LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, June 23, 1992
The
House met at 7 p.m.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, what I
intend to do is call report stage of those bills, with leave of the House‑‑all
of this will require leave, I imagine‑‑that were reported this
afternoon. Having passed clause by
clause, there are several of them over the last sitting day of the committees,
and I will ask you to call the bills then in the following order: 9, 61, 62, 71, 73, 75, 84, 92, 94, 95. These are report stage.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Acting Opposition House Leader): For clarification,
those bills, the numbers of which the government House leader just read, are those
that had received passage earlier in the day, and he now wants permission of
the House to proceed to report stage on these bills that he has enumerated. Is
that correct?
Mr.
Speaker: That is correct.
Mr.
Manness: In fairness to the opposition acting House
leader, I know he would like to have a schedule of the names of those bills, of
the titles of those bills, and I only have it because I have the motions in
front of me. I am wondering if we could
ask the Clerk to provide some piece of paper that would give the member
opposite and indeed the Liberal House leader also the titles of the bills in
question.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, this is my question. Is it the government's wish to proceed
through all the bills in the report stage, and then from that point, go on to
the third readings? Is that correct?
Mr.
Speaker: Third readings, that is correct.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 9‑The Economic Innovation and
Technology Council Act
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I move,
(by leave) seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 9, The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act (Loi sur le Conseil de
l'innovation economique et de la technologie), reported from the Standing
Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1905)
Bill 61‑The Consumer Protection
Amendment Act (4)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 61, The
Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4)?
Is there leave? Yes, there is leave.
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I
move, (by leave) seconded by the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 61, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act
(4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur, reported from
the Standing Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 62‑The Business Practices
Amendment Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 62, The
Business Practices Amendment Act (2)? Is
there leave? Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I move, (by leave) seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 62, The Business Practices Amendment Act
(2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, reported from the
Standing Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 71‑The Retirement Plan
Beneficiaries Act
Mr. Speaker: Is
there leave to report Bill 71?
Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On behalf of the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 71, The Retirement Plan
Beneficiaries Act (Loi sur les beneficiaires des regimes de retraite), reported
from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 73‑The Health Care Directives
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 73, The Health
Care Directives and Consequential Amendments Act? Leave.
It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): With leave of the House,
I move, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), seconded by the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 73, The
Health Care Directives and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les directives
en matiere de soins de sante et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments,
be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1910)
Bill 75‑The Health Services Insurance
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 75, The Health Services
Insurance Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): With the leave of the
House, I move, on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), seconded by
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 75,
The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
Agreed to.
Bill 84‑The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 84, The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)?
Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I move, (by leave), seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 84, The Residential Tenancies Act (2); Loi
no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation, reported from the Standing
Committee on Economic Development, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 92‑The Provincial Auditor's
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 92, The
Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act? Is
there leave? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, by leave of
the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 92, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
le verificateur provincial), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 94‑The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1992
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 94, The Statute
Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1992?
There is leave? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), with leave of the
House, that Bill 94, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1992 (Loi de
1992 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), as
amended and reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 95‑The Tax Appeals Commission
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 95, The Tax
Appeals Commission Act? Is there
leave? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, by leave of
the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act (Loi sur la Commission d'appel des
impots et des taxes), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred
in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1915)
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, what I
propose to do now is call third readings of the very same bills that we have
just finished report stage and, of course, I will require leave.
Mr.
Speaker, I will ask the House whether or not they want to give individual leave
to these bills or indeed whether they want to give it as a package. The bills, therefore, are 9‑‑[interjection!
You have the listing? Thank you.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Just in response to the government House
leader, we are prepared to give leave for all those bills that were just given
report stage.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I do not think there
would be any problem, but I think the Speaker should call them one at a time
and ask for leave each time.
Mr.
Speaker: We will call them one at a time.
THIRD
Bill 9‑The Economic Innovation and
Technology Council Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 9,
The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act? Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson), that Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act,
(Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation economique et de la technologie), be now read
a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): I will just take a few minutes to put a few
final remarks on the record on this particular bill.
It
saddens me, Mr. Speaker, that the government has missed an opportunity to do
something really creative in the area of providing greater direction and
support for research and development in this province. I was particularly dismayed by the unwillingness
of the minister in committee to accept any amendments that I think would remove
some of the obvious flaws in this particular bill.
The
fact is, Mr. Speaker, we are not setting up a council that is independent of
government. We are not setting up a council
that will be allowed to recommend independently new directions in research and
development. We are setting up one more
little committee that will operate under the direction and at the direction
[interjection! I am glad that we have the technical difficulty straightened
out, and I will start over again. I know
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is dying to hear because he missed a
couple of the very important points I made at the beginning.
When
the government proposed this bill, the government will recall that I stood
immediately after the minister put a few supportive remarks on the record and
asked that it be passed into committee immediately, because I felt it was about
time, after four years, that this government got down to doing something serious
on economic development. When we
received and then when we got into committee and looked at really what the
implications of this bill were, I must say that we were extremely disappointed.
We
have a need right now to develop an expertise to assist this province, not just
this government, but this province, in making some very tough economic
decisions, so the concept of establishing a committee, an organization that can
stand apart from government, that can make economic decisions that are going to
go on beyond the four‑year life of any government and can make the tough
choices between what they are going to fund and what they are not going to
fund, is a good idea.
What
we have here is a commission that is appointed entirely by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The chief executive officer and the chairman
of the board are appointed directly by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. All of the major decisions of the council are
subject to review by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. The minister determines most of the
activities if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is not expressly indicated to
be doing so.
* (1920)
There
is virtually no independent action that this body can take, and that can only
lead one to one conclusion, that this is simply window‑dressing. It is not a sincere attempt to step back from
politicizing economic policy in this province, and that is very sad, because I
think all of us are going to be losers as a result.
What
we have here is one more public relations activity on the part of this
government. It has no substance; it has
no depth; it has no creditability. It
will be proved, like similar actions on the part of the former government, to
be entirely without merit.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I just want to put a few
brief comments on the record. All the
Deputy Premier [interjection! Well, this is a pretty feisty group tonight, and one
would question why the feistiness. They
just had a member of their own caucus resign over economic development and the
lack of economic development for rural
Perhaps,
Mr. Speaker, the public knows best what is going on in terms of the economy of
this province. This is the Premier's bill. The Premier sponsored this bill, the new
chair of the new economic committee of cabinet, an $850,000 body that cannot
give us answers on the impact on free trade with
The
last time this government and this province was in last place, whether it was
Ed Schreyer or Sterling Lyon or Howard Pawley or Gary Filmon at the so‑called
helm, was when Walter Weir was defeated in 1969 by Ed Schreyer. That was the last time this province was in
dead last place.
Mr.
Speaker, this government said a year ago that they would just step aside and
allow the private sector to develop the economic opportunities in this
province. Just step aside, the Premier
said, do not worry about us. We will
just step aside, and we will let the private sector create the jobs.
Well
what do we see? Private sector
investment was second last in
Mr.
Speaker, we were in last place in private sector investment or second only to
Government
does not like that. They would rather
just have a little session with the Chamber of Commerce, pass a few of their laws
and think that that is economic development.
Well, it is not.
Mr.
Speaker, then they came back, and this is a great government for public
relations. The Chamber of Commerce has already
commented on the public relations part of the government in dealing with The
Environment Act. People are now starting
to see through the pool‑like strategy of this government. Three or four cabinet ministers, three or
four lights, three or four baseball hats yesterday, and no jobs and no
content. People are starting to see
through it.
Mr.
Speaker, this government decided to do something about the economy. I guess they thought their step‑aside
approach was not working with the public, so they tried a different strategy. They
created this gimmick called the Economic Innovation and Technological Council,
and they put 30 business people on the council.
They put a couple of labour people on, a couple of academics, and they
called this an Innovation Council. This
is after they got rid of more funding and more development in research and
development before they created this Economic Innovation committee at cabinet.
Mr.
Speaker, the public spoke out on this bill.
There were two representatives of the public who spoke on this bill and really
cited the weaknesses of the Tory economic policy in
* (1925)
Did
we see all the representatives of this so‑called Economic Innovation
Council coming forward and praising this great idea of Tory economic
redevelopment? No we did not. They would be too embarrassed to come forward
on what they know to be a public relations exercise and a public relations
bill.
Mr.
Speaker, we are in last place, dead last.
We are talking about it every day in Question Period, and now members of
the Conservative caucus are raising it in the public arena. We believe in a consensus of our public and
people in this province. We believe that
business, labour and government should co‑operate and work together, but
we do not believe in these public relations gimmicks, as the member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock) has pointed out.
We
believe the public of
An Honourable Member: What is a nonprofit voter?
Mr. Doer:
The member opposite does not know what a nonprofit voter is. Why do you not attend a
Mr.
Speaker, he would have a democratic vote, and if he was in last place, he would
be defeated; he or she would be defeated.
Instead, we see 28 trained seals going along with a last‑place
economic performance. We see this
Conservative caucus hanging on to power, in spite of the fact that they are in
last place, until today, until tonight.
Now we are seeing the people inside saying what the people outside are
saying. They are now talking about why
we are in last place, why this government is "rotten" in terms of
economic performance, and those were not my words, Mr. Speaker. That was what the member for Portage La Prairie
told me a couple of weeks ago.
"Rotten," that was the word he used to describe the inside of
the apple, the inside of this operation.
Mr.
Speaker, we will pass this bill‑‑[interjection! Well, we will have
speaker for speaker; it is your decision.
We will pass this bill, and if the government chooses to speak, we will
have other speakers, because you cannot defend dead last. You may talk about your little fantasies in
the future. You may talk about all these
things. We have 14,000 fewer
manufacturing jobs May of 1992 over May of 1988. We have fewer jobs in every major sector in
this province than you had when you took office.
We
will pass this bill on third reading, but look at the fact that nobody came out
to speak in favour of Tory economic policies, because there is no Tory economic
policies, and that is why we had the silence of the business community when the
Premier's (Mr. Filmon) bill, without the Premier in presence, was presented to
the committee before the public of Manitoba Monday‑‑zero economic
policy, zero feedback from the business community or the people of
Nobody
in the world is saying how well this government is doing. They are all talking about the fact that you
are in last place. Shame on the
government.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
say a few words about this bill, a very important bill for the future of
I
had the good fortune to participate in some of their meetings last week, and
the enthusiasm and expertise that these 29 individuals bring to the table is
going to do an awful lot of good for the economy of
Several
months ago, we had an opportunity in this House, where there was unanimous
support of all members to have a MUPI, a matter of urgent public importance on
the economy, an opportunity certainly for the opposition parties to come forth with
all of their ideas, their thoughts, what should be done in this province, what
kinds of initiatives should be undertaken. What did we hear, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing, not one idea‑‑anybody
who wants to go back and read Hansard a second time will find that there is
absolutely not a single idea that came forward from the opposition parties,
particularly the NDP opposition. Here we
support this initiative to have an urgent debate on the issue, and not a single
idea comes forth.
* (1930)
I
also hope the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) had an opportunity to read a
survey that came out from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on
Friday, and they were talking about businesses within
If
the Leader of the Opposition takes a look at the provincial breakdown, he will
find that in the
I
encourage the opposition members to take a look at that survey because it is
very telling about the attitude of businesses and individuals trying to do
business in provinces. If you get out and talk to those individuals, you will
find that one of the single most important issues, and one of the single biggest
impediments to expansion and development‑‑and we saw it again today
in another study from CFIB‑‑is the area of taxation.
What
kind of taxation policies did our province have the misfortune of going through
from 1982 to 1988? Shame, I say, to the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the policies that they brought to the
table from that time frame, Mr. Speaker. Look at the increases in taxes during
that time frame, some $800 million plus.
Look at the losses in our Crown corporations, $400 million to $500
million. Think back to MTX. Think back to ManOil. Think back to the continual fiascos and
losses of taxpayers' hard‑earned dollars that were heaped upon us during the
period of 1982‑1988.
We
will not follow policies like that. We
have reduced income taxes. We have
frozen provincial sales taxes, and we have not increased personal income tax,
corporate income tax, provincial sales tax in the last five budgets. We listen to the citizens of
I
have a lot of confidence in this province, Mr. Speaker. You need look no
further than the projections for this province in 1992 and 1993‑‑being
in the top three or four provinces in terms of growth rate and gross domestic
product, leading the nation in private sector investment in the manufacturing
sector, second overall in
We
will not fall into the trap that happened so often to the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) and his party, that they tried to find a quick fix. They think that the quick fix is again to dip
into the pocket of the taxpayer and go out and create make‑work projects
here and make‑work projects there, mismanage our hard‑earned tax
money here, mismanage it there.
In
terms of creating the proper economic climate for a province, it requires sound
fiscal policies in the areas of taxation and how you manage your economy. We are doing just that, Mr. Speaker, and at
the same time, creating pools of capital that allow Manitobans the opportunity
to invest in their province.
You
need look no further than programs like Vision Capital. Look at Grow Bonds in
rural
Look
at the training being provided in conjunction with the private sector. Look at the Workforce 2000 and the training
of some 15,000 employees here in
Individuals
lost confidence in
The
Economic Innovation Technology Council and the 29 citizens committed to that
organization, including two representatives from labour, will be a major part
of the development and the future of this province, Mr. Speaker. I have confidence in them. I hope the Liberal Party has confidence in those
individuals, and I certainly hope the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and
his party start to show some confidence in Manitobans and in their ability to
compete, not only here but throughout the world.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
To facilitate the business of the House, the honourable member for
Osborne with a committee change.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations
be amended as follows:
Mr.
Speaker: In order to facilitate the business of the
House, I will ask the honourable member for Burrows to do his committee change
at this time.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr.
Speaker: To facilitate matters, I will recognize the honourable
member for
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (
Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of Supply
has adopted a resolution respecting Capital Supply, directs me to report same
and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
that the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Bill 9‑The Economic Innovation and
Technology Council Act
Mr.
Speaker: Resuming debate on Bill 9.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended
to participate in the debate at this point, but having listened to the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), I have been inspired to say a
few words at this point, near the closing hours, closing days of the session.
There
is so much that could be said, and it is indeed a very important topic. In fact, the biggest challenge facing Manitobans
today is the challenge of lack of economic growth and exceedingly high
unemployment. We have over 50,000 people
unemployed in
* (1940)
Mr.
Speaker, what we have here is a piece of legislation that really is going to
mean very little in terms of addressing the problem of lack of economic growth
and, certainly, the problem of excessive unemployment. This bill, I am sorry to say, is more a window
dressing than an effective piece of legislation that will have some teeth, some
impact on the future of our economy.
If
you look at the bill and the authorities given to this council and the
intention of the council, you will read that you have an organization that is
very, very similar to the Manitoba Research Council which it is replacing. What this body is doing is simply absorbing
the MRC. You have another name and maybe
one or two other terms of reference, so really you have a warmed‑over Manitoba
Research Council.
Mr.
Speaker, I am not against the idea of having the council. I am not against the idea, but I am saying
that this council, as such, is not going to be effective in turning the tide of
economic decline in this province. Our
economy, unfortunately, has declined very seriously over the last few years. Traditionally, we have been a slow‑growth
economy. Traditionally, we have had, relative to the other provinces, lower
levels of unemployment. When people say,
well, we have the third lowest level of unemployment. So what is new? Traditionally, the three
In
years back, we used to be the very lowest and sometimes the second lowest and
sometimes the third lowest. Now, we are either
third lowest and the odd time, we are the fourth; but to say we are third
lowest is not saying anything significant. The reason we are only third lowest with the
lack of economic growth is the fact that there are many thousands of people who
leave this province to seek employment opportunities elsewhere, particularly,
to the west of us. If those people had
not left, Mr. Speaker, then our unemployment rate would be much higher, but they
go abroad. They leave
As
a matter of fact, there are statistics out again showing that our net
interprovincial migration is very serious, and we do indeed continue to lose
some of the best people, some of the best trained people in our midst. These are the people who are leaving, the
people with skills who are seeking opportunities, not the people usually who
have very few skills and maybe very little motivation. It is those who have motivation, those who have
training who are leaving to go for jobs elsewhere.
