue of our
I can tell the Leader of the Opposition,
if he is interested, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the federal government, as part
of its process, applied for a licence under our Manitoba Environment Act
because the laboratory Centre for Disease Control qualifies as a Class 2
development requiring a licence. Just
about 10 days ago, as a matter of fact, a matter of days surrounding our First
Ministers' Conference on the economy, we received a copy of the federal
environmental assessment. That is now
being reviewed in order to provide comments and to proceed to the next stage of
our process.
Everything that we have indicates that the
federal government is pursuing along the path toward the development of that
facility.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Of course, the Premier knows, when he made
his statement in
Then I would ask the Premier: Will we see the subject of the environmental
licensing, which was always one of the conditions for the lab, will we see the
approval of the capital projects to be in this fiscal year, this budget year
for the federal government so we will finally have the shovels in the ground,
finally have the disease lab rather than continue to be delayed and delayed,
and finally have both the capital construction and the health excellence that
will come from that virology lab, which is needed in this province right now?
Mr. Filmon: The Leader of the Opposition makes my point
precisely. The federal government had
committed to that lab in 1987. There was
no involvement of the province. There is
no negotiation. It is a total federal
decision within total federal jurisdiction to move that lab here, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Let him not try and take credit
for that. That is an absolute foolish
position. He looks embarrassed, and I am
glad.
The time lines that were envisaged in the
federal government's development plan did not call for ground breaking until
1995. The reality is that the federal
government is working towards the fulfillment of the requirements under the
environmental assessment. We also
believe that the final design is very close to completion and, therefore, it is
in a position perhaps to be moved forward.
We will continue to urge the federal government to do that, but at the
present time, all the indications are that they are on track and doing the
various things that would allow for that lab to be developed, at least on
schedule, if not ahead of schedule.
National
Child Care Strategy
Government
Support
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I would have to assume that, if the context
of her question is as inaccurate as her preamble, the member for
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Premier call
the Prime Minister today and ask that he honour the commitment made in the 1988
election campaign and several times since then by both this government and the
Tory cousins in
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question has been put. Order, please.
* (1350)
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I assume by her
response that she is acknowledging that she was in error in the preamble that
she gave, because she is dead wrong about her preamble about my standing side
by side with the Prime Minister at Western Glove Works. If she has that corrected‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, the second aspect to
that question is that this government has consistently supported the
development of additional spaces in the daycare sector in
I think that the member for
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, if this government had
not ruined the daycare system‑‑there are indeed empty spaces.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Yes, she does, thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to ask the Premier of the
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not the New
Democrats and the Liberals who stopped the original national child care
strategy‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be happy to
correct the record to say that New Democrats opposed it in Parliament. Despite
the fact that it passed and went to the Senate, the Liberal majority in the
Senate was able to prevent it from passing.
As a result of that, we had a federal election in 1988 that did not
allow for the passage of that legislation.
Now we have the New Democrats trying to come back and say, well, we
really should have had it and so on and so on.
Give us another chance.
The fact of the matter is, I would have
thought that they would have been standing up and applauding the increase of
$1,000 per child in care of child care credits in the budget, but they choose
instead to try and take some kind of political angle on this. The fact of the matter is, those increases in
child care will help many people who have children in child care in this
country.
* (1355)
Federal
Budget
Finance
Minister's Position
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has a phrase he likes to use. He says, it is passing strange.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I have not used it
this year that much.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, this may be his opportunity, because when
the Premier went to the First Ministers' meeting, he asked for 12 commitments
out of this budget. He got one of his
12.
Will the Minister of Finance tell the
House why, in his own words, he was encouraged with the budget when they have a
grade of 8 percent on the exam set by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the
Liberal Party must not forget the two leading ranking items in the request from
the First Minister. They were: keep the taxes down, reduce them if possible;
secondly, reduce the deficit if at all possible and; thirdly, use
Madam Deputy Speaker, that was the essence
of the federal budget yesterday. I would
have to say, inasmuch as this government has been leading the way in
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, in the list in the
Premier's speech, his first was a Canada‑wide tax freeze. His second was capital spending. There is no capital spending in this budget,
and the tax freeze, in fact, benefits someone earning $100,000‑‑55.5
times more than someone earning $15,000. Is that what keeps the Minister of
Finance in the
* (1400)
Mr. Manness: The moderate pleasure that I expressed with
respect to the budget‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, when one crafts a
budget, you try to instill a fair degree of balance. In this budget, I saw some balance. I saw a reaching out to the community at
large with respect to taxation, with holding the deficit down, with trying to
hold and control government spending. I
also saw, with respect to those savings, some attempt to reach out to families
and to the children within families with respect to the tax form. I also saw a commitment to try and take the peace
dividend, so called, and direct it into good government programming.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can say,
though, I am also concerned about some of the long‑run forecasts. I am hoping that they are based on a strong
foundation. They have been missed
significantly before in other budgets.
Indeed, they had better come to be, because if they do not, then we are
no further along with the problems that we have with respect to debts and
ultimately deficits and, therefore, after that, taxation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am hoping I am
making myself clear. I am hoping that our budget can continue to follow in the
mold that we have developed over the last three or four years and indeed
followed for once by the federal government.
Economic
Growth
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, the reality is there is $4 a month in a child benefit in this
budget, $4 a month. That is not very
good for a family where the father and the mother, either or both, are
unemployed.
Can the First Minister of this province
tell us, since their federal counterparts are doing absolutely nothing, what
they are going to do to get some jobs created in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, no province has a more
progressive child tax credit system than we do in this province. That is something the Leader of the Liberal
Party ought to be aware of. We already
do have the most progressive and the best system for child tax credits.
In addition to that, Madam Deputy Speaker,
I guess the question has to be turned around to the Leader of the Liberal
Party. The only way in which massive
monies could have been spent on any of these programs was to raise taxes. Does she really honestly believe, in the
circumstances that face this country and this province today, that higher taxes
would have been a better answer than the kind of balanced approach that the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) talked about?
If she does believe that, she is further
out of touch with the people and the needs than I believed she was. That would be the wrong way to go, and I
reject that suggestion totally.
Employment
Retraining Programs
Government
Initiatives
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Premier went to
The clear response of the federal budget
has been to transfer another $100 million out of the Canadian Job Strategy to
reduce yet again EPF funding, and the Conservatives are offering no hope, Madam
Deputy Speaker, for the 57,000 Manitobans who are unemployed today.
I want to ask the Minister of Education
and Training, has she spoken to or faxed the federal government in the last 24
hours to speak on behalf of those 57,000 people or is she, too, going to stand
aside and wait until the federal government has offloaded every last bit of
post‑secondary education training onto
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to tell the member that I have met as recently as
a week ago with the co‑chair of the Labour Force Development Board to
discuss training issues, and that my department has met with the Minister of
Employment and Immigration to discuss future directions of training. We are in constant contact in an effort to pursue
the best agreement for
Ms. Friesen: Will the Minister of Education and Training,
whose own government has cut in the past year ACCESS Engineering, community
college support, New Careers, Core Area training programs, make a commitment
today to this House to reinstate those programs for Manitobans?