So
we have a very serious problem on our hands.
Our economy has stagnated in terms of manufacturing. There are all kinds of figures on that
whether you look at manufacturing shipments or whether you look at the number
of people employed in manufacturing.
As
a matter of fact, the number of people employed in manufacturing, I believe in
this last month that has been reported by Statistics Canada, is 51,000
people. That is May of 1992; whereas
last May, we were at 55,000. Where are
we going?
The
fact is that our manufacturing industries are declining. Housing starts are at
abysmal level. Sure there is some
increase now, but we are so low, we are so down in the valley in terms of housing
starts that it is almost embarrassing to note the level, the very pitiful level
of housing activity in this province. Indeed, it is.
Retail
sales, we heard some figures this morning about how poorly we were doing in
terms of retail sales. The Leader of our
party, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), referred to the investment
situation. As I said, there are figures
showing that we are losing thousands of people through interprovincial migration. Our population, therefore‑‑some
of the best and the brightest are unfortunately leaving us.
So
the minister then talks about‑‑well, what about, you know, he
blames everything on the situation they inherited, even though this government
has been in office now for about four years‑‑still using envelope
No. 1, which Mr. Warner Jorgenson first told the story about the advice from
the outgoing minister to the incoming minister.
The
incoming minister wanted advice. The
story has it that all the advice that I have for you is in three envelopes: numbered
1, 2 and 3, but only use those envelopes if you absolutely have to‑‑[interjection!
I am telling a story.
The
first envelope came along, and he said, only use these envelopes if you are in
real trouble. It was Warner Jorgenson who
first told this story. So the new
minister did not want to but he did get into some trouble. So he opened the first envelope, and it said
blame the previous provincial government. [interjection! I am getting so many interruptions here, my
flow is being interrupted.
The
second envelope had to be opened too because he had difficulty. Subsequently, of course, the second envelope
said blame the federal government.
Finally, a third time occurred. He did not want to do it, but he just
simply had to. He opened the envelope,
and the third envelope said, start preparing three envelopes. So you know, three strikes and you are out.
Mr.
Speaker, I say they are still on the first envelope, blaming the previous
government. The facts are that the last four
years, we have not seen economic growth.
We have seen a lot of economic stagnation.
The
minister says, well, it is all taxation.
I want to remind him that of the 14 percent points of sales tax that people
are paying today‑‑and are very annoyed about it‑‑12 of
those points were put in place by Conservative administrations. We will take credit for two, but the
Conservatives, federally and provincially, have to take credit for the other 12
points.
The
minister did ask rhetorically, in his speech he rhetorically said, well, what
response do we have? What plans do we
have? What is our solution and what is
our approach? Mr. Speaker, there are so
many things that can be done of an affirmative action nature that it would take
us hours to debate them. For example,
the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) talked about more emphasis on research and
development, that is fine, more emphasis on education, that is fine, in
particular types of trades, although, unfortunately, some of these areas have
been squeezed, have been cut back.
Certainly, we should have programs to promote technological innovation,
and indeed we did have those under the
But,
really, Mr. Speaker, my message to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Stefanson) is,
you really do not have any idea of where you are going. You have no economic objectives. You have no economic plan, and I want to say‑‑I
know, maybe you do not like the word plan, but I can tell you there are a
couple of previous administrations who did have some kind of a plan, the TED
report, Targets for Economic Development that came out in the late '60s by a
Conservative administration. There was a
series of goals and objectives in infinite detail, by industry group. These
were objectives that the government had set for itself.
Prior
to that, there was a committee on
There
is no economic research going on now of any consequence to know where are our
strengths, where are our weaknesses, what do we want to achieve, what should we
back off of? It is easy for me to say
this, but there is room and there is certainly a critical need for in‑depth
economic research, and that is simply not going on because this government
believes, we will just leave everything to the market and take a very laissez‑faire
approach, and all things will be resolved.
At
any rate, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabour this. We could talk about
this for some many hours, for many days.
I simply say we will not oppose the legislation, but really, it is a
very, very pitiful attempt at trying to address economic problems. It really is not going to amount to anything
of any great substance, unfortunately.
We are still going to continue to have this slow economic growth, and
until we get some positive programs, action programs, this is going to continue
to be the case. Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
* (1950)
Bill 61‑The Consumer Protection
Amendment Act (4)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 61,
the Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4)?
Is there leave? There is leave.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that
Bill 61, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4) (Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi
sur la protection du consommateur), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 62‑The Business Practices
Amendment Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 62,
The Business Practices Amendment Act (2)?
Is there leave? Leave. It is
agreed to.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the
House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 62,
The Business Practices Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les
pratiques commerciales), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 71‑The Retirement Plan
Beneficiaries Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 71,
The Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act?
Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): With leave of the House,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 71, The
Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act (Loi sur les beneficiaries des regimes de
retraite), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 73‑The Health Care Directives
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 73,
The Health Care Directives and Consequential Amendments Act? Is there leave? Leave.
It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that
Bill 73, The Health Care Directives and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur
les directives en matiere de soins de sante et apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autre lois), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): It is a pleasure for me to rise and speak on
this bill, Bill 73, The Health Care Directives and Consequential Amendments
Act, the reason being that I believe it is very seldom that in this Chamber we
get to debate issues that are almost purely ethical in nature or theological in
nature. I have thought about this. I have talked to people on the phone about
it, and I appreciate having the opportunity to speak on third reading.
I
believe the theological problem that it addresses is our attitude towards dying
and our attitude toward death. In fact, many
people here, I hope, will have read the book On Death and Dying by Dr. Kubler‑Ross
in which she describes the stages people go through when they are dying from
some disease such as cancer, when they know they are going to die, and they go
through different mental states as death approaches. This book, I believe, helps people to
understand those stages, and I think it is helpful to all of us to think about
this. I think that the reason why people
do not like talking about this topic is that most people have an inherent fear
of death, and that is why it is considered difficult to talk about this topic.
Different
religions have different views of death.
For example, our brothers and sisters of the Jewish faith do not believe
in life after death. I think there is
something healthy about that view that says that you only have one life to
live, and therefore, you should live life to its fullest and make every day
count, because there is going to be no pie in the sky by and by, as the
fundamentalists used to be parodied as saying.
Christians,
on the other hand, do believe in life after death and, therefore, should have
no fear of death. I believe, if people
accepted the inevitability of death, that they and their families would not
prolong death with heroic measures or even life‑support systems which
prolong life.
In
committee stage of this bill, we heard a doctor say that there are
approximately 100 patients in Manitoba who are being kept on life‑support
systems, all of whom‑‑and this is a paraphrase of what he said‑‑are
hopeless cases, people who are being kept alive for whom the quality of life is
very, very poor and there is no hope of recovery. I believe that this bill makes it easier for
individuals and families to face and accept death and allow people to carry out
their wishes in dying.
It
is not that long ago that our practices and attitudes in society were quite
different, I would say, as recently as a couple of generations ago. I can remember that my grandfather, for
example, died at home on the farm, and there was no attempt to prolong his
life. I remember a friend telling me,
when I was a child, that she was in the presence of her grandfather, who spoke
to her and then died in his own home. I
am sure it was a sad occasion, but I do not remember that as being particularly
traumatic. It was very touching to hear
my friend talk about that, though.
However,
nowadays, the vast majority of people die in hospitals. As a clergy person, I have had occasion to
visit many people in the hospital as they are dying. I did so recently, visited one of my
constituents who died a couple of weeks later. When I was interning as a
student chaplain, I was at a bedside when a patient died, and that was a very
interesting experience for me to reflect on with my fellow students and my
supervising chaplain.
So
this bill which we support, I believe, helps to address this problem of helping
people to die with dignity and to die with their own wishes being carried out,
either by themselves or by their family members by way of a health care
directive.
I
have actually had some experience, not that long ago, in making a decision
about someone's condition. I had power
of attorney for a senior citizen who was 88 years old, and we took her to the
hospital on December 24, 1990. The next
day, December 25, a doctor at Misericordia phoned and said the patient was in a
comatose state, I guess, and should they prolong the life, or should they
disconnect the life‑support systems?
I
asked some questions about the possibility of recovery. I consulted this person's two closest
friends, and the three of us agreed that we would give the doctor permission to
disconnect the life‑support systems.
Within about three hours, the patient died, and I conducted the funeral
about three days later.
The
person whom I talked to on the phone about this bill has already made a living
will, which she received from a lawyer to make out. This individual did not believe that she
wanted to be a "vegetable"‑‑to use a common phrase‑‑in
her dying days and knew that it was a hard decision for others to make. It is a very difficult decision for others to
make, even if they know what your wishes are.
So there is wisdom in putting one's wishes in writing and letting other
people know what your intentions are and having those intentions followed in
one's final days.
So
we commend the government for this initiative.
We support this bill, and we hope that it will be publicized so that
members of the public will be encouraged to sign a Health Care Directive. It is something that all of us here in this
Chamber should think about as well.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion
agreed to.
* (2000)
Bill 75‑The Health Services Insurance
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House for third reading
of Bill 75, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with the
leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), that Bill 75, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie
et apportent des modifications correlatives a d'autre lois), be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 84‑The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House for third reading
of Bill 84, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)? Leave.
It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with the
leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), that Bill 84, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2
modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation), be now read a third
time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 92‑The Provincial Auditor's
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House for third reading
of Bill 92, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act? Is there leave? Leave?
It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that
Bill 92, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
verificateur provincial), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 94‑The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1992
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 94,
The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1992?
Is there leave? Leave? It is
agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill
94, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 modifiant
diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, we had some
considerable debate on this legislation last night, but I just want to take a
couple of minutes to put on the record a concern that I do not believe was expressed
last evening when we discussed this particular bill, and that is the fact that according
to one section of this taxation bill 94, parents of infants and toddlers will
be hit with a 7 percent increase in cost, payable of course to the provincial government. This is in addition to the 7 percent
GST. In other words, the exemption on disposable
diapers is being removed.
Our
concern is one that we share with the Manitoba Child Care Association which I
know has written to the minister and to several members of the Legislature
pointing out that many parents who use disposable diapers are families from
lower income groups. This is a
fact. The fact is, many parents cannot
even afford to use diaper services, nor do they have washing machines in many cases,
so as a result, they tend to do their laundry at public laundromats. It is very difficult, as I understand, to use
the public laundry for the purpose of cleaning diapers.
This
is a fact, and therefore, the parents of babies, young children and so on, the
low‑income groups, are being penalized by this particular measure,
including not only parents of babies and toddlers, but also those who may have
children who have certain physical or mental handicaps.
Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that this particular section in the act is going
to penalize, in particular, this low‑income group. Now, this is according to the reasoning of
the Manitoba Child Care Association because the low‑income groups‑‑[interjection!
Yes, exemption on disposable diapers.
The
other point that is made is that there are environmental concerns, as well, in
terms of using the reuseable diapers, because the Manitoba Child Care
Association points out that there is strong concern about the effects on the
environment due to the increased use of detergents, bleaches, disinfectants and
water usage in regard to the cleaning of the reusable diapers. Of course, they remind us the City of
At
any rate, the association has made some good points here. I do not want to
belabour it, because I know they have written to the minister. I do not know whether the minister is
prepared to reconsider this particular item.
Maybe he would like to comment on it because I am not intending to make
a speech covering all the many other items.
Perhaps he would like to comment on it, but there is a plea on behalf of
the lower‑income families in
I
would ask the minister to reconsider, and perhaps he would like to
respond. I am not sure. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): It is a very interesting
issue on the statute law taxation issue.
I have been one who produced a paper a couple of years ago about
recycled diapers and the ability of keeping disposables out of the landfill
site. I do not know whether the evidence
produced to us in the last 24 hours, which I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has seen, is accurate or not accurate.
I read pediatric reports from the
What
I am a little concerned about‑‑and it is a point to the minister‑‑here
we have one policy on recycling beverages, and we have a permissive policy for
the soft drink industry, and yet another policy on diapers which one in 10 families
may have to purchase, with children. We
have a different policy on the basis of taxation policy and environment. So it seems to me that some of the biggies in
environmental recycling in terms of taxation policy and deposit legislation we
do not have, and on this one there is a differential.
I
do not have any evidence either way. I
was always under the bias of cloth diapers and recycling. In fact, with my own child, we went through
the recycling. I have received this information,
and I have received some of the information the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans) has received, and if we have collectively made a wrong decision,
I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to look at it. Nothing is placed in stone so long as it cannot
be changed a year later by whoever is in government.
* (2010)
Mr.
Speaker, I have not had a chance to look at this evidence, and I would like to
talk to members of the outside community who are involved in conservation
policy. Certainly I acknowledge that the
people in child care centres, low‑income families, et cetera, seem to me
to be one down by this government initiative, even though I recognize the
government is doing it with laudable goals in mind. Maybe we should look at some of the empirical
evidence in the interim just so that we are sure that what we are doing is
correct and also fair.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Committee Changes
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
I
move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the composition of
the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for the
member for
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (
* * *
Bill 95‑The Tax Appeals Commission
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House for third reading
of Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act?
Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), that Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act (Loi sur la Commission
d'appel des impots des taxes), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I am going to ask the
member of the Committee on Law Amendments if we could recess for a minute, Mr.
Speaker. The member is bringing in a report
of referral from the committee back to the House dealing with Bills 78 and 97.
Mr.
Speaker: We will take a three‑minute recess
starting right now.
* * *
The
House took recess at 8:11 p.m.
After
Recess
The
House resumed at 8:14 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker: The House is ready to go.
Mr.
Manness: While we are waiting for that report, would
you call debate on third readings, Bill 5.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 5‑The
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 5, The Manitoba Advisory Council on the
Status of Women Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Conseil consultatif
manitobain de la situation de la femme, standing in the name of honourable
Leader of the Opposition.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would yield
the floor to our critic.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
I
will not be as extensive in my comments as I would have been had the minister
chosen to report this bill back for third reading earlier in the session. I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, that
the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) was very
quick to bring in this legislation twice and felt that it was vital that it be
passed as quickly as possible and then held this legislation until the
penultimate days of the House sitting.
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to report briefly on what some of the
presentations were in committee hearings which we held on March 5, as I said,
almost four months ago.
We
held these committee hearings on March 5 because the Minister responsible for
the Status of Women attempted to bring in this name change under The Statute
Law Amendment Act of last July. Luckily,
the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to say very briefly that in July of 1991, the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women, when questioned on the need for
this name change said, it is just a housekeeping change to avoid confusion with
the acronym, the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women. I wish that I could say that this was
actually the reason for and only the reason for the name change.
We
found when we canvassed women's groups in this province, when we canvassed
individual women in this province, when we canvassed men in this province, and
when we held the hearings on March 5 of this year that the concerns are far
deeper and more important than simply attempting to make a change in name that would
avoid confusion and acronyms.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the issue of confusion in the acronyms could have easily been
dealt with by adopting any one of a number of names that other status of
women's or women's issues advisory councils have adopted throughout the
country. As a matter of fact, virtually
all provinces and territories and the federal government have advisory councils
on the status of women with either advisory council or women's issues in their
title.
The
one interesting thing, and quite a disturbing thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
I would like to relate to the House is that when the minister went back and,
quote, consulted with members of the community, she also was able to bring
forward a large number of letters, identical letters‑‑which is a
perfectly legitimate proceeding‑‑to the committee hearings. But what was interesting and disturbing for
us in these letters was that the issues that were raised in these letters were
not the true issues dealing with the change of the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women.
* (2020)
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to read into the record that letter that was
signed by a number of private citizens:
I support the change of name of the Manitoba Advisory Council on the
Status of Women to the name proposed on the above bill, Manitoba Women's
Advisory Council. The alternative
proposed‑‑and I underline that‑‑Status of Women
Advisory Council of Manitoba, is not appropriate because the acronym reads
SWACM. When we strive to eliminate
violence from society, such an abbreviation would be unacceptable.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in this House, in debate on Bill 5, that name, proposed
alternative, Status of Women Advisory Council of Manitoba, was one of nine
proposed name changes that were read into the record on that day in this
House. The Minister responsible for the
Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) chose to have people respond‑‑chose
to tell people that was the only proposed name change. I find that is not being clear or concise or
legitimate with the people of
When
we spoke, and when women making presentations to the bill on March 5 spoke, not
a single one spoke in opposition to a name change. They understood the need to change the
acronym so that there would no longer be confusion between the Manitoba Advisory
Council on the Status of Women and the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status
of Women. However, Madam Deputy Speaker,
a large number of the presenters who spoke and sent in written presentations to
that committee said very clearly and very eloquently in many ways that while
the name change was important, it was also basically and ultimately important
that Status of Women remain in the title.
Language
is very important, and we had a good debate on that in the House‑‑and
I will not go into that‑‑early last spring about the importance of
the name and language. The final major thing
that was brought up by the presenters at the hearings in March was, as I have
stated before, the names and language are important and the name of this
advisory council is critical, because if in fact, as one presenter stated, the
focus of this committee is on the status of women, then that is what should be reflected
in the title, so people know what the committee is about and that it remains
focused on that. If systems were working
equitably and fairly, one would not need a Status of Women department, but the
truth is, women are continuing to be treated differently. Therefore, you need to have an advisory committee
that has that in their name change.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, that sentiment was expressed time and time again by women
reporting to the committee. Again, the reason
the Manitoba Advisory Council exists at all is that there is a recognition on
the part of government that women are not yet equally represented in many
important places in society, not in politics, not in senior levels of
government, nor in trades and technology.
An advisory council is an interim measure to work towards increasing
women's representation and their overall status in society and workplace. The hope is that one day women will be
equally represented at all levels and the need for the advisory council will no
longer exist.
There
were also representations made, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the proposed name
change put forward by the government, quote, the Women's Advisory Council of
Manitoba, Manitoba Women's Advisory Council, does not truly reflect or
accurately reflect the past work of this advisory committee, a past that is
full of proposals, of recommendations, of briefs, of reports, since its inception
in 1987. There was concern raised on the
part of many presenters that it was a deliberate choice on the part of the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) to downgrade the
importance and the influence of that advisory council.
As
one woman stated, the suggested name falls short of describing any mandate, nor
does it really impart any power to the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women which is, according to its mandate, to advise the Minister responsible
for the Status of Women on issues that reflect on the status of women in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, one woman in particular made a strong impression on me and on
many other people at the committee hearings.
She was actually a member of the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women. She stated: For me, having status of women in the title
would help ensure that status of women is always an issue. That means for me that the poor, the women
right at the bottom of the ladder, would never be forgotten. She stated that the present name, the
Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women, expresses a desire or mandate
to raise or elevate the status of women, all women, but including the poor and
other disadvantaged minorities. The new name,
in omitting status of women, erodes this.
Soon this council could be addressing only those issues related to women
in power.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I could speak at much greater length reporting on what the
women of
The
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 5? Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An
Honourable Member: On division.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: On division.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mr.
Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments):
Madam Deputy Speaker, by leave, I beg to present the Sixth Report on the
Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Sixth Report.
Your
committee met on Monday, June 22, 1992, at 2:30 p.m. and 7 p.m.; and Tuesday,
June 23, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 and Tuesday, June 23, at 5:23 p.m. in Room 254
of the
Your
committee heard representation on bills as follows:
Bill
78‑The City of
Trevor
Thomas ‑ City of
Written submission:
Cathy
Collins ‑ McDermot‑Sherbrook Residents Association
Your
committee has considered:
Bill
97‑The
and has agreed to report he same without
amendment.
Your
committee recommends that the fees paid with respect to Bill 97 ‑ be
refunded less the cost of printing.
Your
committee has also considered Bill 78‑‑The City of
MOTION:
THAT the proposed clause 33(4)(c), as set out
in section 3 of the Bill, be amended in the English version by striking out
"major" and substituting "mayor".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 87.3(2), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
Notice 87.3(2)
A notice referred to in subsection (1) shall be in writing, shall
specify the matter and the proceeding and shall be given to the city clerk
(a)
in the case of a regular meeting of council, not lessthan two working days
before the proceeding; and
(b)
in the case of a special or emergency meeting of council,within a reasonable
time having regard to the period ofnotice that is given for the special or
emergency meeting.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 87.3(3), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "in proceedings
of or before the community committee in the designated area and those proceedings"
and substituting "in a proceeding of or before the community committee in
the designated area with respect to a matter and the proceeding with respect to
that matter".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 87.3(4), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be struck out.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsections 87.4(1), (2) and
(3), as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended in the French version by
adding "oralement" after "servir".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 87.4(6), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "the St. Boniface
Ward" and substituting "historic St. Boniface".
MOTION:
THAT section 5 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed subsection 87.4(6):
Definition 87.4(7) In subsection (6), "historic St.
Boniface" means the area bounded on the east by the centre line of Panet
Road, extending north from the Canadian National Railway Right of Way to the
centre line of Mission Street, thence north along the centre line of Panet Road
to the northern limit of River Lot 72 in the Parish of St. Boniface; on the
west by the eastern bank of the Red River; on the north by the northern limit
of River Lot 72 in the Parish of St. Boniface and on the south by a line drawn southeasterly
from the eastern bank of the Red River along the northern limit of Lots 37, 36,
33 and 32, Plan Number 4709 to the centre line of St. Mary's Road and thence
southeast along the centre line of St. Mary's Road to the centre line of
Enfield Crescent and its straight projection east to the centre line of Kenny
Street and its straight projection north to the back land between Berry Street
and Goulet Street and its straight projection east to the eastern limit of Plan
No. 692, thence northerly to the centre line of Bertand Street and its straight
projection east to the centre line of the Seine River, thence north along this
line to the northern limit of Plan No. 1507 extending to the eastern limit of
the land taken for the Right of Way of the Canadian Pacific Railway (Emerson
Branch) thence northerly along the eastern limit of the land taken for the said
Right of Way to the northeastern limit of the land taken for the Right of Way
of the Canadian National Railway according to registered Plan No. 6705; thence
southeasterly along the same northeastern limit to the northern limit of Parcel
4 in Plan Number 6737 and its straight northeasterly projection along the Canadian
National Railway spurline known as the MacArthur cut‑off; thence easterly
to the centre line of Panet Road.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 87.5, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
Application 87.5(1) This section applies in respect of municipal
services other than those available at an office
Receipt of municipal services in St. Boniface
Ward 87.5(2) Every person resident in
St. Boniface Ward is entitled to receive in the official language of his or her
choice at a facility of the city within the Ward or at his or her place of residence
all municipal services that are ordinarily provided at that facility or place
of residence.
Municipal services for designated area 87.5(3) Every person who is resident in the
designated area and who goes to a facility of the city where a municipal
service is ordinarily provided is entitled to have that municipal service provided
in either official language within the designated area or at any location
designated by council by by‑law under subsection 87.11(1) for the
purposes of this subsection.
Subsequent communications 87.5(4) A person who is entitled to a municipal
service in the official language of his or her choice under this section and
who initiates communication respecting that service in the official language of
his or her choice is entitled to use or to require the use of that official
language in all subsequent communications, whether spoken or written, with
respect to that service.
MOTION:
THAT section 87.8, as set out in section 5 of
the Bill be amended
(a)
in the heading preceding subsection (1), by striking out"Information
signs" and substituting "Signs respectingmunicipal services";
and
(b)
by adding the following after subsection (1):
General information signs 87.8(1.1)In addition
to the signs referred to in subsection (1), all signs that are inside or
outside each location where municipal services are available in both official
languages and that provide information to the public shall be erected and maintained
in both official languages.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 87.11(1), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a)
in that portion of the subsection preceding clause (a) byadding ", not
later than September 1, 1992," after "The Cityof Winnipeg
shall";
(b)
in clause (b), by striking out "87.5(4), 87.5(5)" andsubstituting
"87.5(2), 87.5(3)", and
(c)
in clause (c), by striking out "87.5(5)" and substituting"87.5(3)".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 87.14, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be renumbered as subsection 87.14(1) and the following added
after it:
Consultations 7.14(2) In the course of the review referred to in
subsection (1), the minister may consult with the public with respect to such
matters as the minister considers advisable.
MOTION:
THAT subsection 608(4), as set out in
subsection 12(2) of the Bill, be amended by adding "made after July 26,
1991" before ", does not exceed five years".
MOTION:
THAT the Bill be amended by adding the
following after section 12:
12.1(1) Section 617, as enacted by The City of
WinnipegAmendment Act, S.M. 1991‑92, c. 15, s. 18 and proclaimed inforce
on May 27, 1992, is repealed and is deemed never tohave been in force.
12.1(2) The following is added after section 616:
SUBDIVISION STANDARDS
Subdivision standards by‑laws 617(1) Council shall pass by‑laws
establishing standards, criteria or requirements respecting the subdivision of
land in the city.
Content of standards by‑laws 617(2) A by‑law passed under subsection (1)
shall conform with this Act, Plan Winnipeg, secondary plans and development by‑laws,
and may establish standards, criteria or requirements respecting any of the
following:
(a) the layout of, and access to, dedicated land,
lots,blocks, and other units of land;
(b)
the construction, reconstruction and alteration ofhighways;
(c)
the width, grade and election of highways, by referenceto minimum or maximum
standards, criteria or requirements, orto any other standard council considers
appropriate;
(d)
the provision and location of strips of land to act asbuffers;
(e) the efficient use of energy, including the
orientationof lots and parcels so as to obtain maximum benefit fromsolar
energy;
(f) transportation systems, including their
operation in amatter that is efficient and convenient for citizens;
(g) the determination of whether land is suitable
forsubdivisions;
(h) the provision of utilities and municipal
services;
(i) sites for schools, parks and recreation
areas;
(j) the protection of sensitive lands;
(k) flood control;
(l) the conveyance or dedication of land for
public purposesother than highways;
(m) such other matters as council considers
advisable.
Referral of proposed by‑law for report 617(3) Notwithstanding subsection 628(2), council
shall, before giving second reading to a by‑law proposed under subsection
(2), refer the proposed by‑law to a committee of council which shall give
notice of, and conduct, a public hearing and submit a report to council in
accordance with a by‑law passed under subsection 628(1).
MOTION:
THAT the proposed clause 641(3)(b), as set out
in section 13 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "clause (1)(b)"
and substituting "clause (2)(b)".
MOTION:
THAT the Bill be amended by adding the
following after section 17:
17.1(1) Subsection 668(1) is amended
(a)
in the definition "purchase
price", by adding "by aseller" after "electricity or gas is
sold"; and
(b)
by repealing the definition "seller" and substituting thefollowing:
"seller"
means
(a) in the case of electricity, a person, including
ManitobaHydro, who has agreed to sell to a consumer electricity thatthe person
supplies directly to that consumer, or
(b) in the case of gas, a person
(i) who has agreed to sell to a consumer gas that
theperson supplies directly to that consumer, or
(ii) who supplies gas to a consumer on behalf of abroker
who has entered into an agreement to sell thatgas to the consumer;
("vendeur")
17.1(2)
The following is added after subsection 668(6):
Refund of money paid as tax on gas 668(6.1) A
by‑law passed under this section may, where a consumer has entered into
an agreement with a broker for the purchase of gas at a price (referred to in
this subsection as the "broker's price") that is less than the
purchase price of the seller who supplies the gas,
(a) provide for a refund to the consumer of the
differencebetween the amount of tax that
(i) The consumer paid to the seller on the
purchaseprice of the gas, and
(ii) the consumer would have paid if the tax had
beenpaid only on the broker's price of the gas;
(b) prescribe the amount below which no refund is
requiredto be made; and
(c) require any application for a refund to be
made beforethe expiration of such period as is prescribed.
MOTION:
THAT section 18 of the Bill be amended
(a) in subsection (1), by striking out "3,
5, 9, 11 and 12"and substituting "3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 and subsection
12.1(2)";and
(b) by repealing subsections (3) and (4) and
substitutingthe following:
Coming into force: s. 4, 5, 9 and 12.1(2) 18.(3) The following provisions come into force on a
day fixed by proclamation:
(a) section 4;
(b) section 5;
(c) section 9; and
(d)
subsection 12.1(2).
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments
adopted by this committee.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Reimer: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee
be received.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader):
Madam Deputy Speaker, we would ask that you call Bill 53 for third reading.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 53‑The Dangerous Goods Handling
and Transportation Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le
transport des marchandises dangereuses), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
held the bill on behalf of our critic, who is prepared to speak on the bill on
third reading at this point.
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am pleased to add my comments on a piece of legislation that I am happy to
support, environment legislation that the government is bringing in that is
actually going to be a positive step.
It
is going to be a positive step because it is going to enable the government to
issue remedial work orders to deal with contaminated sites, hazardous waste or
other contamination that has been, up to this point, outside the realm of work
orders issued by the department, because these are sites that are no longer
owned by the polluter or oftentimes no longer owned at all.
* (2030)
The
legislation, as I said, is a positive step.
I just want to put some emphasis, though, on what it took to get this government
to bring in this legislation. It is
somewhat satisfying to have the government's own notes on the bill indicate
that this has been brought in to deal with the Domtar site, which is a
hazardous waste site in my own constituency, and I am pleased to see that this
issue has forced the proclamation and the development of this legislation. There are other sections of The Dangerous
Goods Act that also are being proclaimed and should also be proclaimed that
will only go to having this government keep its commitment.
It
is interesting what it took for this government to actually bring in this
bill. They have had an opportunity because
they have been dealing with the Domtar contaminated site in Transcona for a
number of years, but it was only after there was a group organized in
Transcona, it was only after the Premier (Mr. Filmon), himself, was personally
implicated as being responsible for allowing resident housing to go into the
area that caused the controversy and caused the outcry that required some
action and some clear and determined action.
It will be from this act that work orders can be issued so that this
site will in fact be put on a clean‑up time line and will be dealt with
in a way that is going to make the area safe for residents.
Through
the committee hearings though, it became apparent that this is not the solution
to all the problems. It is a sad comment
on the state of the environment that we are dealing with a number of different
problems with contaminated sites that are no longer owned by the polluter. We saw a case with PCBs in Stonewall where
even though there was some indication made by the government to the residents
who have in their back yard PCB contamination from oil used on a golf course
that took in the area of their back yard, this legislation may not include
that.
The
legislation is quite broad in trying to catch any individual who had prior
ownership who was in charge of the dangerous goods that were put onto the site,
but it does not deal with the fact that if the owner was not the person
responsible for the dangerous goods or the hazardous waste finding its way onto
a site, then we are not sure this legislation is going to be adequate in
issuing work orders to see that there is a responsible party going to be forced
to see that it is cleaned up.
The
legislation is strong in the sense that it is specific to indicate that there
be orders to pay for the cleanup, and it is going to allow the minister to
authorize a work order that will determine who that party should be and that
there will be specific time lines. I
guess the big concern is that we will have to see if the government will
actually use it.
There
is lots of other legislation, environment legislation, that is on the books
that the government of the day currently has a hard time enforcing and
using. I would hate to see that this becomes
one of them. As the minister has said
throughout the discussion of this bill, there are a lot of areas that this kind
of legislation is going to be moving toward.
We
may be moving toward the legislated need for certification, some kind of certification
system for land to ensure that sites are tested and certified as being safe
before they are sold. I was saying
earlier, it is a sad comment on the state of our environment when we have to
resort to that, but the land leasing and banks are leery of this kind of case,
the kind of case that is provoking the need for this legislation.
I
would recommend to the government that they must keep up the pace and that they
must stay on top, and be at the forefront even, of developing legislation that
will deal with hazardous waste and deal with areas contaminated with various
kinds of hazardous waste.
With
that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and I look forward to
the speedy implication, and the proclamation, and the use of this bill. Thank you.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 53 (The Dangerous Goods
Handling and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask if you could
please call Bill 74 for debate on third reading.