Mrs. Vodrey: Those results will be known to the member
when the budget is tabled in this House.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister of Education and Training, is the silence that we hear from this department
a deliberate plan to ensure that Manitobans‑‑
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): How can
you hear silence?
Ms. Friesen: It is a deafening silence, from this
government, on higher education. Madam
Deputy Speaker‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member for Wolseley
please put her question now.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to ask the Minister of Education
and Training, is this part of a deliberate plan to ensure that Manitobans can
compete on the low‑wage level playing field of
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, there has not been
silence from this side of the House on the issue of training programs. This
government is in fact very committed to training programs on both sides, where
we support Workforce 2000, which is aimed at employers becoming involved, and
we also continue to support ACCESS programs, New Career programs aimed at
employees.
Farming
Industry
Financial
Assistance
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, while this Premier (Mr.
Filmon) and Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) are busy apologizing for the
federal budget and justifying that budget, the Premier of Saskatchewan is
expressing his outrage at the lack of support for agriculture in yesterday's
budget.
Last November, the Minister of Agriculture
was dragged to
Can the minister indicate why he did not
show any leadership following that lobby, why he did not take any specific
federal action with the federal minister to ensure that he would follow through
with the requirement after that lobby?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, farmers in western
The realized net income projections for
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, is this minister in fact
indicating, since he took no substantive action, and his Premier (Mr. Filmon),
in his own quiet way‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member have a question?
Mr. Plohman: ‑‑never took any substantive
action, that this minister is in fact satisfied‑‑[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, I started with
a question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member for Dauphin
please complete his question now.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will repeat it for
those who were not listening.
Is the minister indicating that he is
satisfied with the dismal response, the nonresponse, the cutback response of
the federal minister, since he did not take any substantive action, neither did
his predecessor?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member for Dauphin wish
to have his question responded to? Thank
you.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy Speaker, the farm community in
To give you some indication of the degree
of support from federal and provincial governments to the farm community in
* (1410)
Mr. Plohman: Can this minister promise today, in light of
the fact that farmers are behind‑‑they need at least $500 million
to tide them through this year, regardless of what the minister says is coming‑‑that
he will take a more aggressive approach, discard this quiet back‑room
diplomacy that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is engaged in and go after the federal
government to come through with the required aid that is needed now?
Mr. Findlay: We have continually led the farm delegations
to
Madam Deputy Speaker, our farmers want a
deal in GATT. They want at least as good
a deal as on the table right now for grains, oilseeds and red meats, because
they know that will improve their market access. They know that will give better prices in the
future, and we have an ability to produce that will also stimulate the economy
of this province. The agriculture
minister of
Federal
Budget
Post-Secondary
Education
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I, for one, was
profoundly saddened by what I heard yesterday.
I am increasingly saddened by what this federal government is doing to
our country. I am absolutely distressed
by a country that accepts 10.5 percent unemployment as the norm.
It is very interesting to me to note the
joyous attitude on the front bench of this government in the face of the
Premier's (Mr. Filmon) bold statements in
I would ask him, will he today contact his
federal counterpart and protest the lack of support for post‑secondary
education and training?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I am prepared to do that, but that would be about the fifth time this year
already that I have protested just that. That is contained, of course, within
the freeze under Established Programs Financing. The federal government has locked that into
place for several years. We have all
protested that action, all Ministers of Finance of all political stripes from
across
I can say to the member, I will send that
protest. As a matter of fact, I hope to
talk to the federal minister later on this afternoon and again mention it to
him, again, for at least the third or fourth time this year. I can assure the member it is an issue that
is very important to us. I will continue
to protest that action by the federal government in last year's budget and the
budget before.
Federal
Budget
Student
Aid
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Minister of
Education and Training, in light of the new damage done to students in this
country, protest that damage, protest the cut in the six‑month deferral
of student loan repayments? I was
astounded to see that the Minister of Education and Training has not done
anything.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am also concerned. I
will tell the member that I have had a communication from Mr. de Cotret's
secretary of state to attend a meeting to discuss student aid in the next
month, and I will be in touch with him before that time.
Federal
Budget
National Science
Council
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, will the First Minister
speak to the Prime Minister about the cut of the National Science Council,
given his introduction of Bill 9 and his vaunted support for research and
development?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the members
opposite are trying to put the worst face on the budget as possible. It is in their political interest to do so.
The reality is that, when you look at all
of the elements of a budget, you want to have taxes kept down, you want to have
the deficit kept down, you want to have a stabilized fiscal framework for the
future of our children and the young people of our society, we obviously have
to look at some areas in which we did not get all of the spending we would have
liked to have seen. Only the Liberals would spend the money, tax people and
raise their taxes in a time as desperate as this.
I just have to repeat that I do not
believe that the member for Osborne or any of his caucus fully appreciate how
concerned people are out there about their tax load. It has gone too high. There is too much. They are not advocating greater taxes like
the Liberals are. I wish they would get
in touch with that feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Social
Assistance
Government
Priorities
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal and
How does this Minister of Family Services
justify such a punitive and regressive policy when his government has
repeatedly stated that children are its first priority?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the safety net that
this government offers to vulnerable Manitobans, that in a time when
governments have difficulty with raising dollars, this government has provided
a substantial increase to the basic social allowances to all of the Manitobans
on the caseload that we have. At the
same time, we have created new programs for the disabled, and we have also
flowed the tax credits on a more timely basis to put that money in the hands of
vulnerable families in this province.
We have other reforms in mind that we hope
to be able to announce in the near future, and we will also call on the federal
government to bring forward programs on child poverty. In a recent meeting with my colleagues from
across the country and the federal minister, Mr. Bouchard, he has indicated
that there will be programs coming forward to deal with that question of child
poverty.
* (1420)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Edward Connery (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mr. Connery: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to ask
this Legislature to join with me in congratulating 11‑year‑old
Amanda Wright from the
Committee
Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development be amended as follows:
Motion agreed to.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Wolseley have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? Leave has been granted.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I would like to offer the congratulations of
this side of the House and of our party and caucus to Jim Compton, CBC
documentary producer, who has won an award.
Mr. Compton is an Ojibway producer who has won the Canada Award to be
presented at the 1992 Gemini Awards this March.
The award was given for a documentary
called Drums, which is a two‑hour presentation on the current situation
and attitudes of aboriginal people in the
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, what it
shows to all Manitobans is the very significant role that the CBC and other
institutions such as the National Film Board, the federal cultural
institutions, play in our cultural life.
I know that all members of the House would recognize this, that we are
very conscious that the National Film Board and CBC are one of the ways in
which Manitobans are enabled to speak to each other.
I join with my caucus and with members of
my party in offering our congratulations to Jim Compton and to the regional
offices of the CBC in
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development be amended as follows: The
member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Seine River (Mrs.