Bill 74‑The Law Society Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Third reading of Bill 74, on the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), The Law Society Amendment
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe du Barreau), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, the member for Concordia
has indicated we are prepared to pass this bill.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 74. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): I
would ask if you could please call for debate on third reading, Bill 88.
Bill 88‑The Homesteads, Marital
Property Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Third reading of Bill 88, on the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), The Homesteads, Marital
Property Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la propriete familiale,
modifiant la Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member for Concordia
(Mr. Doer).
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer)?
An
Honourable Member: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
Ms.
Barrett: I want to put just a few brief words on the
record in support of Bill 88. It makes
some changes to The Marital Property Act and puts in place a new homesteads act
in replacement of The Dower Act.
Basically,
it makes these changes in the understanding that‑‑and following
through the philosophy that marriage is an equal partnership. It deals with various dispositions of property
before and after death.
As
I stated, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are prepared to support this legislation and
only wish that there was more legislation on the Order Paper from the
government in this session that was as progressive and understanding of the
needs of women in this province. Thank
you.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 88. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader):
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could please call for debate on third reading,
Bill 89.
Bill 89‑The Family Maintenance
Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 89, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'obligation alimentaire), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
* (2040)
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
On
Wednesday, June 10 of this year, the Stonewall Argus and Teulon Times had a
signed editorial dealing with the implications of this bill on rural
women. I thought it was important to put
this on the record, and I would hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
and the rest of the government pay attention to the concerns that are raised by
this woman, because I believe very strongly they reflect not only her concerns,
but the concerns on the part of many women in this province as it deals with
issues of domestic and other kinds of violence.
This
woman is talking about the increase of penalties for noncompliance of a
restraining order with fines up to $1,000 and one year in prison. While she states that is a positive move and that
it makes a little more clear to everyone in this province that abuse is
something that will not be tolerated, she does say, and I would like to quote,
Madam Deputy Speaker: While such a change
may deter men who are close to crossing the line into violence, it is unlikely
to have much effect on those who already have.
If a man is so irrational that he will not be deterred by the penalties
for assault or murder, violating a nonmolestation order is not going to mean
much.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, anyone who has worked with abused women will know that is
true. It is also in the papers regularly
that women say they are afraid for their lives, and when they are told by the
justice system, do not worry you have a restraining order, they laugh, ruefully
I might add, and say that is not worth the paper it is printed on. So we do have many long‑standing, long‑term
solutions that need to be found for the issues of domestic violence and other
violence perpetrated on, particularly, women and children in our province.
Another
specific thing that this woman recommended or a problem that she brought up
that I think is of great importance, particularly to those who live outside the
urban centres in our province, is that women in the country do not have access
to 911 or any other emergency phone number.
They are often at the mercy of a party line. It is very difficult for them to, perhaps in the
fear of the moment, remember the seven‑ or eight‑digit RCMP line.
So
the concern is there, too, that issues that relate to women and children who
live outside the large urban communities in small‑town and rural and
northern Manitoba are issues that need to be addressed specifically and
particularly by all governments. While
Bill 89 goes a step towards addressing these issues, these important issues of
domestic violence, there is still much more work that needs to be done. I would recommend to the Minister of Justice
that he work with the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) and bring
forward some legislation in the next session of the Legislature that reflects the
needs of all Manitobans no matter where they reside. With that caveat, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
are prepared to pass this legislation.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
REPORT STAGE
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, with leave of the House, I would move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 78, The
City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de
Winnipeg, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave for
Bill 78, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (3)?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 97‑The
and Theological Seminary Incorporation
Amendment Act
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, with leave of the House, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) that Bill 97, The
Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Winnipeg Bible College
and Theological Seminary," reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable deputy government House
leader have leave for Bill 97, The Winnipeg Bible College and Theological
Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act? Is
there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
THIRD
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 78, The City of Winnipeg Amendment
Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, be now read a
third time and passed.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable deputy government House
leader have leave for third reading of Bill 78, The City of Winnipeg Amendment
Act (3)? Is there leave? Leave?
It is agreed.
Motion presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate on Bill 78 be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 97‑The
and Theological Seminary Incorporation
Amendment Act
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 97, The Winnipeg Bible College and
Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le "Winnipeg Bible College and Theological
Seminary," be now read a third time and passed.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable deputy government House
leader (Mr. Praznik) have leave for third reading of Bill 97, The Winnipeg
Bible College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act? Is there leave? Leave?
It is agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Shirley Render (Chairperson of Standing Committee on Industrial Relations): Mr.
Speaker, by leave, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on
Industrial Relations.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Vital have
leave to report? Leave? That is agreed.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Industrial
Relations presents the following as its First Report.
Your
committee met on Friday, June 19 at 1 p.m., Monday, June 22 at 2:30 p.m. and 7
p.m. and Tuesday, June 23, 1992, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Your
committee heard representation on bills as follows:
Bill
64‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les services a l'enfant et a la famille
Rob
Grant ‑
Written Submissions:
Dennis
Schellenberg ‑ Child and Family Services of CentralManitobaJerry Ross ‑
Private CitizenGillian Colton ‑ Private CitizenGale Pearase ‑
Director, The Street Kids and Youth Project
Bill
70‑The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autres lois
Genny
Funk‑Unrau ‑ Private CitizenPal Wooley ‑
Bill
76‑The Pension Benefits Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
prestations de pension
Susan
Cormack ‑ Private CitizenBev Hindle and Al Rieger ‑ Private
CitizensSusan Hart‑Kulbaba ‑ Manitoba Federation of LabourIrene
Giesbrecht ‑ Manitoba Nurses' UnionMarilyn Gault ‑ Manitoba
Advisory Council on the Status ofWomenJean Minish ‑ Private CitizenJeri
Bjornson ‑ Charter of Rights CoalitionCynthia Devine ‑ Manitoba Association
of Women and the LawTerry Clifford ‑ Manitoba Teachers' SocietyRon
Youngston ‑ Turnbull and TurnbullStan Hutton ‑ Private Citizen
Written Submissions:
Christine
Merritt ‑ Private CitizenGisele Rouillard ‑ Private CitizenArlene
Wilson ‑ Private CitizenDoris Alarie ‑ Private CitizenLynn
Chwartacki ‑ Private CitizenEd Legary ‑ Private CitizenAndrew
Dawson and Wayne Byron ‑
Bill
85‑The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
relations du travail
Susan
Hart‑Kulbaba ‑ Manitoba Federation of LabourJohn Doyle ‑
Private CitizenIrene Giesbrecht ‑ Manitoba Nurses' UnionSid Green ‑
Leader of the Progressive Party of ManitobaSusan Spratt ‑ Canadian
Autoworkers UnionPeter Olfert ‑ Manitoba Government Employees'
AssociationHoward Raper ‑ Communications & Electrical Workers of
CanadaBill Sumerlus and Paul Moist ‑ CUPE, National/CUPE ‑ Local
500Terry Clifford ‑ Manitoba Teachers' SocietyRichard Orlandini ‑
ChoicesBernard Christophe ‑ United Food and Commercial WorkersRoland
Doucet ‑ Private Citizen
Written Submissions:
Ross
Martin ‑ Brandon and District Labour Council, CLCJames Cowan ‑
Graphic Communications International UnionNeil Harden ‑ The Professional
Institute of the PublicServices of CanadaSandy Hopkins ‑
Bill
100‑The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992; Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives
Terry
Clifford ‑
Your
committee has considered:
Bill
42‑The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
divertissements
Bill
70‑The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autres lois
Bill
100‑The Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act; Loi modifiant les lois sur les
regimes de retrait
and has agreed to report the same without
amendment.
Your
committee has considered
Bill
64‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les services a l'enfant et a la famille
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT section 4 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed section 8.12:
Review by committee 8.13Within three years of
the coming into force of this section, a committee of the Legislative Assembly,
designed or established by the Legislative Assembly for the purpose, shall undertake
a comprehensive review of the operation of this Part and shall, within one year
after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the Legislative
Assembly may allow, submit to the Legislative Assembly a report on the
operation of this Part, including any amendments to the Act which the committee
recommends.
Your
committee has considered:
Bill
76‑The Pension Benefits Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
prestations de pension, and has agreed to report the same with the following
amendments:
MOTION:
THAT section 5 of the English version of the
Bill be amended by striking out clause (b) and substituting the following:
(b)
by adding ",the payment of pension benefits any othermatters respecting
pension plans" at the end of clause (a);and
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 11(2), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "subsection (1)"
and substituting "clause (1)(a)".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 11(3), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be struck out and the following be substituted:
Law governing agreement with Canada 11(3) An agreement under clause (1)(a) between
Manitoba and the authorized representative of the Government of Canada shall indicate
whether the provisions respecting the payment of pension benefits and the other
matters contained in the agreement are to be governed by the laws of Manitoba
or the laws of Canada or a specified combination of both, and the provisions
shall be governed by the laws so indicated or the combination so specified.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 18(2.1), as set
out in section 6 of the Bill, be amended
(a)
by striking out "registered" and substituting "submittedfor
registration"; and
(b)
in clause (c), by striking out "mechanism" andsubstituting
"mechanism satisfactory to the superintendent".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed clause 21(4)(c), as set out
in subsection 7(5) of the Bill, be amended
(a)
in subclauses (i) and (ii), by striking out "memberretired" and
substituting "member died, retired"; and
(b)
in the English version of subclause (ii), by striking out"that" and
substituting "than".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 25(1), as set out
in section 10 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "or on behalf
of".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 26.1(8), as set
out in section 12 of the Bill, be struck out and the following be substituted:
Refund of contributions 26.1(8) Contributions made to a multi‑unit
pension plan by a member that are not vested or locked in pursuant to
subsection (7) shall be refunded to the member in the manner provided in section
22.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 31(6), as set out
in subsection 13(3) of the Bill, be amended by adding "and the agreement
shall otherwise be in form and content as the minister may by regulation
prescribe." at the end.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments
adopted by this committee.
Your
committee has considered Bill 85, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail, and has agreed to report the
same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT subsection 7(1) of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed subsection 45(3.1):
Proof of information provided 45(3.2) Proof of compliance with subsection (3.1) may
consist of the signature of the employee on a statement that the employee has
been provided with information respecting:
(a)
any initiation fees and regular membership dues of theunion; or
(b)
where any such initiation fees and regular membershipdues are not determined,
the manner in which the initiationfees and membership dues are determined;
and that the employee understands the
information.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 45(4), as set out
in subsection (2) of the Bill, be amended by striking out everything after
clause (b) and substituting the following:
the board
(c)
may, in a case under clause (a), dismiss the applicationor order a vote to
determine the wishes of the employees inthe unit; and
(d)
shall not, in a case under clause (b), accept themembership of an employee in
the union as evidence of thewish of the employee to have the union represent
the employeeas bargaining again, where the employee did not receiveinformation
in accordance with subsection (3.1).
MOTION:
THAT the proposed clause 48.1(b), as set out
in section 8 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "or other
activity".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 48.1, as set out in
section 8 of the Bill, be amended by renumbering it as subsection 48.1(1) and adding
the following as subsection 48.1(2):
Electioneering by other persons 48.1(2) Any person, other than a person referred to
in subsection (1), who does anything that would be an unfair labor practice
under subsection (1) if done by an employer or union is guilty of an offence.
MOTION:
THAT subsection 68(3.1), as set out in section
9 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "shall" and substituting
"may, after the expiry of 90 days and before the expiry of 120 days from
the day of the appointment."
MOTION:
THAT clause 87(1)(b), as set out in subsection
11(1) of the Bill, be amended by adding ",or 120 days have expired since
the appointment", after "subsection 68(3.1".
MOTION:
THAT the bill be amended by striking out
section 12 and substituting the following:
12
Subsection 130(6) is amended by striking out "The board may appoint
a" and substituting "Where the board has added the name of a part‑time
vice‑chairperson to the list of arbitrators under subsection 117(2), the
board may appoint the".
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments
adopted by this committee.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mrs.
Render: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, now that
those bills have been reported to the House, I propose that we would do report
stage on Bills 42, 64, 70, 76, 85 and 100, all requiring leave of the House.
* (2050)
REPORT STAGE
Bill 42‑The Amusements Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to report Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act? Is there leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
divertissements, reported from the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations,
be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 64‑The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 64, The Child
and Family Services Amendment Act?
Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed to.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I
would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that
Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les services a l'enfant et a la famille) as amended and reported from the
Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 70‑The Social Allowances
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 70, The Social Allowances
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act?
Leave? It is agreed to.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that
Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autres lois), reported from the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations,
be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), seconded by the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), reported from the Standing
Committee on Industrial Relations, be concurred in. Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
Bill 76‑The Pension Benefits
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 76, The Pension
Benefits Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de
pension? Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill
76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
prestations de pension, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on
Industrial Relations, be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik), seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension, as amended and reported from
the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be concurred in. Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
Bill 85‑The Labour Relations
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 85, The Labour Relations
Amendment Act?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill
85, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations
du travail, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Industrial
Relations, be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik), seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 85, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail, as amended and reported from the
Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, be concurred in. Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
Bill 100‑The Pension Plan Acts
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 100, The
Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 100,
The Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act; Loi modifiant les lois sur les regimes de
retraite, reported from the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, be
concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I propose to call third readings of the same bills.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. We will ascertain if there is leave.
THIRD
Bill 42‑The Amusements Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): With leave of the House,
would you call Bill 42.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House for third reading
of Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 42 (The
Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements), be now
read a third time and passed.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable government
House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), that Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les divertissements, be now read a third time and passed. Agreed?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that debate be adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer), that debate be adjourned.
Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 64‑The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 64,
The Child and Family Services Amendment Act?
Leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), that Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille), be now read a
third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate on Bill 64 be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 70‑The Social Allowances
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 70,
The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois)? Leave. It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): With the leave of the
House, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), that Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I move, seconded by the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate on Bill 70 be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 76‑The Pension Benefits
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 76,
The Pension Benefits Amendment Act?
Leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with the
leave of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik),
that Bill 76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act, be now read a third time and
passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
* (2100)
Bill 85‑The Labour Relations
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 85,
The Labour Relations Amendment Act?
Leave? It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 85, The Labour Relations Amendment
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail), be now read a third
time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 100‑The Pension Plan Acts
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 100,
The Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act?
Leave? It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 100, The
Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act (Loi modifiant les lois sur les regimes de
retraite), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Speaker: In order to facilitate the House, the
honourable member for
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member
for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen); Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
I
move, seconded by the member for Interlake, that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
[Agreed!
House Business
Mr.
Manness: I am proposing that we go into Committee of
Supply, but before we do I would like the unanimous consent of the House to
move certain bills that have been referred to Law Amendments back to Municipal Affairs.
Now,
I do so only because I understand the bills that are presently before Municipal
Affairs seem to be progressing quite rapidly, and as we have a backlog in Law
Amendments, I would ask unanimous consent to move certain bills back into
Municipal Affairs to be dealt with possibly later tonight.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have [interjection! Oh, here they come.
Okay.
Mr.
Manness: Those bills would be 98 and Bill 96, and is
93 still there? We are done with that, are
we not?
Mr.
Speaker, Bills 93, 96 and 98.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to bring Bill 93, Bill 96 and Bill 98 into Municipal Affairs? Agreed.
That is agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider
of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable
government House leader (Mr. Manness), seconded by the honourable Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the
House resolve itself into a committee‑‑order, please.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, before you put the motion, I
think there is a motion on the record saying that we adjourn at eleven o'clock. I would like to have the unanimous consent of
the House to waive that and to sit for a later period of time, with unanimous
consent of the members here.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House? We had previously agreed to sit until 11
p.m.; now we are asking to sit later than 11 p.m. Is there unanimous consent of the House to sit
beyond 11 p.m.?
Some
Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for
SUPPLY‑CAPITAL SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. The committee is considering all
the supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of expenditure for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1993, which have been adopted at this session by the two
sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
An
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to ask some
more questions of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and some clarification
in terms of the capital project the minister tabled this afternoon. I was asking in terms of the long‑term
plan and whether it meets the needs of the health care reform package, and
certainly I had a few comments from outside individuals who have gone through
this report very quickly and most of them agree that this is in line actually
with the health action plan.
* (2110)
I
just want to have assurance from the minister that there will not be any policy
that will say that we cannot change anything out of this package, because we
may require some changes to fit the actual implementation of the health action
plan, and that may be required from time to time. I just want the minister to know we cannot
have a rigid rule with the capital funding any more if you are going to have
your health action plan, and I just want to know whether the minister does
agree with that kind of statement.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Yes, I do agree with that,
and that is really the essence of the discussion I had with my honourable
friend the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), because since
approximately '86 or '87 there has been a substantial amount of work coming
around the role/function of Brandon General Hospital. There have been changes as recently as the
last year and a half where we have made the decision that we would incorporate
acute psychiatric beds. It has been
talked about, but it is part of our planning process now, given decisions that
we are making around Brandon Mental Health Centre. So, yes, I say to my honourable friend that
there is commitment to change.
Let
me give my honourable friend another example.
In the
But
what I would like to say is that the projects that we have, particularly in
architectural planning and particularly the ones that are in the construction
phase, are ones that we believe fit the long‑term goals as established
over the next two years in the action plan for reform and the longer term out
to meet the needs as we see it at the turn of the century and on.
That
does not mean that, for instance, there are not going to be changes in the
scope of the
I
would venture to say that the concept of just five years or seven years ago is
now somewhat different than what it is today, because there have been decisions
in '87 to close beds there and further decisions just in January of this year
to close beds as services have moved to the community through outpatient
surgery and other community‑based provision of services.
Mr.
Cheema: Madam Chairperson, I think it is very
essential that any long‑term planning, specifically with the capital projects‑‑because
when you are building beds, whether they are acute care beds or chronic care
beds or some other form of health care facility, it is very easy to build in a
way that it will give you some extra mileage for the short term, but you may be
doing something wrong for the long run.
It
has happened in the past, so I just want the minister to be very cautious and
not really get into that kind of planning where I have seen failures in the
past. Exactly what is required is a sound
knowledge and a long‑term vision, because if we do not have both, you
cannot have a capital project, because it is not good to build places when you
cannot fund them to operate. Because once you have a bed somewhere, it is very
difficult to take that bed out. That is
what the health care providers and patients are saying too, that maybe we did
not need so many places first‑hand.
That actually has happened.
Because
once you have an extra bed there, it is going to be occupied, and that is well
known. I think that is why it is so essential,
and we want to emphasize again that any long‑term health care planning
should be based on the true need of a community and not on the short‑term
things, because once you are gone after four years, you are going to leave
something which is going to be very difficult to get rid of. Then blaming and counterblaming starts, then,
I think, it is just a waste of time.
So
we want to, again, emphasize that anything which will be done, the minister
should make sure that the health action plan's basic intent is not being
violated by anyone, and to put a system like that that does not matter what
happens in 1994. Anybody who would like
to change this basic plan should face a lot of tough opposition from the health
care providers and patients.
That
is why I think it is very crucial to have everything put in place, all the
basic things, all the primary work must be done in terms of analysis, in terms
of the basic planning. That is why the
health policy centre is so essential to the whole plan. I mean, when we came to
know the health centre was being set up, we knew what was going to happen. It was something that any government can say,
well, it is not my political ideology, I am basing it on the data which is
available and it is
You
cannot go wrong with that. That is why
if you have all the things put in place, then it will very difficult, whether this
government or next government or any Minister of Health cannot even touch those
things. But to build something today and
not to use it for the long run, I think that causes many problems. That is the issue not only with the capital
funding but with the other health care associated in terms of the health care
providers, in terms of the school of nursing or
Everything
when it was started in 1967 and '68 was based on 36 million population in this
country, and not only for the physician manpower but everything else. So what has happened when you put something
in place‑‑once you have a whole structure put in place, it is very
difficult to touch anyone. A basic fight
for survival comes there, and then people create needs, whether they are real
or not. I think that is a point, but within
the short life of any given minister it is very, very difficult to really come
to any conclusion with that. There are a
lot of barriers. One can set up
committees, but then there will be countercommittees and counterstudies to back
up what is required. So my basic point
here is that the long‑term planning, whether it is capital funding or the
health care provider funding or the health care resources, if you want to call
that, it has to be based on the true need in five or ten years' time.
I
mean, you can have any other minister, whether it is the Minister of Industry,
Trade, other ministers, and it could be changed; but it is very important to
have the same Health minister at least for four or five years because it takes
a minimum of that amount of time to understand the whole thing and put the
whole process. That is why right now
many in government would wish they had a minister who has been there for a long
time. They are having a difficult
time. If you are not knowledgeable, if
you do not have understanding of the whole system, then you are being run by
somebody who does not have interest, probably because they are not
accountable. Only the elected officials
are accountable.
This
is so important, very crucial that anything which is put in place now‑‑I
want to emphasize again, because, who knows, I may not be able to get this
opportunity to say those things‑‑but it is so essential that those
things are put on the record, that whatever we do here has to be on that basis
of true need and not on the basis of a short‑term political gain or
mileage or whatever you want to call it.
That is why when I went through this report, this very short period of
time, I was satisfied that this planning is based on the need assessment and
not on which riding is represented by which party and which riding is not represented
by the opposition or the other groups.
That is why we can see some investment done in Thompson; some is going
to be in
* (2120)
That
is another thing that I want to say, that the health care issue has‑‑I
think it is the first time probably since the minister took over in 1988‑‑it
has truly become a very, very rational issue.
It is not anymore an emotional issue, which was very tough to get rid
of.
Secondly,
it is not a political issue anymore in the broader term. It may be that something is attached because
certainly the minister is in power to implement those things, and they are going
to get credit and that is fair. I think
that is the way that life is, but certainly it is not likely that you are going
to announce 10 beds here and tomorrow they are going to have a demonstration. We have not seen any single demonstration yet
against the health action plan.
That
says a lot, because people want to know how you are going to deliver, if you
are going to oppose it, who is going to pay the bills, and what is the reality
of life? I think if we do not address
those issues we are running away from the responsibility. I would like to contribute anything‑‑[interjection!
That probably took us four years. [interjection! Well, it is not a question of
what I am going to do, time will tell.
It
is very important to put those things‑‑and I mean somebody else
will take the time, and I do not want to pass my time like this. I want to put something on the record. It is four or five years of a lot of hard
work, many hours of research based on the scientific analysis, and I think it
is‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Harry is getting tired.
Mr.
Cheema: If the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) is not very pleased to listen to what the government is going to do, I
think that is his problem, not mine. I am
not going to stop because it is very essential for me to put those remarks on
the record because, as I said, it is very difficult to be rational in politics,
and once you do it, then you want to make sure your message is conveyed.
To
convey that message, for us, as I said again today, that even if we take four
or five front or second pages, put it . . . the health action plan, and I think
our role is to make sure. The member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)
should know that. Our role here is to make
sure this plan is being implemented, because it is not going to be difficult
for various interest groups to derail this plan. It would have been a wonderful day for them
when the plan was being put forward that the political parties were having a .
. . . We could have torn this report
upside‑down and it would have been a disaster, but the tone was set in a
way, I think, that is very positive, and we are very happy with that kind of an
approach.
Certainly
I will not take more time, but I want to emphasize again, please do not get
yourself away from the normal path, which is not easy, but once people would
remember it‑‑because as I said, I think it was six months ago, that
a person can remember only a few things in life for something that you do, and
any minister of life, there are a couple of things one can remember. If we can
have mental health reform and the major health action plan at least, I think
that is a major statement.
Whether
that is true today, in my view it is true, but I think eventually people will
judge on the record of the health care reform, and there could be some
problems, but ultimately I think people will be benefitted. Because something so dear to them‑‑and
as I said, if any one of us is telling any person outside this House that
either the NDP or the Tories or us, any one of us is going to kill medicare, we
are simply lying through our teeth.
Absolutely, it is all nonsense.
Those things do not work.
Everyone knows that each and every party is very serious about the health
care reform. They want to preserve
better health care because we all use it; our families, we, and generations are
going to use it. It is so important.
What
has happened out of the health action plan was education. The education component is coming. I mean, people have not really taken it in a
negative way. They want to see how it is
going to work. They want to make sure
how it is going to be implemented because‑‑there was a meeting at
St. Boniface Hospital about the ward displacement. There were a couple of wards, and people were
concerned how we are going to have community services put into place. So I think if we can address all those
issues, then certainly we can achieve a lot of things.
Madam
Chairperson, the other issue which has to be addressed in the long run is the
question of funding. Everyone talks
about funding, but it does not matter, in my view, where the funding is going
to come from. As local politicians, as
local policy makers, we still have to deliver the same services. So it would be very easy for anyone to say,
well, the federal government is not doing this or that.
That
actually happened at last week's conference.
I mean, basically, the intention was to get hold of the basic financial problem
in the health care system, but it was very unfortunate that they did not
address some of the real issues, like how they are going to change the whole
thing, because they are running away from responsibility. It would have been much better to see a
health action plan which would go from
That
is why I am very pleased that, at least, we are going to have a resolution in
this House, voted on by all the three parties, I presume. We should make every effort, the effort which
was put forward by all the Premiers of all political stripes to make sure we
have a health care policy which is consistent with the real law. We may not be delivering the right things,
but at least we can sensitize ourselves, all of us, that we have the courage of
our convictions and we are going to do the right things. Thank you.
Mr.
Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I just want to say to my honourable
friend that he would be very comfortable at Minister of Health meetings,
because my honourable friend has risen above the partisanship that from time to
time comes to the House and has approached it as I know his Liberal colleagues
across Canada are approaching issues facing them in their respective governments,
whether it be New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, the Province of Quebec,
Newfoundland.
I
have to say that just last week, Thursday, Wednesday, there were four New
Democratic Ministers of Health at the conference. They are approaching in the
same kind of challenges a different approach.
I am not faulting them for the approach they are taking because their
circumstances are different from
That
is why the system is going to survive.
That is why the system is going to be refreshed with new thinking,
innovative ideas on how we can make responsible change, and it is ours to keep
and it is ours to preserve.
If
we get our minds around it, there is no one can tell me that we are not going
to be able to maintain a very, very excellent and world‑leading health
care system. But it is not going to be
without its challenges. I mean, all of
us understand that, and all of us understand, I think, to a greater degree today
the financial challenges facing governments in the nation of
I
just want to say to my honourable friend that he would be comfortable at a
Health ministers' meeting because some of the contributions he makes are good
ones.
Now,
you know, I am not going to take too long, but there are a couple of points
that my honourable friend is fully aware of. Even in the commitment of the
personal care home beds, there is argument around whether we should be
committing that much capital resource to personal care home beds in the
(Mrs.
Shirley Render, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
There
is a strong school of thought that says, no, we should invest in the community
and in alternate methods of care in the community, and we will be as we
approach the reform of the system and challenge new ideas and bring them
forward.
There
is significant movement right across
I
mean, this whole system across
* (2130)
But,
as my honourable friend has cautioned, this is not written in stone. You will see changes two years from now in some
of the capital projects. You will see
community clinics come to be more and more a part of service delivery outside
the city of
So
we are into a fluid process, but I have reasonable confidence around the
proposals that are made here and the contingency plans that we have got in
place to reform agenda both in acute care and mental health.
I
think that we have tried to develop something that is reflective of new thinking
around Capital Program, because my honourable friend is absolutely right. I have often said it as I stepped outside
that door after tabling Capital Estimates in past years, particularly the first
couple.
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
I
mean, I was lined up and besieged by reporters wanting to know why this project
was not advanced or that project was not advanced, and I had to explain that,
you know, at any given time a Minister of Health is faced with $1 billion worth
of capital construction requests.
You
would be an absolute hero if you said, yes, they are all going to go, we are
going to build them all. The
construction industry would love you, every community, every sponsor would love
you; but woe beget you if you are still around when the costs of operating
those $1 billion worth of new facilities come in if they have not met care
needs that are affordable and sustainable within today's financial and health
care environment.
I
would suggest to you that no government is able to do that. So the capital document, more and more, will
become very much a strategic document which is underpinned as much as possible
by some of the scientific analysis my honourable friend makes mention of, so
that we invest in appropriate care in appropriate areas of the health care
system.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Chairperson, as indicated last week, we
had wanted to continue with some questioning with the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) on some uncompleted questions that I have, and my
colleagues from Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and
I
would like to begin by sort of continuing from I believe it was the afternoon
session that we had in Estimates when we had discussed the misunderstanding,
the issue to date with Commercial Concessions.
I know the minister had indicated in some of his answers that he
believed, not that we believed, the fact that it was within the court
process. Of course, it is not. The process right now, I believe, is that it
is being discussed between the lawyers of the Department of Natural Resources
and the representative for Commercial Concessions.
After
Estimates, I had taken the time to go through Hansard and my files that I have
on this particular issue and still find some discrepancies as to what the
minister's department had indicated and what Commercial Concessions had also
indicated to me in writing and in personal meetings over the last year. I would like to ask the minister to clarify a
few things, but I would also like to reiterate one very important aspect of
this issue that I feel‑‑and I had mentioned it in Estimates and I
am going to mention it again.
The
dispute that is now before the minister's department and Commercial Concessions
is not that they did not receive the tender.
The dispute‑‑and in my questioning during Question Period
last July‑‑was the fact that Commercial Concessions believes very
strongly that they are entitled to leasehold improvement payments.
The
minister indicated in Hansard, in Estimates, that on one side the dispute was a
legal action because of not receiving the tender, and further down he indicates
that the dispute, in fact, is over leasehold improvements and payments.
I
would like to just, again, be strong with this by indicating to the minister,
as I did during Estimates, Commercial Concessions would be and are extremely
willing and very wanting to sit down and meet with this minister on a one‑to‑one
basis and discuss this issue with him on a one‑to‑one basis, so
that this matter does not go to court.
There
is no need for this matter to go to court.
It is being discussed with lawyers, but it does not have to go to court.
This matter could, and I feel‑‑and I would certainly offer any assistance
that I am able to provide‑‑but Commercial Concessions would like
to, have requested, have through their representatives, through myself, have
requested to sit down and meet with the minister, the minister give them some
time on this issue. Let them explain
their situation. Let them explain the facts
as they have them. Let the minister in
turn explain his facts that he feels he has, that he feels his department being
strong on and conclude this matter from there, not letting it go to court.
I
think it is extremely important. I am
going to ask a few questions, and I ask because of the discrepancies of what I
have on file and what the minister has indicated. I do not question the department, the people
within his department, as to how things are done or operated, no specific
person within his department.
I
feel that there has been some misconception as far as how the whole process was
done. There was perhaps a misunderstanding,
but I feel, and Commercial Concessions feels, that they have unjustly been
treated by the minister's department when it comes to the leasehold
improvements and when it comes to the whole process.
I
think the indication, when I first had the opportunity to meet with the people
from Commercial Concessions, was the fact that all they wanted to do was settle
this in a manner that was beneficial to both parties. That resolution would only come if the
minister would find the time for Commercial Concessions and not let legal
departments and legal representation continue to banter back and forth while
people are out a substantial amount of funds.
The
minister had indicated that, as he was led to believe perhaps, or as his
department had indicated to him, that Commercial Concessions was in fact the
instigator of the lease being terminated.
Looking in my files I find that it was an indication from the minister's
department that they had approached Commercial Concessions and had indicated to
Commercial Concessions that in fact the lease should be or had to be terminated
before the expiry date of the full five‑year term that Commercial
Concessions had.
I
want to ask the minister why. Why did
his department come to Commercial Concessions indicating that the lease had to
be terminated before the five‑year term of the lease was up?
* (2140)
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Chairperson, I am
pleased to clarify one or two matters on this issue that is obviously of
interest and of concern to the honourable member for the Interlake. Number one, I certainly agree with the
honourable member that the matter need not go to the courts, and I hope it does
not go to the courts. To whatever extent
my office can facilitate that from happening, I am certainly prepared to discuss
with my Parks officials ways that we can bring that about. Number two, I do want to clear up, although I
acknowledge that I had indicated in earlier discussion during the Estimates
that I believe that maybe some of the bad feelings arose because Commercial
Concessions did not get chosen for the proposal. That, I agree also with my friend in the Interlake,
is not the issue before us.