Dacquay); the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Emerson
(Mr. Penner) and the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member
for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson).
Motion agreed to.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I rise in my place, Madam Deputy Speaker, to
ask this House to, once again, join me in offering congratulations to a
constituent of mine. His name is Doug
Olasson; he is a Grade 12 student at
Members in this Chamber will recall that I
have brought his name and his achievements to the attention of this House
previously over his experiments and innovative work in the area of mosquitoes. I previously indicated to the House that his
projects have been recognized at the science fair at the Winnipeg School
Division's fair and at the Manitoba Schools Science Symposium. He has won that recognition for a project
which has helped us learn about ways to control mosquitoes.
I hope I will not offend anyone in this
House of either gender if I reference the nature of that experiment since it is
an experiment that involves identifying the female's wings beat frequency,
artificially reproducing that sound and attracting the males so that they can
then be zapped and the mosquito population kept under control without the use
of a lot of worrisome chemicals.
For that experiment and his ongoing work
in this area, Doug Olasson was nominated for and received the YTV Youth
Achievement award in the innovation category.
He will be heading to
I am very proud of this young man's
achievements in my constituency. He has
demonstrated a very innovative, creative approach to a serious problem. He is making a serious contribution to the
quality of life in this province, and he has also demonstrated just how
important one's own community is. I
close my remarks by quoting from Doug Olasson, who said: I am very proud of my school and my part of
town. I have lived in the north end all
my life. I think if you put the right
effort into it, anything can happen.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Chairperson.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, on House business first, before I forget, unfortunately I will ask the
House to accept a cancellation of next Tuesday's Standing Committee on Economic
Development. Unfortunately, the minister
is not available to be in attendance, so I would like to cancel the Standing
Committee on Economic Development set for Tuesday next. That committee was going to deal with Venture
Tours Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call the
Address for Papers, followed by second readings, Bills 43, 44, 49, 53 and then
adjourn debate on second readings starting with Bill 6 and continuing down the
Order Paper as listed.
* (1430)
ADDRESS
FOR PAPERS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
THAT an Address for Papers do issue
praying for:
The text of the formal opinion requested
from the Department of Justice by Health Department officials on whether there
is anything that would interfere with enforcement of The Public Health
Amendment Act, Statutes of Manitoba Chapter 62, formerly Bill 91, also known as
the anti‑sniffing legislation.
Motion presented.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would like to address the issue in the motion. The government does not accept the motion of
the honourable member for
The basis for this decision is found on
page 129 of Beauchesne, Sixth Edition, Citation 446, where it outlines the
guidelines which the government should use when presented with a motion like
the one we have before us now.
Citation 446(1) states, and I quote:
"To enable Members of Parliament to
secure factual information about the operations of Government to carry out
their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as
possible, consistent with effective administration, the protection of the
security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government
papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion
for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined
below, in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production."
Madam Deputy Speaker, when referencing Citation
446(2) the first item listed is, "Legal opinions or advice provided for
the use of the government."
Clearly, the information being sought by
the member falls within this category, and I would conclude by saying the
motion should not be accepted and cannot be accepted by the government.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Just before this matter is concluded‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Flin Flon on a point
of order. This is not debatable at this point in time.
Mr. Storie: I would like some clarification from the
Chair as to whether we can get some clarification from the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) with respect to their decision not to accept‑‑
Mr. Manness: I made it very clear.
Mr. Storie: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, he did provide
some explanation, but the explanation in itself begs a number of questions,
including questions of precedence.
Orders for Returns, Address for Papers have virtually never been
refused. On top of that, as a point of order in this House and as a matter of
precedence, the legal opinions have been tabled. Regardless of the sensitivity of the matter,
I reference, of course, the debate on the French‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) does not have a point of order. [interjection]
Well, if indeed the honourable member for
Flin Flon has a point of order, it is an extremely lengthy point of order. The order Address for Papers is not debatable
at this point in time and I had indicated that earlier. The point of time at which it could be
debatable is if it is adjourned and moved to private members' hour.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would seek the guidance of you, Madam
Deputy Speaker, in helping me with a motion.
I understand that the Rules of the House
allow a motion to be made by the individual, the member who puts forward a
motion for Orders for Return. If that
request is turned down or not answered in full by the government's
spokesperson, that the matter can then be referred to the first order of
business for the next private members' hour.
I am not sure of the exact arrangement, but I would like to make a
motion along those lines.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for the
clarification. I would request that this
matter be transferred to the first order of business under private members'
hour for the following day, for tomorrow.
House Business
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bills 43, 44, 49 and 53, to be followed by
adjourned Debate on Second Readings as listed, commencing with Bill 6.
SECOND
Bill 43‑The
Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach),
that Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenue agricole), be now read a second time
and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Findlay: Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans, is
a bill that is put in this House to provide authority to make advances to
stabilization accounts to enable payments to producers to participate in
various income support programs. My
department has received advice from the departments of Finance and Justice,
indicating that legislative authority is the most appropriate mechanism by
which advances can be made to stabilization accounts, to enable payments when
there are insufficient funds in the accounts from the premium revenue.
An example of such a program would be the
GRIP program to which intermim payments have been made. The amendment would permit the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), with the approval of the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
to provide an interest‑bearing advance.
A request for such an advance would be initiated by my department, and
the amendment would ensure the continuation of the economic benefits to existing
income support programs as well as future programs to producers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those brief
comments, it is a very brief bill, but it is designed to facilitate the ability
of my department to have program payments in the hands of the farmers as
quickly as possible. I recommend to all
members of the House that they approve this bill to have this appropriate
amendment done. Thank you.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, could I have leave to
ask a question for clarification from the minister?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) have leave to pose a question to the honourable Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Plohman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question to the minister regarding this
issue is, he has made reference in the introduction to Bill 43, that program
that would come under the jurisdiction of this act would be GRIP, and he says
in which interim payments have been made.
My question to him is: Is he
indicating to this House that in fact he has done something, his government has
already taken some action without the legislative authority as a result of not
passing this act prior to payments being made for GRIP?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe we have the
authority as it presently exists, but to make absolutely sure that no challenge
could occur in terms of making advance payments, we believe that this amendment
is appropriate. The member has to
remember that the program has been developed, and the principle of advance
payments has occurred between the last sitting of the House and the present
sitting. There was really no opportunity
to have had this amendment in prior to the principle of advance payments.
* (1440)
If we did not put those advance payments
out obviously producers would have been injured, so it was our decision that we
felt we had the authority under the existing act. To be absolutely sure in the future that
there in no hitch in advance interim payments for producers under a program,
this amendment is appropriate. There is
no problem with making the final payment, it is just making interim advance payments
before the whole program is completed.