My
department acknowledges that there are leasehold improvements that Commercial
Concessions are entitled to be reimbursed.
In fact, I understand that there is an offer before Commercial
Concessions at this very time of X number of thousands of dollars to do just
that. Now, I understand that is the
point of dispute. Commercial Concessions
obviously feel that the amount being offered by the department is not
sufficient to cover what they believe to be the actual improvements that they
made. That is where the matter stands
For
the member to be absolutely clear, I do not dispute the facts that the member
is putting before the House. The issue
is leasehold improvements made by Commercial Concessions during the time that
they occupied the premises and that is what is before the department right
now. I hope that can be resolved without
having redress, without having to go through the expense where the legal
community gets most of the monies involved, and that we can come to an
understanding of the matter that the member now has raised on several
occasions.
The
member asks, why was it that the department approached the commercial
leaseholder prior to the final date of their lease to re‑examine the
concession that they were operating at
But
I put on the record what I can, Madam Chairperson. I do want to assure the honourable member
that I have no problem having Commercial Concessions continue their discussions
with Parks people. Certainly, if court
action can be avoided, it ought to be avoided, as the member says, for the
mutual benefit of both the Parks Branch and for Commercial Concessions.
Secondly,
I acknowledge that the Parks Branch does not admit to a responsibility of some
leasehold improvements owing to Commercial Concessions. My understanding is a firm figure has been
presented to Commercial Concessions. The
precise figure is not available to me at this time. I know it is in the several thousands,
$16,000, $18,000 or $20,000 range. I am
assuming that Commercial Concessions feels that is not adequate. Well, that is a case for continued
discussions.
I
suppose if we fail to come to an agreement, and if Commercial Concessions feels
strongly enough about it, that could eventually lead to a court case. But I will undertake, and I have certainly
asked my Parks officials who were present when the member raised the issue the
other day when we were dealing in our regular process of the Estimates, to renew
their efforts to bring this matter to a conclusion with Commercial Concessions.
Mr.
Clif Evans: I appreciate the minister putting on record
that he and his department are willing to settle or to look at the matter and
try and settle it so it does not go to court.
But there are questions.
The
minister indicated that Commercial Concessions had the lease on certain parts
of the park, of the property. He indicated
that someone else wanted to take the lease on the old hotel and the restaurant
as such.
My
records and what I have seen indicate to me that Commercial Concessions, in
fact, had that, had the old hotel, had the restaurant, made improvements there,
made improvements to the concessions on the boardwalk, made improvements
throughout the part that they were responsible for, and spent an enormous
amount of time and money to make those improvements.
My
understanding, according to the lease and according to Commercial Concessions,
is that in their lease they had control‑‑or not to say control‑‑but
that was their lease. It was not just
one specific area. It was
everything. The minister is indicating
something different. The five‑year
lease was there with Commercial Concessions for the hotel, for the restaurant, for
the motel, for the concessions on the boardwalk, and for other areas, and they
took care of this and spent money on this with, if I may add, the approval and
the co‑operation of the Parks people at that time.
Now
we are talking about leasehold improvements that people are putting in. Being within the business community, Madam Chairperson,
my understanding is that when you have a leasehold improvement and your lease
is terminated, I do not know where there is any kind of contract that says,
well, if you make leasehold improvements to the building that you are leasing
that is under the agreement, you have to approve, being the lessor has to
approve. In fact, the lessor has to
reimburse the person leasing the facilities when the lease is terminated,
whether it be before the lease is up or it should be under mutual agreement. This was not done.
I
say to the minister that I find it very strange that people who have worked
very hard for this minister's department for three full years‑‑if I
may stand corrected on that, maybe four, but three that I know of for sure‑‑that
they make improvements to that facility when they came upon that facility, and
it is on record, they have it on record as what they came to, and what they
left with and what they made improvements to, again with the co‑operation
of this minister's department.
Again
the dispute may not be on the fact that they did not receive the tender. They are saying, we have done all this with the
co‑operation of the minister's department, of the Parks people; we had no
dispute with the Parks people in the time that we had our lease. The Parks come to us and say, we have to put this
up for bid again. We are terminating the
lease, or we are asking you to terminate the lease because something else has
come about.
* (2150)
Commercial
Concessions says: That is fine, but we
want the improvements that we have put into it.
Now, if I may continue on that, the walkabout, as I had mentioned in
Estimates, was not performed after Commercial Concessions did not receive the tender. Commercial Concessions was present; Parks
people were not.
The
indication was to Commercial Concessions that anything that belongs to
Commercial Concessions, that they made leasehold improvements to the facility,
they take. It belongs to them. The department
had no intention of reimbursing Commercial Concessions for those leasehold
improvements.
In
fact, after that, after Commercial Concessions did take what belonged to them
and they made those improvements, and they had requested from the minister's
department to be reimbursed for what they felt was due to them, the minister's
department sends back, along with copies of bills, saying: Well, here you are. You are asking for this
amount of money. That is fine, but here are
some bills for you. Here are some bills
that we have to‑‑it does not say that we have to pay‑‑but
here are some bills, minus these bills and minus this and minus that, this is
what you are going to receive.
These
bills, why? Who paid for Commercial
Concessions' bills when they came in on the lease and they made all the
improvements to the facilities as required to enhance the facility and enhance the
promotion of the park and of the concession?
Who paid them? They paid it. Now,
the indication that I have is that, yes, we will pay you back some leasehold
improvements. However, we will deduct
some bills here, that there have been improvements made because you left the
facility in a state that it had to be re‑equipped.
I
hope the minister understands where I am coming from. It is a question to the minister, whether he
feels himself that this may be the correct way to operate. I do not think so. You are talking some $8,000 or $9,000 of
bills that the minister's department is putting on Commercial Concessions. Wrong.
They did what they were supposed to do.
These bills that were received‑‑and I might add, bills that
were made out to the Grand Beach Ski Corporation. I ask the minister why is Commercial Concessions
being held responsible for bills that were made out to Grand Beach Ski
Corporation?
In
fact, there was no reasoning for Commercial Concessions to pay this. They did their duty as a leaseholder. They did their job. They tried to co‑operate with the Parks
people. They had co‑operation from
the Parks people up until the day that they were asked that they had to review
the tender.
I
want to ask the minister why this is such?
Does he feel that this a correct method of operation for his department?
Mr. Enns:
I do want to clearly indicate that through the Parks Branch I have the
responsibility of several hundred business leases, with the number of people
that offer some service throughout our Parks system. It would be, I think, understandable to the
honourable member that I certainly do not present myself as being capable of
knowing in detail the individual arrangements that were made, and I am not
going to attempt to.
I
have probably already put some wrong information on the record with respect to
this issue, because that is why we have people in the Parks Branch doing these
things. All I can do is indicate to the
honourable member that I do not dispute the basic facts that the member has put
before, that commercial leasehold has a case before the department for
reimbursement, for some leasehold that meets the amount. The issue of what constitutes an appropriate
bill, what does not constitute an appropriate bill, I have no way of knowing,
particularly not at this moment in dealing with‑‑as we are in the
concurrence motion, I do not have the officials of the department with me to
provide these kinds of detailed answers, but I ask the honourable member to accept
my assurances that as a result of the issue being raised by the honourable
member during the course of Estimates, it will be receiving some priority
attention in a very short little while.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would like to go on to other issues. I think what I have heard from the minister
is what Commercial Concessions would like to hear, and on closing on this
specific issue that if the minister, as you said, wants to make it a priority,
I will in fact, and I put on record, that I would be honoured, if that is the
case, to assist the minister in co‑ordinating the discussion with
Commercial Concessions.
As
the minister has indicated, he does not have his staff here. I think where the case perhaps can be
concluded is getting the staff involved, that Commercial Concessions is dealt
with, and have them both discuss this issue with the minister in place hearing
the case, instead of back and forth and through lawyers and through what not.
I
appreciate the minister's responsibility.
I want that made very clear. I do
appreciate his responsibility, and I do appreciate the fact that all ministers
cannot keep a tight reign on everything that goes on within their
department. You would have to be a
superman, and sometimes the minister, I think, feels that he might be close to
that. I understand and appreciate it. The
minister has put on record that this is what he would like, and I am putting on
record that I would really appreciate that this be a priority and, between my
office and Commercial Concessions, that we ratify this, satisfy everybody and
conclude this.
On
another matter, I had questioned the minister, I guess, right at the end of the
Estimates last week, in regard to the three and three‑quarter mesh on
north basin and channel area and the different areas that were‑‑at
that time I had indicated to the minister that I had received many calls, and
in fact, up until today, before we came into concurrence, was still receiving calls
on this matter.
Madam
Chairperson, to the minister, there is concern out there that there has been
some illegal, perhaps some misinformed fishermen out there who are using three
and three‑quarter inch mesh in a nondesignated area by certain
fisheries. The minister is well aware
and I am sure knows that I have spoken to different people regarding this
issue. I know the minister had indicated
to me last week that in fact there was no approval to three and three‑quarter
where five inch was to be used at all, except in
* (2200)
Mr.
Enns: A dear old friend of mine, a fisherman of
many years experience, an Icelander, I think, by the name of Grantham Skuli Bakerson
(phonetic) once told me that the problem with fishermen is that they tend to
want to cheat a little bit from time to time.
I did not really believe him because I have faith in the 3,500
commercial fishermen that ply the lakes of
Leaving
that aside, what we have done on Sturgeon Bay and in the area referred to as
Area 6, it includes the Grand Rapids corridor, after representations made to us
both for and against, and that is always the case in so many of these resource questions‑‑my
best biological advice from professional people in the staff who work with the
fishermen stationed out of Gimli, we are prepared on an experimental basis to
try the smaller three and three‑quarter size mesh on Area 6 and Area 6
only, and only for the summer and fall season, which pretty well excludes the whitefish
fisheries.
Now,
the honourable member suggests to me that there are people that are using that
mesh size that ought not to be using it.
Let me be very public about it.
They run the danger, and they will be caught doing so. The honourable member, certainly if he is in
contact with his fishermen, should apprise them that that area will be
monitored more closely than normal because of the experimental nature of this
summer's fishery, and we want to get some very hard data as to the kind of fish
that we are getting, the potential impact on the resource and we will evaluate
that after the fall fisheries to see whether or not that is an acceptable
practice in those areas.
We
were persuaded to do this by the representation made to us by the elected
member of the Lake Winnipeg Advisory Board and Mr. Traverse, by the general
manager of the Grand Rapids Fishermen's Co‑operative. We were also advised by others who felt that
it was a mistake to go to the small fisheries, but that is the kind of
challenges that the Minister of Natural Resources quite frequently faces.
I
just simply want to reiterate, it is an experiment for the summer and fall
fisheries only, and restricted to what is known as Area 6. The commercial fishermen who fish the area
know the boundaries much better than I do.
I will also indicate to you that I got an invitation from this same
Skuli Bakerson to maybe lift a net or two during the course of the summer,
which I intend to do, because I like to take time away from the office, particularly
during the summer months, not only to have the opportunity of visiting what my
staff are about throughout the length and breadth of this province, but to gain
some personal experiences about some of the problems that people have with regulations,
with rules, with laws that my department imposes on them from time to
time. It makes it easier for me to
understand precisely what it is that is being faced by people who have to live
with these regulations.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I want to thank the
minister for explaining to me what he explained to me last week, what we talked
about after those meetings with Mr. Traverse, Mr. Prantreu.
That
is not the issue that I have been contacted about. The issue is, in fact, that there was three
and three‑quarter inch mesh used in north basin by whitefish
fisheries. The fact is that the
fishermen within these areas, they are concerned. They have a concern to this issue. I think the minister and his department have
the same concern. We all do. The system, in fact, now with the marketing
and the potential of whitefish being so low, I feel, and so do they, they feel
the whole broad scheme of the fishing industry has to be looked at. It has to be decided on with everybody
involved, with the whitefish people and with the other regular fishermen.
Perhaps
there is a misunderstanding. Perhaps
someone was made aware, because of Area 6 and Area 7 getting that, that perhaps
we can do it too, when in fact, questioning the minister, that was not so. So we want to know, where did they get this misinformation,
this assumption that they could use them?
The
minister is well aware of the different quotas, and 35,000 to 70,000 pounds the
amount on a three and three‑quarter inch mesh, the amount of sauger that
would be taken out of the lake‑‑[interjection! pickerel, too,
compared to a five‑inch mesh which is allowed, according to the fishermen
could be devastating down the road. Not
so much just today, but down the road. I
have spoken to fishermen and people from the advisory board, and their concern
is that there has not been a real indication to everybody just what the
specific rules and regulations are, and the changes that the minister has
allowed in the past couple of weeks for Area 6 and 7. There is a misunderstanding, I feel, but there
is also a tremendous amount of concern that if it is going to be allowed then
there has to be proper consultation with all the commercial fishermen through
the advisory board, through the minister's department, through the biologists,
through regional managers, regional directors, but, more importantly, the fishermen.
Before
this happens again or continues, I know speaking to representatives today, they
would like to see a meeting, not in November as the advisory board meets, but
sooner. I am sure the minister will hear
from them on this issue. I would like
the minister to indicate that his office will be fully available to attend such
a meeting.
This
is not just coming from one fisherman.
This is coming from a dozen or so fishermen themselves and three
representatives of the advisory board.
It is coming from some of the staff, too, that this perhaps is the route
to go. So what has happened in the last
couple of weeks is not going to happen again without the co‑operation of
everyone.
What
can be done now? Probably nothing. What can be done for the future? Probably quite a bit. I guess my real concern is, was there
anything from the minister's office to indicate to anybody, or from Fisheries
perhaps, to indicate to anybody that north basin was open to three and three‑quarter
mesh?
Mr.
Enns: Madam Chairperson, I think it was very, very
plain, certainly from the Fisheries department dealing directly with the fishermen
involved out of our regional office in Gimli, that this experimental use of the
smaller three and three‑quarter inch mesh was restricted to the Sturgeon
Bay, Area 6 fisheries area only.
I
do not think there was any misunderstanding or any lack of clarity with respect
to the issue. I appreciate the points
that the honourable member makes; regrettably, the whitefish industry is in
serious trouble. I suspect that my
Fisheries people and biologists and the fishermen themselves will be severely challenged
over this coming season as to the future direction of the
I
can report to you. I know that Fisheries
staff gains valuable data and information from different types of fisheries and
experiments with changes of mesh sizes.
The fisheries that I am more familiar with is the Lake Manitoba
fisheries, which is a winter fisheries only and which had an introduction of
small mesh size some years ago, and, quite frankly, that has worked very well,
primarily to the satisfaction of all concerned.
* (2210)
There
are still some fishermen on
This
decision to experiment on one portion of Lake Winnipeg and
On
the other hand, I once again tell these fishermen that they stand very real
problems with the law enforcement efforts, because the smaller mesh size
regulations apply only to Area 6 and enforcement will be rigidly imposed upon‑‑[interjection!
Yes, it will be rigidly imposed on anybody outside of that area that is using
nonregulatory mesh‑size mesh. If
the honourable member from Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) wants to do his fishermen
a favour, he will take that message back to them.
However,
I would hope that this experiment in Sturgeon Bay or Area 6, as it is more
formally known, will be helpful to us, will be helpful to the fishermen, that
when we do get together and the advisory board gets together in November for the
annual meeting, that we will have some direction as to the future. It may well be‑‑I do not wish to
speculate‑‑if the state of the whitefish fisheries is still
depressed and markets are still as bad, that some hard judgments will be made
to accommodate changing fisheries of different species that could involve an
examination of existing quotas, what the value of those quotas are when you replace
pickerel, well, you know, saugers instead of whitefish.