This is to facilitate the assurance that
farmers get the degree of support as fast as possible.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 44‑The
Milk Prices Review Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 44, The Milk Prices
Review Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le controle du prix du lait), be
now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Findlay: Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment
Act, is a little more involved than the last bill that I just introduced. The
dairy industry of
The proposed amendments are intended to
address these changes as well as to clarify how
The first category is to allow for the
pricing of milk according to the value of its components; secondly, to provide
for a more flexible schedule of milk producer price changes; and thirdly, to
reduce the operating expenditures of the Milk Prices Review Commission; and
fourthly, to simplify procedures for filing and consolidation of regulations.
Just a little more background on each of
those amendments, those four categories, I have just talked about. On the first, in regarding the component
pricing that the dairy industry is going into.
The dairy industry in
Madam Deputy Speaker, historically, milk
has been priced on the basis of its butterfat content. The dairy industry has bred its cows to have
higher and higher butterfat content, because they got a higher value for the
milk.
The consumer, over the last number of
years, has actually changed their preference on milk. We have gone from years ago of consumers
consuming whole milk, to 2 percent milk, to 1 percent milk, to skim milk. What happens in the dairy industry is you
move butterfat. You have an excess
butterfat in the system that you have to put into some other product or dispose
of.
The dairy industry thinks that they are
basing the price of milk on the wrong component, because obviously in terms of
meeting consumer demand, the best milk is that with the least fat in it, not
the one with the most fat in, which is what they are pricing on right now.
To move to multiple component pricing, the
pricing will be done on the basis of proteins and other solids, other milk
solids, minerals and components of that nature.
The dairy industry wants to move in that direction, and this bill
facilitates that approach.
The second component is dealing with the
more flexible schedule of milk price review changes. In terms of establishing the producer price
of milk, the act requires continuous monitoring of the cost‑of‑production
formula.
Price changes are currently not permitted
unless a variation in the cost of at least 2 percent from the current price is
indicated. That means plus 2 percent or
minus 2 percent. If it does not exceed
that, there is no change.
The monitoring of the cost‑of‑production
formula has been on a monthly basis.
There is general agreement that we should monitor the cost‑of‑production
formula on a semiannual basis.
Recent discussion with representatives of
the Manitoba Milk Producers Marketing Board indicate a need to adopt a less
regimented approach to establishing the producer price‑‑in other
words, greater flexibility‑‑while still maintaining the cost‑of‑production
formula and an individual's right to appeal such milk price changes.
Thirdly, the administration of the act
requires that the Milk Price Review Commission maintain separate books of
accounting, bank account and be responsible for paying its own expenditures.
The Provincial Auditor is required to
undertake an audit of the commission's financial records. The commission is also responsible for
preparing and presenting an annual report of its activities including an
audited financial statement.
The proposed amendments would delete the
requirements for a separate account and annual report. The commission's financial statement would be
included within the Department of Agriculture's regular administrative
expenditures, which themselves are part of the Provincial Auditor's review.
Similarly, the report of the commission's
activities would be included within the department's annual report, obviously
reducing cost to the overall operation of the commission and the Department of
Agriculture.
Fourthly, the final amendment to be considered
relates to the requirement for the commission to obtain Order‑in‑Council
approval of certain regulations, which is not customarily required under other
legislation; it is primarily an administrative function of the commission. Obviously, this again simplifies the
procedures.
The proposed amendments are intended to
address the anticipated changes forthcoming in the dairy industry, to introduce
a more flexible pricing mechanism which does not lessen the commission's
independent supervision of milk prices, and to provide a more cost‑effective
method of administering the act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had
considerable discussion with the milk producers of this province through their
organization, and they agree that these changes are appropriate and necessary,
especially for their industry with regard to component pricing and the cost of
production, more flexibility in administering the cost‑of‑production
formula.
I recommend this bill and these changes to
the House for speedy passage. Thank you.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a couple of
questions for the minister, if I have leave to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) have leave to ask questions of the minister?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Mr. Plohman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to ask the minister on the four
sections that he has outlined in terms of changes in The Milk Prices Review
Amendment Act.
First of all, with regard to the first
section, the multiple component pricing, does he see this as, from his
discussions with the industry, leading to the development of new species of,
not species of cows, but strains that will produce milk with very low fat
content as opposed to, as he has outlined, always generating greater fat
content as that was the basis for pricing?
Does he see that happening, and is it in
fact already happening in some jurisdictions?
Could we see a rather substantial change in very short time here in
An Honourable Member: Is this a question?
Mr. Plohman: Yes, it is‑‑low fat content
milk. The minister of cultural affairs
does not understand this issue and therefore is interjecting in a very
inappropriate way and a rather impolite way.
Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted
to ask with regard to the schedule of milk prices review changes for triggering
review, the minister said plus or minus 2 percent triggers a review at the
present time. Does he see that the price
would change at much smaller intervals or much smaller amounts from day to day,
week to week, or what is meant by flexible approach?
* (1450)
Thirdly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder
whether the Minister could outline some examples of changes that might be made
without Order‑in‑Council approval as a result of this act, just
some examples of the kinds of things that now have to go before the minister to
take to cabinet and to get Order‑in‑Council approval when in fact
it would not be necessary following these changes. What kinds of things would
be dealt with there? If the minister
does not have examples at this time, he can perhaps provide us some within the
next short period of time.
Mr. Findlay: With regard to the first question on whether
dairy producers will start to have new emphasis in their breeding programs, I
would think most likely they will.
Clearly for 40, 50 years they have been breeding for higher and higher
milk fat content. The norm used to be
less than 3.5 percent and everybody tried to achieve 3.5 percent. You now have lots of cows that are producing
milk at over 4 percent fat. That creates
a lot of surplus fat for the dairy industry to dispose of.
I would think that as the response that we
are injecting here in terms of multiple component pricing starts to have an
impact on the producer's cheque, he will now look at seeing that he gets paid
for higher protein as an example, which is clearly something the consumer
wants. If he has to look at where he is
at relative to the industry norm, and if he is below the industry norm in terms
of the protein content for his cows, it will definitely be a stimulus to look
for breeding stock, particularly bulls, that have a higher genetic capability
of passing on high protein to milk.
I think the first pressure should come
back on the universities involved in dairy research to try to find ways and
means to speed up the generation cycle of trying to breed improvements into the
dairy cow. It is a long, many‑generation
process, and we would be looking at several years to have any dramatic
influence here in that direction. It
clearly will take away the emphasis off breeding for higher fat content, but it
will put in place emphasis on higher, particularly protein, content. It is a response to the consumer's
preference, and it is highly desirable that we have in place regulations that
do allow the dairy industry to respond to what the consumer wants. That is
critical to their survival.
In the other ones‑‑the
schedule for milk prices review, plus or minus 2 percent, as I said in my
comments, the cost‑of‑production formula had to go up by 2 percent
before there was an increase to the producer.
We will now allow the formula, when it is triggered or when it is
evaluated or monitored, if it goes up 1 percent, they will get that 1 percent
right then and there. If it goes down 1
percent, they will get a 1 percent reduction.