These
could all come up for discussion. But I
think it will be helpful, at least people like Kim Campbell and Worth Hayden, the
Fisheries people‑‑that is why they recommended it to me. It will be helpful to have had a summer and
fall fisheries experience with the small mesh in this restricted area, Area 6 again
I repeat so that there is no misunderstanding, that will give us some data that
proper biological judgments can be made for future decisions that may affect a
greater area of Lake Winnipeg.
Mr. Clif Evans: Just one last comment on that, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate the minister's input and his
strong words as to the enforcement. I
feel, and what I have heard, that it is too late. [interjection! Well, that is
true, but it is in fact in some areas, from what I have heard today, probably
too late.
I
do hope that, because in some matters it may be too late, that the enforcement
people do not hesitate to go out and to check still until the end of season,
which is another month or three weeks away.
I feel, and the indications from the fishermen and the area
representatives is that they do not want to wait for the November 3 advisory
meeting, that they would appreciate getting together as a whole after the
fishing season is over. It is sometime
in October or September or August, as soon as possible, to set the goals that
the minister has indicated to prepare for the advisory meetings. That is my point. I am waiting for something to table.
I
would just like to table a statement made at the last advisory board meeting,
and I would appreciate the minister's involvement, response to this statement,
and, perhaps, investigation as to what the specific area representative has indicated
in his statement here that he allegedly made to the advisory board in May. I table this for the minister and I put on
record that I would appreciate a response to this as soon as the minister
himself is able to go through investigations.
One for here and one for the minister.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Enns:
Madam Chairperson, I wish I could report more progress on the
matter. I have to indicate to her that
the whole question of the department's approach to comanagement is undergoing
some review as well, along with some of the major reorganization that has taken
place in the department. I wish to bring
the whole question of comanagement, the way the department deals with comanagement,
into a higher profile focus within our policy direction unit.
(Mr.
Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
We
have not in all instances been clear ourselves as to how we want to go out and
approach the general public and the specific interest groups on some of these
matters. As I said at that meeting and I
continue to say it today that some of our successes have tended to be in those
areas where we have restricted ourselves to specific species, specific area and
with specific numbers of communities of people involved.
The
area that the honourable member, of course, refers to, the Duck Mountain‑Swan
River area, is a complex one in the sense that it brings together all of the
problems of aboriginal hunting rights, of prime agricultural land that is
subject to severe damage on occasion, depredation from wildlife if not properly
managed. Very keenly interested groups
of people both within the community, the sportsmen's association and so forth
have in the past been extremely concerned as to how the overall natural resources
in that area get managed. We are hoping,
and are hopeful to have revitalized or looked at the existing Western Elk management
board that has been in place there for some years.
I
do not offer that up as being the vehicle through which we will accomplish some
degree of comanagement in the area, but it is there and it is in place, and I
have asked the department, I have asked Mr. Grant Baker, who has recently been
appointed as director of that policy integration unit that I spoke of‑‑I
invite the honourable member to feel free to contact him from time to time on
this matter. This is a matter that is
going to be with us for a long period of time.
* (2220)
We
are going to have some successes; we are going to have some failures in this
area. As recently as this week we have relooked
at the elk management board to see whether or not, around that framework, there
might not be the genesis of adding the necessary components to make a more
inclusive vehicle that could result in truly a comanagement of the resources of
that beautiful part of the province.
Ms.
Wowchuk: When we were at that meeting, the minister
will remember that there were some pretty heated feelings and a lot of tension
in the crowd. It was the feeling that we
should try to work towards coming to some compromise and working with the different
groups. Has anybody within the
department been identified in the
Is
anybody meeting with the aboriginal groups, with the fishermen's group at this
time, to try to get an understanding of what direction the different groups
want to go, someone who can still the waters, so to speak, to get things
settled down and maybe to a table to start discussing the issue?
Is
there anybody identified in the area who is going to be working on that?
Mr.
Enns: It is my hope that in the first instance this
will become a high priority direction of the newly appointed regional director,
first of all who will be operating in that region‑‑I suspect he is
stationed in The Pas, but that will come directly under the auspices of the
regional director as an overall, kind of integrated approach of the department
to the problem.
I
have another expert in the name of Roberto Sopokolous (phonetic) who has done
extensive academic work, has published books on the question of comanagement,
who will be assisting us. He is not a member of the department, although he
gets paid by my department on occasion.
When he is not otherwise meeting his international obligations in mostly
the southern hemisphere, he will assist us in bringing to bear the finest minds
on this issue.
I
recognize very seriously what the honourable member is saying. Certainly the feelings that she alluded to
were not lost on me. Certainly her
constituents and the people in that area are looking for leadership, and by the
nature of the problem, that has to come from this department.
I
appreciate the member's‑‑I appreciate that we are on opposite sides
of the House, and I am as much of a partisan politician as she is, but on this
issue I know that we can work together to try to at least get it off the
ground. I am trying very hard. Part of the problem, I will confess to the
honourable member, is that within the department we have had kind of a model for
putting together a comanagement unit, that the area that has received most
attention are those areas, because it was our priority, particularly directed
by my colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) to those
communities who were under the Northern Flood Agreement.
It
is my understanding that perhaps her colleague the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) and the Minister of Northern Affairs will be flying to Thompson
tomorrow to sign that historic
Part
of the problem within the department is we have tended to take that model that
we have developed to work on that scale, and then when we try to apply it to a
place like
I
want to make this very clear to the honourable member, the one decided change
of direction that, in my judgment, has to be taken, and was not always taken by
the department, and that comes perhaps partly because of our preoccupation in
dealing specifically with the Indian bands involved in the Northern Flood Agreement. When we are talking
Ms.
Wowchuk: I guess nothing is happening then as far as
meeting with the individual groups. I
find that a bit disappointing because that was what we had hoped would come out
of that meeting when we were in Swan River, that someone would be meeting with the
individual groups and trying to pull a key group together that would then work
on this comanagement.
But
the minister alluded to the Elk Management Board and the activity of this
board. I am a little bit surprised
because I thought that board had become inactive and was not doing anything. I am wondering, has the minister met with
that board, and who are the representatives on that board that are active?
Mr.
Enns: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member is partly
right, and I think I indicated that.
That board has had its periods of inactivity and heightened
activity. My understanding though is that
there are still original members of that board.
I cannot recall the names directly to her, but there are people like Mr.
Fulford and some others. I think one of
our older senior staffers at one point in time was on that board, retired now,
Mr. Joe Robertson, from the Dauphin area, but I could be wrong with these
names, and it would be inappropriate for me to put names on the record when I
am not sure of them.
I
accept the member's chastisement, that not a great deal has happened since that
public meeting. I can offer the excuse
to the honourable member that part of the responsibility is the current
chairman of our committee. As Whip of
our caucus he tends to keep the flock close together, particularly even closer now
that one of our pigeons has flown, but, nonetheless, that has made it a little
difficult for the minister to get directly and personally involved.
I
look forward to doing that perhaps within a day or two when this session comes
to conclusion, but that does not mean that we have not concerned ourselves
about it. We have had to as I have said
now, and I will repeat just one more time, we have really had to rethink the
department's approach to the comanagement, and there has been some adjustment
that had to take place in senior positions within the department. The fact that the department has undergone
fairly radical and major reorganization has also added to our problems of
getting out in the field and starting to deliver the programs.
* (2230)
Ms.
Wowchuk: I look forward to progress on that issue.
I
want to move to another area and it is one I raised in the House a few days ago
with respect to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and staff in his
department telling farmers that there was a real opportunity for them that we
were missing here in Manitoba and that was to diversify into elk and game
farming.
I
want to ask the minister, is it the intention of this government to change the
legislation that we have right now? It is
my understanding that elk farming is illegal right now, but from what is coming
from the Department of Agriculture there appears to be a move from this
government to move in that direction, and I want to ask the Minister of Natural
Resources if that is something that he is working towards to start elk and deer
farming in Manitoba?
Mr.
Enns: Mr. Acting Chairperson, all members know,
particularly the member for
It
was my honour two Saturdays ago to be singled out by the Canadian Wildlife
Federation, representing some 650,000 Canadians, for the singular honour of
being given the legislator of the year award for a number of issues involving
things that I have been able to have a hand in, in some modest way, over the past
years of my political career, including such things as passing Manitoba's first
Endangered Species Act, as introducing the Ecological Reserves Act.
But
I do not fool myself. I also believe I
got the reward because of my reluctance and my firmness in continuing to not allow
elk ranching or game farming of that nature in the
Let
me further acknowledge and read to her‑‑I am sure the honourable
member gets this magazine and I recommend it to members of the House, to my
friend, the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) who sometimes needs
widening in her reading material. On
page 41 of this magazine, not to my surprise, published‑‑well, I
should say, first of all, on page 40, there is kind of a nice picture of the
minister and the president of the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, Mr. Roger
Venton, and we are signing the TIP agreement for 1992, whereby the Manitoba
Wildlife Federation will assist the department in our antipoaching program.
Then
on the other page, there is this letter that I wrote to one Mr. John Eisner,
whom I think the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is familiar
with, which clearly states the direction of this government, the policy of this
government, with respect to elk ranching, that for the time being it is simply
a dead issue with us.
Ms.
Wowchuk: The minister says elk ranching is a dead
issue. I will accept it on that. He says he is opposed to the farming of elk. A couple of years ago, the elk ranch in
Minitonas was shut down and the people who owned the ranch were paid a
substantial amount of money to shut down that operation.
I
want to ask the minister why those animals are still there. The people got a substantial amount of money
for them, but they also still have those elk.
If the minister is opposed to elk farming and says it is a dead issue,
why is there such a large number of elk being maintained in Minitonas?
Mr.
Enns: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I should take that
question as notice. I am aware that
there are some animals there. I do not know
the exact‑‑under what circumstances they are there. I concur with what the honourable member
says. I am certainly aware that a
significant public payout was made to the individual involved, that something
happened to those animals. I am not quite
sure what happened to those animals, but the ranch itself was
discontinued. We, in different parts of
the province, under permit, allow some wild animals to be kept in
captivity. The member is aware that we
monitor these situations pretty carefully and if found wanting, indeed,
withdraw that permit, as happened in the case of the Dauphin animal farm that
recently has been in the news.
I
do not know how many animals are involved in this operation, but I will confirm
to provide the honourable member with that information as to exactly under what
kind of authority, under what kind of a permit those animals are on that
property.
Ms.
Wowchuk: I would appreciate that
very much and I thank the minister for indicating that he will look into the
matter. I want to assure him that what I
am raising is fact, that those animals were paid for, I believe somewhere in
the amount of $70,000. But those animals
were supposed to be removed off the property.
What ended up happening is they were moved from one side of the road to
the other, if I understand correctly, and are still in the vicinity. The contract, to my understanding, has not
been carried out, so I would appreciate very much if the minister would get to
us on that particular matter.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): I will stand, actually, I like the traditions‑‑Harry
and I. Besides I have been sitting in committees
all day, and this is one advantage of the House. [interjection! I remember the
table pounding, some of the dying traditions and standing in the Chamber seems
to be a dying tradition as well‑‑[interjection!
I
think that is maybe one thing I can agree on with the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), he says, as long as we do not get rid of heckling. That might be one thing he and I can agree on
up to a certain point.
I
have a serious concern I want to raise on behalf of an individual. The bottom line is it is a situation where a
number of individuals in The Pas have a wild rice permit and operation, they
have a temporary cabin that has been established. The department has threatened to burn it
down. They had pursued this matter. They had contacted the department. The deputy minister had phoned a departmental
official in Cranberry Portage urging that they try and resolve the concerns,
because no one wants to see this particular structure burnt down. I spoke to this individual on Friday, and I
could write the name of the individual and some of the details afterwards. The reason I am doing this is I do not want
to create any difficulties for staff people.
I am not trying to implicate anyone.
He said that he was told basically, that the individual had said that
they would rip it down themselves, he would rip it down himself if he had to.
* (2240)
I
am wondering if‑‑and I will provide further details on this to the
minister‑‑the minister can perhaps intervene here, because I really
suspect that what is happening is there are major problems in terms of
communication between the deputy minister, who apparently is trying to resolve
this matter, and the departmental official, and whether he will undertake to
ensure that such a drastic step of burning down or destroying this particular
structure does not take place.
It
is a legitimate wild rice operation.
They do have a permit for it, and they are very careful in terms of any
impact they have in terms of environmental area. I am wondering if the minister can undertake
to look into this now.
Mr.
Enns: Also, certainly in appreciation and fairness
to the staff that has, in some instances, a difficult job to carry out, obviously,
unpermitted proliferation of campsites and cottaging or so forth throughout the
North, the honourable member would be the first, as a member for the North, to
ask the department to bring some order to this.
I must admit that we do have a kind of a search and pursue and destroy
unit in the department.
Rumour
has it that President Nixon, before he went into that search‑and‑destroy
unit into neighbouring
The
honourable member is quite right to bring this matter to my attention, and I
will give the order soon that it should be looked at with some sensitivity and
compassion.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, I opposed the war in
Mr.
Enns: I just want to make sure that the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does provide me with the details of the matter,
so that I can pass that on to staff in the morning.
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Clif Evans: I never had an opportunity during regular Estimates
to raise the question and the issue, and I know the minister is aware. Let us see, in January, we had the pleasure of
attending a meeting in the Red Rose‑Dallas area in regard to the Jackhead
dam.
I
know that there has been correspondence with the minister over the years on
this issue. A committee had been formed
from the people within the area‑‑actually representatives from different
associations, at the meeting itself there was representation from the Jackhead
Reserve, from council. I would just like
to ask the minister, because I have been contacted just lately as to why the
minister has not responded to any of the correspondence that the association
that has been put in place, on certain requests that they have made of the
minister, can he indicate why there has been no response to this association?
Mr.
Enns: I have had different meetings with different
people and different representation with respect to the project that the honourable
member refers to. I share the member's
concern and desire that if in fact the quality of the water on Lake St. George,
I believe it is, can be enhanced with the reconstruction of the dam that was
once in place but over the years for whatever reasons has deteriorated or has
been mostly removed.
But
I must report to the honourable member that there are complicating factors
involved that involve land exchange, involve current rights that other
interested parties have, such as Abitibi‑Price, in terms of their logging
operations operating out of a particular wharf or landing there. I think that is critical to their continued
supply of wood from that part of the region for that part of the province.
So
the matter is not just a matter of addressing the question of whether or not
there is a willingness to proceed with the construction of a dam. I, quite frankly, am supportive of it. I have so indicated it to interested parties
in the area, and I indicate it to the honourable member right now. But there are some complicating land transfer
issues involved that are yet to be resolved.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the
minister's indication that there are some problems as far as land exchange. In
meeting with the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs some two months ago, he
had indicated to me that Northern Affairs had also gotten involved with this
negotiation and with the rebuilding of the dam.
Can the minister indicate what his department or Northern Affairs, where
have they gotten with the co‑operation of the different groups, that
there seems to be the conflict, if you want to use that term? I do not think it is a conflict, I think it
is just that matter of exchanging and negotiations. The indication that I got from Jackhead Council
was that they were in full, full support of the project. True, as long as the land exchange was
suitable to all, but my understanding from the leaders of the association from
Northern Affairs, from the council, is that there does not seem to be a tremendous
problem with this negotiation. Where has
it stalled and why has it stalled there?
Mr.
Enns: The honourable member is pretty well putting
his finger on it. I am supportive of
rebuilding the structure. Certainly the users of Lake St. George are hopeful
that would happen, and I share with the honourable member's belief that the Jackhead
Reserve is for the dam. However, they
put a condition upon that which is causing some of the problem. That is the land transfer, and part of that
land transfer is the current use of the land in question becomes a little
sensitive.
There
is a fish‑packing facility that is involved that the freshwater fish
marketing corporation uses. It is a
major wharf landing for shipping timber logs for the Abitibi operation from that
landing, and I certainly do not wish to impede these operations or have them
traded away on a land transfer without guaranteeing or without some certainty
being placed that these operations can continue. That is specifically where the issue is at rest. The member asked who else is involved. Well, people like Abitibi are involved.