An Honourable Member: Half a percent too?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, any amount, whatever the review
triggers, whether it is a half of 1 percent or 1 percent or 1.5 percent, those
changes will be instituted. The dairy
industry says that is much more responsive.
They seem to think that if it is done on a semiannual basis, that meets
their needs, provided that it recognizes exactly what the change in the cost of
production is.
With regard to examples regarding the
Order‑in‑Council and regulations, I will give the member more
specifics in some due course fairly soon.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 49‑The
Environment Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs.
Mitchelson), that Bill 49, The Environment Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur l'environnement), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is an
updating of some clauses in The Environment Act intended to deal with some
technicalities and concerns that we want to have clarified.
Changes allow for certainty of panels to
be able to have a defined quorum and make a decision on the basis of that
quorum based on the knowledge of the people who actually heard the information
at the Clean Environment hearings. We
wish to provide also some certainty in the concept that the director or the
minister may allow for stage licensing.
Existing stage licence provision is a little bit unclear as to its
intent and its usage, so we intend to propose that we can now set out clearly
stages in series, each one issued for a specific component of a
development. It is made clear that each
stage of the licence will authorize only that portion of the development that
it specifies. It will allow the director
or the minister to authorize preliminary activities and site preparation where
there is little or no environmental consequence and where the public does not
have significant objections.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we wish through this
bill to be able to have the ability on behalf of the taxpayers of the province
to have the proponent pay hearing costs associated with joint assessments or
Class 3 assessments. Amendments will
require the proponent to pay the departmental costs also where they are
associated with monitoring of a particular licence. These may well be particular circumstances
where some additional monitoring is deemed to be prudent because of concerns
that have been raised or because the department believes that they have reason
to do more on‑site monitoring than would normally be required for the
validation of a licence. We propose to
be able to give ourselves that ability.
These amendments will be also consistent
with The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act as they relate to cost
recovery, so that we can recover costs associated with certain environmental work
by issuing an order and without having to file suit in the courts. This is not an unusual authority that we are
asking through this act, but it is new in the manner in which this act would be
administered and, I believe, is prudent and useful for a proper administration
and recognition of some of the real costs of administering The Environment Act
in this province.
I believe these amendments are prudent and
rational, and I recommend them to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask
some questions of the minister relating to the legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Radisson have
leave to ask questions of the minister?
Leave? Leave has been granted.
Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister referred to‑‑I am
not sure which section, but one of the sections would allow that there would be
room for public objection in the preliminary use or work on a site before
development. I just wanted to ask: How will the public object in that case? In which section did that refer to
specifically?
Mr. Cummings: I believe the member is referring to Section
13(2) where the minister or director may in advance of approval of any stage in
construction issue the first of a series of licences authorizing preliminary
construction. This would be put on
public notice the same as any other environmental licensing process would be
done. It is through that process that
the public would be informed and have an opportunity to bring forward concerns.
* (1500)
Ms. Cerilli: How would this staging of the licensing help
with the environment protection for the environment with regard to a development? How would this staging of the licensing help
from that environmental point of view?
Mr. Cummings: The member should consider that topic in
conjunction with the fact that there is a specific provision provided as well
to make sure that it is very clear and is spelled out in law that the issuance
of a stage does not guarantee the issuance of any further licences. That is the context in which we should look
at this.
Secondly, and directly to the question,
very often the preliminary work that needs to be done in order to provide the
information required in an environment licence may well require some
preliminary work which needs to be licensed.
The question was, does this have any
beneficial aspects to it in terms of environmental protection. I say yes it does, because we can then, with
some certainty, know that tests done on a particular site, that the core
samples, as an example, for whatever project‑‑and we have to talk
in generic terms‑‑would in fact be able to be provided then so that
some certainty could be provided in front of the commission as to what they
were actually dealing with.
Ms. Cerilli: I just want to try and get some clarification
on that. The minister was giving an
example of how this could be applied. I
encourage him to give some other examples, because I was not quite following
the one that he was giving of how staging of the licensing under the
environment licensing would be used.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is used today. We wanted to make sure that there were
clearly defined parameters, as these amendments I believe do provide for, so
that both the proponents and regulators are clearly in a position to understand
the limitations, first of all, that are provided by this act and what the
parameters are in terms of any capability to allow someone on to a site.
Again I think, dealing with specifics‑‑the
member might want to raise additional specifics in committee‑‑but
the fact is that there are situations, as I said a moment ago, where proponents
need to have access to an area upon which they are applying for a licence. There may well be circumstances. I do not think we need to have too much
imagination to point out what some of them might be, where they have to go onto
a particular site and may well need environmental clearance in order to go on
there to take samples, if you will. I
gave core samples as an example. Obviously, if it is related to construction
that is quite important.
There are also situations that arise that
would not necessarily be in remote locations where similar needs could
arise. One cannot always assume that
anything physically short of going onto a site can provide all of the
information that the Clean Environment Commission could be requesting.
Ms. Cerilli: Am I to understand that this is legislation
so that people who are doing testing for an environmental impact assessment can
go onto a site to take samples? That is
what the intent of this is, is that correct?
Mr. Cummings: This is not a blanket amendment. Obviously each situation would be treated
individually as is always the case with environmental licensing. If I am assuming the same context that the
member is, I believe the answer to her question is yes. An example of an
opportunity to go on to a site that will require some work being done, either
the contractor or the proponent may be asked to go on site without any
preconditions, and the Environment department could well find themselves in the
situation where they have to go in and stop them. Yet we know we could well be requiring the
information that they are looking for to be presented in substantiation of a
licence at the Clean Environment Commission.
This provides for a controlled and logical approach and is certainly not
to be considered in any other light.
Ms. Cerilli: Would this not allow for part of a project to
be authorized with an environment licence while the entire project is not
authorized with an environment licence, especially if the whole project has not
gone through a full environmental impact assessment?
Mr. Cummings: I think that would be a misrepresentation of
the intention.
Ms. Cerilli: Could that occur under this legislation?
Mr. Cummings: No.
Ms. Cerilli: I will adjourn debate on Bill 49.
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 53‑The
Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): I move, seconded by
the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill
53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises
dangereuses), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Deputy Speaker, in addressing this bill,
we recognize that there are a number of problems that we wanted to deal
with. I think it is fair to talk about
what some of those problems that we see ahead of us and how we see this bill as
part of a short‑term and a long‑term solution to those issues.
The problem, of course, largely has
centred around contaminated sites. Very
often that contamination may have taken place some years ago, or it could have
been recent. Nevertheless, site cleanup and restoration is a costly process.
The question very obviously arises as who would pay costs: those directly responsible or would it come
from the public purse, those who own or occupy the property; those who own or
control the product, previous owners or occupiers if they are tied to the time
of contamination, or those having lent money and undertaking the activity
giving rise to the contamination, or those involved in management and
foreclosure and receivership in a number of situations? Those are the problems that we have had to
deal with.
* (1510)
We have been invited to take part in a
number of meetings across the country, primarily a session coming up in
Dealing with it in the short term to
resolve some of the existing contamination problems that require resolution in
a fair and equitable manner, we want to deal with them consistent with the
polluter pays principle. As a result,
our action will be that amendments to The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Act to expand the net for the issuance of remedial orders, to
include the party responsible and the property owner, the occupier and the
product owner or handler, now or at the time of contamination or the culpable
party.
We recognize, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
the onus will be on the department to prove the relationship of the person to
the contamination. That is, the order
cannot be issued to any person who previously happened to own the land except
where it can be shown who the ownership belonged to at the time of contamination. This is most difficult to prove in many cases
and thus cannot be used indiscriminantely.
I wish to expand these amendments the ability to include in the order the
work required to be done and expedite the cost recovery where the work is not
done.
In the longer term, over the six months,
we will be addressing these issues on the broader basis through public
discussions on issues associated with environmental liability. These
multistakeholder decisions and discussions will endeavour to work towards
consensus regarding these issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the things
that I am most conscious of in introducing these amendments is that, whether it
is
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is not an issue
that is unique, particularly unique to
I believe that this is a sound act, that
it is the first step in dealing with the issues that I outlined. There are still further issues that need to
be dealt with in this respect, and I look forward to that debate in the
House. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill‑The
Denturists Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), second
reading of Bill 6 (The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
denturologistes), standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
First Minister (Mr. Filmon), to resume debate on second reading of Bill 9 (The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act; Loi sur le Conseil de
l'innovation economique et de la technologie), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to stand? Leave has been granted.
Bill 10‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 10 (The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 11‑The
Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 11 (The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les
apiculteurs), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Bill 12‑The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 12 (The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'elevage), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 14‑The
Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), to resume debate on
second reading of 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). Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 15‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), to resume debate on
second reading of Bill 15 (The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le
Code de la route) standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton). Stand? Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 20‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) to resume debate on second reading
of Bill 20 (The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale) standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 21‑The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 21 (The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
parcs provinciaux), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans). Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 22 (The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi sur les permis relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et de peche
et aux pourvoyeurs et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
dispositions legislatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to stand?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 34‑The
Surveys Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to resume debate on second reading of Bill 34
(The Surveys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage) standing in
the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
When we first look at the bill, it is a
very short bill and appears to be inconsequential, but in reality, it could be
a very important bill.
This bill, takes what looks to be a minor change,
could be giving the minister quite a bit of power. At the present time, any normal increase of
fees for services is approved by cabinet, done through Order‑in‑Council,
and this bill would allow the minister to have the authority to make changes to
increases in fees.
* (1520)
In this particular bill, it is the
increases to maps and surveys. It is my
understanding that the costs of maps are quite high right now and should be
dealt with by council. The real point,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is what is the next thing that is going to open up? If the minister is going to be given the
power to deal with maps and surveys and not have to go through council, what
other fees are ministers then going to have the power to change and not have to
deal with through council?
There are many people who have to pay
fees. There are Crown land fees, camping
fees, all of those sorts of things that are now controlled by cabinet, and I
think that is the way it should be.
There may be a particular minister, and
not necessarily the minister responsible for this bill, but in other cases
where a minister wants to change fees, and if he does not have to go through
cabinet, there is no scrutiny on what he is doing, or she is doing, or why they
are doing it. I think that it is very
important that that power does stay with cabinet.
We know that the government has done a lot
of increasing in fees in the last little while, and this could allow much more
of that to happen.
I guess some of the questions that my
constituents, as I have said, have raised on the matter is where will this
end. What will be the next fees that are
going to increase, and how are they going to find out about the increase of
fees? If this power goes directly to the
minister and does not have to become known to other members, are the fees going
to be bulletined out? How will people
find out about different increases, or is it just something that is going to be
passed on through bureaucrats in the department, and it will just be added on
with no information coming out?
As I say, there are constituents who have
raised concerns about this, that the government, every time they turn around,
is increasing the cost of some other service that is presently being provided,
and they are quite concerned with where this is going to end. As I said, they are also concerned with the
power this could give a minister. It may
not only be in this department, but once we begin the process of allowing fees,
the minister to have the discretion on increased fees, we could see this happen
in many, many other areas.
Services should be provided for people at
a reasonable cost, but costs that should be recovered by the department should
be scrutinized, and I do not think that this should just be another tool for
the government to increase its revenues.
The minister should have to justify to his cabinet why it is these
increases have to come about.
We are prepared to let this bill go to
committee, but I think that my colleagues also have other comments that they
would like to put on the record about this bill, so we will be taking a little
bit more time to look at it before it is allowed to go to committee. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have some
concerns about, what appears to be a very minor bill, the powers that ministers
could have with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many
people in the rural communities‑‑and not only rural communities but
people in mining and resources‑‑who make use of maps. We have to be careful that these services are
available for the people to make use of, that we do not put prices so
exorbitantly that they will not be able to use these services. The same thing applies to other areas that
could be affected by changing from Order‑in‑Council to regulation‑‑that
we will price ourselves out of being able to provide services for those people
who need it.
Again, I refer to the Crown lands. There are many people who live on Crown
lands, who lease Crown lands for agricultural purposes. If these fees were increased to a very high level,
they would not be able to afford them and, as I said, I am concerned that we
would be taking services away from people, services and the other things that
we look at. There are many, many other
fees that are legislated, implemented by government. This will give every
minister, it appears, the ability to adjust fees wherever they want them and
possibly give the ability that government would decide to use it as a revenue
source and not really to recover their costs.
With those points, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
look forward to discussing this further and bringing forward other concerns in
the committee that have been raised by constituents, as we do a little more
consulting with them as to what their concerns are with this legislation and
what powers it may give to a minister.
As I say, in this area, it is the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), but if we begin with this one, there could
possibly be other areas that we would then be opening up. We would then be opening up an area and allowing
regulations to be handled‑‑fees to be handled‑‑through
regulation rather than Order‑in‑Council. That does not allow members of the opposition
or members of the public to know when these fees come up. We have to have clarification on how we are
going to find out, how the public is going to find out. Will the government put out news
releases? What will be this process on
how people will find out what changes government has made to regulations?
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
Bill 38‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), to resume debate on second reading of Bill 38
(The Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la preuve au Manitoba),
standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake, is there leave
to permit this bill to remain standing?
Leave.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): I can indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I
will be the only speaker for our side of the House with regard to this
particular matter, and that we will be passing it on to committee at the
conclusion of my remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, at the onset I can
indicate that we view this bill and this amendment with a good deal of approval
from this side of the House. There is no
question that we will support its passage into the committee stage, and I see
no reason why the bill itself should not result in expeditious passage in this
House, certainly by members on this side of the House. The amendments have been recommended by
individuals and by parties and by groups that participate in the judicial
system, and it is a very useful amendment, particularly in light of the times
and particularly in light of the changing circumstances of our society.
The law of evidence, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is probably appropriately termed the law of evidence insofar as it in itself
constitutes an almost complete body of law, one that is studied individually,
one that is dealt with by statute individually, and something that in itself is
part of the judicial process, is a complex, convoluted, but integral part of
the judicial system.
* (1530)
Many individuals may not agree with many
of the procedures and many of the technicalities as they are often termed with
respect to the law of evidence, Madam Deputy Speaker, but they have been
largely drawn up over the centuries, over hundreds of years of judicial and
court experience. The laws of evidence
evolve and change, not only in common law, but by virtue of statute. For some involved in the legal system, they
do not move fast enough, but for others the changes have to take place in a
very progressive and a very timely fashion.
I recall quite vividly, as all individuals
who graduate from law school do, the intense amount of effort and energy spent
in studying the law of evidenceand the various precedents and the evolution of
that law throughout history. Indeed, I
can recall probably debating the law of evidenceand many ramifications of it
with my friends more than perhaps any other aspect of the law that I studied,
and that we studied, at law school.
With respect to this specific amendment
and this specific bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to relate a bit of a
personal experience and involvement with this particular section of The
Evidence Act. When I had my first court
appearance, in fact, as a law student articling with Legal Aid, and my very
first trial that I attended as a participant with a law professor, involved a
challenging of a child witness based on this very aspect of this application of
the law. I can recall quite vividly the
judge questioning the child of tender years and, interestingly, or fortunately
or unfortunately, depending upon one's particular viewpoint, the judge did have
a great deal of difficulty having the child swear the oath.
Consequently, as a result of the failure
of the child of tender years to swear the oath, the case which I believe was a
case of assault, I think of a sexual nature, was thrown out,
unfortunately. It is ironic that we had
mixed emotions. At the time a member of
the public would quite properly state that the charge was thrown out on a
technicality. In fact it was thrown out
on a technicality; it was thrown out through the application of the law of
evidence.
We as law students had mixed
emotions. We were pleased that we had
won our case, quote, but I think all of us came away a bit jaundiced and a bit
saddened by the fact that a matter was thrown out, and a charge was tossed out
against the child because of the application of this very section of The
Evidence Act. I can remember the mixed
feelings and the mixed emotions that I had as a law student when confronted in
my very first court appearance with the application of this particular law.
To the public, quite rightly so, the
charge would be thrown out for technicality.
To a member of the law profession or to someone who had studied the law
of evidence in general, I suppose the axiom would be pronounced: Better that ten men should go free than one
man be wrongly convicted.
Members of the profession and members
involved in the judicial system very strongly feel that all of these aspects of
the law of evidence should be strictly adhered to, because of the fact that the
law of evidence has evolved to right many of the wrongs that occurred in our
common law from years and years ago when the laws were not as rigid and when
the laws were more at the discretion of the sovereign or the discretion of the
state.
Some would very much argue that the law of
evidence has been set up to establish a shield; indeed, the classical shield,
to protect individuals from arbitrary justice, to protect individuals from the
law of the sovereign, the law of the state. It does evolve, and this particular
amendment is a very appropriate amendment and it is a proper amendment with
respect to the evolution of law and how we view the attitudes of children and
how we as society view the evidence given by children at judicial proceedings.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there was a time
when a child's evidence was considered completely unreliable. Indeed, I suspect, though I do not know with
certainty, that there was a time probably when a child's evidence in the
courtroom was not accepted at all. The
common law then evolved to the position, and it evolved to the state where a
child who could comprehend and take the oath would be allowed to testify, but
that their testimony had to be corroborated by some strong material evidence or
some strong material fact.
In fact, that law, as the minister
indicated in his remarks, is the state of the law in
Although as I understand it from a review
of Sopinko and Letterman, The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases, a text which I
refer to often which respect to evidence, the standard of proof and the
standard of material corroboration with respect to that child's testimony in
civil proceedings is not necessarily as strong, nor is the standard or
requirement that high with respect to civil proceedings.
Frankly, whether the standard is high or
low is not relevant to our particular discussion because we are asking, by
virtue of this amendment, that particular requirement, that need for
corroboration of the evidence in a material fashion of a child of tender years
will no longer be required in the
As I indicated earlier, this is timely,
this is correct, and this is the way to proceed, particularly when we view the
state of law in the province of Manitoba and Canada, and the attention which
has been devoted to‑‑I hesitate to say the word "crimes"
against a child‑‑but the attention which has been devoted towards
the rights of children in our society, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We certainly have seen a change in terms
of the view of children and how we approach them in our society. There was a time, historically, when children
were viewed legally as chattels, mere chattels.
We now view them as human beings with all of the rights and privileges‑‑almost,
which is an interesting point, but I diverge‑‑accruing to all of us
in society.
Indeed, we have seen very strong measures
taken to protect the rights of children in our society. We have seen the efforts of governments and
jurisdictions everywhere in this country and on this continent turn their
attention to some of the horrendous and absolutely terrible, despicable
occurrences that happen, unfortunately far too often, in our society with
respect to children.
This amendment and this particular change
will allow children to testify and to be treated in a fashion of a serious
nature. I cannot but completely and
strongly agree with not only the intention of this particular act, but its
spirit, and that is that we allow children to speak up. We have discovered, contrary to perhaps what
was a misconception of old, that the testimony of children is in fact as valid,
or as accurate, or substantial, or honest as that of adults, and indeed some
might argue even greater, and that we can place faith in the testimony of
children and in what they say in court.
That is what the empirical evidence
states, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that clearly is what our experiences in the
court system, in the judicial systems, demonstrate.
We see that in the evolution of our law,
we have moved now in Manitoba to provide the same protection, I should not say
the word "protection," I should rather say, provide the same rights
to children under our provincial statute as is provided in the federal statute
and is provided in other provincial statutes across the country.
In this count, I think it is a very valid
piece of legislation, it is a necessary piece of legislation and, in fact, it
is a timely piece of legislation.
* (1540)
We on this side of the House strongly
support this amendment to The Evidence Act.
We will do our part to expedite the passage of it. We may have questions at committee, and we may
seek or require some clarification when we reach the committee stage of the
bill, but we certainly are quite pleased to deal with this matter of the
amendment to The Evidence Act, to bring the Manitoba statute and to bring the
legislation in line with that of other jurisdictions and, more importantly, in
line with the way society has evolved, with the way society views children,
with the way we as a society want to deal with children. In fact, that is probably the most important
aspect of it, and that is a very positive aspect of it.
Some criticism is often levelled at our
legal system and at the way that law evolves, Madam Deputy Speaker, and‑‑indeed,
I have often done it myself‑‑at the slow manner in which it
evolves. Certainly in this area, we are
very pleased to see that we are moving to the reality of the situation, which
is to accept the testimony of children without the requirement of material
corroboration. To do that is a positive
evolution of the law. It is a change from common law, and of course we have its
statute, it is in statute anyway through The Manitoba Evidence Act.
We on this side of the House are going to
do our part to expedite passage of this bill, and with those comments I will
close, indicating that I will be the only speaker on this side of the House
with respect to this act. Madam Deputy
Speaker, thank you.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: It was previously agreed that this bill remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans),
as a point of clarification.
Bill 42‑The
Amusements Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of
the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), second reading on Bill 42 (The
Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been somewhat
led to believe that this is legislation which we can support in a sense that
what it really is doing is dealing with today's time through
modernization. The legislation today is
not necessarily warranted as it was a number of years back, when we had
flammable film and carbon arc lamps, or when those particular films and lamps
were more commonly used throughout the
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is because of the
times. As we proceed today, for example,
where we have much more different types of films, whether it is the current
films that we see at the cinemas or what is becoming more and more popular
virtually every day is our VCRs. There
seems to be a large amount of concern in terms of the whole film classification
and what is going to be happening in those areas that the projectionist is a
very honourable profession to have and no doubt requires a great deal of
training and expertise.
We feel very confident that the union will
protect this particular trade and will, of course, do what is in the best
interests of the projectionists, that in fact this might ease some of the
pressure from those who are in the city of Winnipeg, because I am not aware of
any that are still using the old system.
In fact, the new projectors that we now have in most of the theatres are
fairly safe, albeit still require a great deal of expertise in order to be run
by the projectionist.
We will be wanting this particular bill to
go to committee, so that if there is some concern or if in particular the union
has any comments as to why they feel that a licence still might be required, we
would be very receptive to what they might have to say on it. I think we have to keep in the back of our
minds that if it is a question of licensing, I know that there was a change in
the legislation previously where we have seen it is a licence requirement just
for the bigger urban areas as opposed to rural
For that reason I think that, in part
anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker, by withdrawing or by repealing this particular
aspect of the legislation, that in fact the industry will have equal standards,
both in the three cities and rural
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit this bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)? Leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Urban Affairs and Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst), to resume debate
on second reading of Bill 45 (The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville
de Winnipeg, la Loi sur les municipalites et d'autres dispositions
legislatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen). Stand? Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wolseley? Leave? Leave has been granted.
* (1550)
Bill 47‑The
Petty Trespasses Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), to resume debate on
second reading of Bill 47 (The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur l'intrusion), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Stand? Is there
leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Kildonan? Leave? Leave has been granted.
House
Business
Madam Deputy Speaker: What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to call it five
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Five o'clock.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is the will of the House to call it five
o'clock.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 4‑Reproductive
Health
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has
ruled that "forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction to carry a
fetus to term is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus an
infringement on the security of the person"; and
WHEREAS safe abortion services can be
provided in a cost effective manner in community‑based clinics; and
WHEREAS accessibility and affordability
are essential elements in providing services to women who wish to terminate a
pregnancy; and
WHEREAS the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to rescind
regulation number 217/88 under the Health Services Insurance Act and support
availability of the full range of reproductive health services at community‑based
clinics as well as hospitals.
Motion presented.
Point of
Order
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, a point of order in that one understands and appreciates the
essence of the resolution that has been brought forward by the honourable
member for
Given the fact that that matter is
currently before the courts, and if the courts rule that the province did not
have the authority to make that particular regulation, then the need for this
debate and the issue which is to be debated is really redundant and
irrelevant. It has been a long‑standing
tradition of this Assembly, Madam Deputy Speaker, that matters before the
courts‑‑and in essence, the issue before the courts has to do with
the power to make this particular resolution‑‑the rule of res
judicata applies on matters before the courts.
We would make the proposition that as the
resolution dealing with the matter is currently before the courts questioning
whether or not the government in fact had the authority to make that particular
regulation, that this debate would be out of order at the current time pending
the outcome of the court decision as to whether or not the government and the
Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council had the authority to make that
regulation.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): There is nothing, Madam Deputy Speaker, in our
rules prohibiting this Legislature from debating this topic even though it may
be before a court. There is something in
our rules and regulations, when a matter is before a criminal court, under
criminal proceedings, we have a ruling or we have regulations which prohibit
debate, questions, et cetera.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a private
members' hour. It is a resolution asking
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), the Legislative Assembly simply urging
the Minister of Health, to rescind a particular regulation. The intent of the resolution is really for a
debate on the matter‑‑essentially debate on the matter‑‑and
to allow the member from
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): On the
same point of order, not to be so insensitive to what I understand the deputy
House leader (Mr. Praznik) has said, but what we have before us is in fact a
resolution that is asking really for the different members to take a position.
Albeit that there are many court cases
that are ongoing throughout the country, whether it is in our national courts
or in fact our provincial courts, in that if we were to look at any given
resolution we are likely able to find something that is within our courts. I would be somewhat hesitant to say because
an issue is before the courts that we cannot debate something of this nature,
because it is really a question of a policy stand, one of principles from
individual members, and it is just really seeking the opinions from individual
members, in particular from the three parties.
I do not see it really being the conflict
that I understand that the deputy House leader has said, and with respect,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that we possibly recess for 5 or 10
minutes so that you can consult with the Clerk and possibly come up with another
precedent that indicates something of this nature or would indicate to us that
in fact we should be withdrawing this resolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I thank all honourable members for their
advice and as this is a very complex matter, I am taking it under advisement
and will bring back a ruling.
Due to the unusual circumstances whereby
debate on this issue was forestalled by a point of order relating to the
application of the sub judice convention, the matter will retain its position
on the Order Paper until I am able to rule on it.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: No, not on a point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker, but for clarification. Because this
is something that has come up, I understand that the next resolution is from
the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), and there is no way anyone could have
anticipated that type of a ruling.
I would ask for leave of the House for us
to, if we are not going to call it six o'clock, as a direct result, to at least
allow possibly the private members' bills as opposed to the resolution come up,
and I would ask for leave to do either/or, six o'clock or allow the member from
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) to give his bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: What is the will of the House?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the House would like
to have‑‑and I appreciate the time frame of what has happened this
afternoon and the inconvenience to some members expecting time, but if the
House would like to allow that particular‑‑the next resolution, I
believe the one moved by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), to retain its
place on the Order Paper and move on to the next resolution. If they would like to proceed with private
members' hour, we would be prepared to do that.
I believe the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) would be prepared to move
on his resolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Is it the will of the House to leave Proposed Resolution 5 in the same
order on the Order Paper and to move now to debate on Proposed Resolution
6? Agreed? No?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: There is no agreement. What is the will of the House?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought I heard across
the way a suggestion that we call it six o'clock. It is opposition time. We are prepared to proceed on this side on
this House or to call it six o'clock depending on the will of the opposition
parties. It is their hour.
Mr. Leonard Evans: There are certain people that may wish to
speak on this particular resolution that are not available or have not been
apprised of the fact that this item is to be discussed at this point. I am not talking necessarily about this side,
it could be either side of the House, so I think out of fairness we should call
it six o'clock.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Brandon East has
suggested that the time be called six o'clock.
Is that the will of the House? Is
it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).