Honourable
members are aware that the overall situation that Abitibi and their 500‑plus
employees face themselves are in a sensitive mode to begin with. I do not wish to add to their troubles by in
any way jeopardizing a flow of wood product to them. I am not suggesting that this necessarily may
happen, but I do know that it is an important landing or unloading facility for
that purpose, and it happens to be in the middle of the land in question that
Jackhead Indian Reserve is being asked to transfer them under their
jurisdiction before they will give their approval to the construction of the
dam.
So
I think the honourable member sees my dilemma.
The matter is not stalled. I am
dealing with Abitibi people. I agree
with the member. Like so many other
things, it is a question of getting the time and putting the people around the
table and saying, look, do we want to do the project? It is not a major project. We agree that environmentally it is
sound. The dam was in place before. It is being requested by virtually everybody
in the area for enhancing the water levels of Lake St. George. I would like very much‑‑and quite
frankly, we have the funds for it under several of our different programs. We would proceed with it.
* (2250)
Now
my understanding is the federal member has expressed considerable support for
the project as well. Indeed, there could
also be some federal assistance for the project, so there is a genuine
willingness to do it. There are some
specific problems attached to it which have to do with the land.
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): I wanted to ask the minister, as we indicated
during Estimates, about his involvement with the closure of the
Can
the minister indicate to the House‑‑I have a number of questions of
him on this‑‑why this permit was not renewed for the last four or
five years by the minister's department?
I believe the last one was renewed in 1987 and since that time he has
not had a permit, certainly not under this government. Can the minister indicate why this permit was
never renewed over the period that he has been minister and his government has
been in office? Certainly if he did not
provide a permit, Mr. Williamson could not be in full compliance with all the
requirements because he did not have a permit.
Why did the minister not issue him one?
Mr.
Enns: Madam Chairperson, I know that the honourable
member, former minister of the department, will appreciate that without the
availability of staff, there is a limitation to the detail that I can provide
in responding to very specific questions like this. The question that he raises, No. 1, quite
frankly catches me somewhat unaware, because it was my understanding that it
was the specific action, and I might say, we were by very much the lead
department in this, in withdrawing the permit from that operation that closed
down his operation back in January, or whenever it was earlier on in the year.
So
I am a little surprised by the suggestion‑‑I do not wish to get in
a dispute with the honourable member‑‑that Mr. Williamson or the
Wild Animal Kingdom at Dauphin was not operating under some kind of
permit. It may have been a temporary
permit. It may not have been a regular
permit, but I will undertake to find out that information.
I
can tell the honourable member why. The
honourable member should know and does know, I believe, as do many Manitobans, particularly
in the Dauphin area as well, that Mr. Williamson had trouble from the beginning
in being in compliance with the regulations and conditions attached to the
permits that he had. He was repeatedly warned.
He was repeatedly asked to clean up his act, if you like, because
reports were continually coming to the department from the public and from
other interested parties that animals were being kept under conditions that
were not acceptable, and that animals in fact were under some abuse. The department acted, you know, with some
reluctance in finally acting on these allegations, and indeed, upon inspection,
found them to be true; furthermore, found that the improvements that Mr.
Williamson was asked to have put in place on numerous occasions had not in fact
been carried out, and so it ought not to have come as a surprise certainly to
Mr. Williamson.
He
may have been surprised at the fact that in this minister he found a minister
prepared to act, and, quite frankly, I do not apologize for any action that the
department took. In fact, I congratulate
my officers, my staff people, in acting with dispatch. In fact, there are those, certainly within
the animal rights group, for instance, who say we acted too late or we were slow
in responding, but then we did not have‑‑as the member knows there
was some shared responsibility with the Department of Agriculture. We acted, first of all, specifically with
those animals under our more direct mandate, namely the native wild animals,
native that is to
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Chairperson, there was a search warrant issued
by a judge on February 6, '92, and Mr. Williamson was charged with having
possession of live wild animals without authority of a permit, contrary to
section 45 of The Wildlife Act. Mr.
Williamson has shown me the last permit that he had, 1987. I have a copy of it. March 31, '87 is when it expired, and his
solicitor has also indicated to the department that his last permit expired
March 31, 1987. So that would indicate,
for the past five years Mr. Williamson has been operating without a permit and
with the full knowledge of the minister's department.
That
leads one to ask, why was he not issued a permit or even told why he was not
being issued a permit all of those years? Yet the animals were being kept with
full knowledge of the minister's staff all that time. It was no secret. They knew he was keeping those animals. So that is why I ask that question, and I
think it is a serious issue.
You
know, I am not going to deal with the hippopotamus death tonight. It is a very serious issue, and I know people
when they hear the word hippo or something they start to make jokes about it,
but I can tell you it is a very serious matter.
It was a very valuable animal that was lost as a result of incompetence
in transferring these animals. I have to
blame the Minister of Agriculture's (Mr. Findlay) staff for that. I am not dealing with those exotic animals
though tonight. I am asking the Minister
of Natural Resources about the native animals because they fall under his
jurisdiction. They were seized by his department,
and I would ask the minister to determine from his staff why a permit was not
issued.
Now,
secondly, the minister was speaking just now about how pleased he was with the
decisive action taken by his department after five years without a permit‑‑decisive
action. It is a little bit of a
contradiction there, but I am not going to argue that there was some decisive
action. As a matter of fact, I think the
action was taken ultimately was so decisive that there may be a legitimate
wrong here for a party, Mr. Williamson, who had kept those animals for many
years.
The
minister talked about abuse. He talked
about him not meeting requirements. I
want to ask the minister whether he still has in his employ a Mr. Bob
Carmichael. Is he still working with the
department as director? The minister can
clarify what his position is.
On
August 6, 1986, I have a letter that was written from Mr. Carmichael, at that
time the acting director of the Wildlife Branch, to Mr. Williamson. He said, and I am going to quote this, Madam
Chairperson, because I think this is important: Pursuant to a commitment to you
to review conditions under which animals are kept at your
The
following comments pertain: Generally,
your pens meet or exceed our requirements as set out in guidelines for keeping wildlife
in captivity. Wildlife Branch M.S.
Report, '84‑85. There could be some improvement, i.e., coyote pens, but
plans discussed with Mr. Ball and Mr. Shelton indicate that these improvements
are now being effected. Number two, your
waterfowl facility is more than adequate.
It is on a spring‑fed beaver pond and as such the water quality
and conditions are excellent. Number three, your facilities are not suited to
the treatment or harbouring of sick or injured animals. I trust that this will serve to clear up
issues we have reviewed. Thanks for
discussing them with us. Yours truly, R.
Carmichael.
* (2300)
You
see, that report that happened in 1986 by the acting director would seem to be
somewhat contrary to what the minister made, in terms of the statements he made
in this House today about this terrible care that was provided. I do not know if the minister is aware that
his staff seized two bull elk; one was 14 years old. Fourteen years on that game farm, does that
seem to indicate such terrible abuse that that poor elk would have lived 14
years under those conditions? Many
people remarked at the excellent condition of that elk when they visited that.
So,
I think, just to make those general statements, that we are using a broad‑brush
approach to paint Mr. Williamson‑‑I do not say the minister is
doing that deliberately; he is going by what he has been told by his staff‑‑paint
Mr. Williamson as an inhumane operator who did not care about animals. I have testimonials from many people who have
known him to nurse back animals to health and to restore them to health when
they have been injured, so I believe that the minister has not received the whole
story. I ask the minister, in light of
the fact that there is a report of a Mr. Carmichael saying that he met all the specifications,
whether he will undertake a review of the concerns being raised by Mr.
Williamson that these animals were, in fact, stolen from him.
They
were taken without providing him any compensation. The minister knows that a bull elk is worth
maybe $6,000, $7,000, two of them, and five cougars, two raccoons, one river
otter, one golden eagle. All taken, no
compensation, not to say anything about the hippo and all the exotic animals
that this man lost under the guise that he was being inhumane‑‑blanket
statement. So the minister could undertake to indicate whether he will investigate,
first of all, why there was no permit issued all of those years. Secondly, whether he is prepared to provide
some compensation for the animals that were removed from Mr. Williamson by
force by his staff.
Mr.
Enns: Madam Chairperson, I am somewhat surprised
that the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) chooses this occasion now,
a full year and a half I suppose‑‑is it a year, year and a half?
An
Honourable Member: Everything happened in '92, December, January
of '92.
Mr.
Enns: ‑‑January of '92, actually to
raise the issue, I will tell you that among the considerations that I certainly
had to take in place upon the advice that I was receiving from my department
about the necessity to take some action, the necessity to close down the
Dauphin animal zoo, you know, would certainly not be taken lightly by me.
I
was aware that the individual involved had spent a considerable amount of his
time and effort and money in the animal farm at Dauphin. I was also aware, although it played a much
more minor role to it, that certainly I would expect that the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), in whose back yard this action was taken, would have
something to say about it if he felt at that time‑‑the action was
undertaken back in January‑‑that the department was wrong, that
this minister was wrong, and that some action should not have been taken.
But
let the Hansard show, Madam Chairperson, that the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) was singularly silent when my department took these actions. They were well publicized, certainly members
of the media were, both in Dauphin and in
So
I just put that on the record that the member for Dauphin's (Mr. Plohman)
concern for the owner of that operation comes late in the day. Now, I do not say that in any derogatory way,
and I want to be very careful about what I say about Mr. Larry Williamson. I have not personally met the gentleman. I have, certainly, no grudge against Mr.
Williamson as a person.
I
presume that what we are talking to may well lead to a court case, may well
lead to some kind of action. So, again,
I would be well advised‑‑all my instincts tell me not to say too much
more, quite frankly.
I
have to say, though, that these same officers of my department, whether it was
Mr. Carmichael or others‑‑and I must tell him that they were more
senior that were involved in this instance, because it was a very serious
decision for the department to take‑‑that certainly I have to rely
on their professional judgment as to the conditions that prevailed at the time,
in January of 1992.
The
conditions that Mr. Carmichael describes in a letter to Mr. Williamson in '86
might have been exactly as he described them in '86. That is four years ago. Deterioration can set in, simple
overcrowding, simply not keeping up to the needs of the animals in terms of
feed and other things or just deteriorating conditions.
I
am a cattleman in my other vocation, and I know what can happen to a corral or
to pens or to fences in four or five years if not maintained. So the conditions that Mr. Carmichael described
in 1986 and the conditions that my officers found in the fall of '91 and into
the winter of '91 then finally drove them to some action in January of
'92. You know, I do not think that the
honourable member can make a case that because the place obviously passed
muster back in '86 that that, indeed, was the case in '92.
I
find it very hard to believe that responsible members of my office would
precipitate the action they did if that were the case, but I want to assure the
honourable member that I will double check with my departmental staff. Certainly, I am sure that files are being
developed as to precisely why and what action was taken because of the
indication that they, no doubt, have by now that this case, we are not going to
hear the end of it. It is going to
likely get considerably more serious, particularly if Mr. Williamson wishes to
pursue an action for compensation. The
department may have to find itself defending in a court the actions that they
have undertaken along with the sister department of Agriculture, but I
appreciate the member is directing his remarks to my department.
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Chairperson, I want to keep this in perspective
in this discussion, that I am not condemning in a blanket way every single
action that was taken. The minister says
that I came on this late in the day insofar as this issue. I was aware that
there were concerns, of course, but I was not aware of the precise days that
animals were seized, and that there was no compensation or anything provided to
Mr. Williamson as a result of the seizure of those animals. They were just taken away and he was left
with nothing, from a valuable commodity to nothing, I guess, supposedly
forfeiting all of his rights on the basis that someone was making a charge that
he was being inhumane to one or more of those animals. So all were removed on that basis.
On
that basis he lost all title to those animals.
Perhaps that is the case. Can the
minister maybe shed some light on that?
I know this is a very unique case, it probably does not happen that
often, this kind of a situation, but is there any provision for any fee to be
paid to the owner or is it automatic that if a charge or an allegation of
inhumane treatment is made, that there is a forfeiture of all title to any of
those animals?
* (2310)
Is
that the minister's understanding? If he
does not know that, or is not aware of the details on that, he can perhaps get that
information, but I think it is a very important question in terms of the rights
of the individual who is impacted on by the action taken by his department. I would appreciate him trying to find some
answer to that question.
I
was not aware at the time that there was no compensation offered, that these
were just being removed, taken away from him.
This happened on February 5 and 6, when all these animals were taken,
these native animals. So that is only a
few months ago, and when Larry Williamson came to me, I responded.
At
the time he had a couple of other people looking after them, Raymond and
Wallace, a couple of individuals who had come to the location and had offered
to purchase it, and were operating on an interim basis. Subsequently the purchase fell through, and
Williamson again assumed control, and came to me, probably precipitated by the
death of the hippo and the removal of other exotic animals under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture.
So
that is why I was not raising it at the time, realizing there were
concerns. I do not like us to take heavy‑handed
action, and when I say us, I am talking about governments and the minister here
and his staff, under the guise that there was something wrong somewhere so that
this heavy‑handed, sweeping action was taken, and it would seem that no
rights at all were left for Mr. Williamson.
He was left without anything, as if he was a common criminal or he had
been in deliberate violation in such a drastic way that he no longer deserved
any rights or any remuneration from the value of those animals that he had in
his custody.
So
I raise this with the minister in terms of the broad action that was taken, and
I am saying that I knew that some action had to be taken, but I am talking
about the degree of it and the fairness of what was done. That is why I am raising it with the
minister, and I think this is an appropriate forum.
I
have not raised it in Question Period in attempts to create a lot of
controversy with the minister on this. I
did want to raise it in Estimates but we did not have time, so I have the opportunity
here. I want also to ask the minister
whether he will acknowledge that I did ask him, in writing, on at least one occasion,
to please meet with Mr. Williamson and myself to discuss concerns and problems
that he had in previous years. Will the minister recall that? Will he acknowledge that?
Mr.
Enns: Yes, Madam Chairperson, I recall and
acknowledge that. My experience has been
when the department and the ministry is involved in what, in all likelihood,
may end up in court or end up with some specific legal action being taken, then
it is prudent on the part of my part not to shield himself.
I
will meet with Mr. Williamson or anybody else if I think it is prudent to do
so, but under the current circumstances, I do not believe that is the
case. Madam Chairperson, I do not know all
the details involved, under what particular sections or regulations of The
Wildlife Act that the department acted.
I would believe though that if the actions that my department were undertaking
were in fact compensable, that is that we would have to buy these animals from
him or something like that, that issue would have been raised with me,
particularly in my department, where as the honourable member knows, we had
just come through a pretty tight budget situation and the department would not
have likely discussed an action that may have involved many thousands of
dollars without raising it. So on that
very general assumption‑‑I mean, the department felt that there
were sufficient statutory regulations in place to do what they did.
Madam
Chairperson, I do appreciate the honourable member for Dauphin's (Mr. Plohman)
very legitimate interest in this matter, his ongoing interest. This discussion that has taken place, which
was quite appropriate on the concurrence motions of my Estimates, will be
reviewed by staff, and I will undertake to respond in writing to the honourable
member, because it likely will be that we will no longer be facing each other
in this House on a day‑to‑day basis, to try to provide him with
some of the additional information that he has sought answers to during this evening's
questioning.
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Chairperson, just closing on this. I want to thank the minister for that
undertaking, and also to indicate for clarification that the question I asked
about the meeting was before all of this action was precipitated. Mr. Williamson was asking for a meeting, and
I had put that in writing to the minister.
I had not received a written response to that request and no meeting had
taken place. That was prior to all of
this. You know, it is easy at this point in time‑‑but it may have averted
some of this action and the need for it.
Just
one other point for clarification: If
there is any incumbency on the department and the government to provide some compensation
for what was done, I would urge the minister, in his common‑sense
approach to this issue, to do what is necessary to avoid costly litigation on
behalf of Mr. Williamson and on behalf of the taxpayers of the province and
come to some agreement on this if possible, because it would seem from the
sense of fairness that there should be something done there. That is my feeling. Whether there is a legal requirement, that is
another thing. So there may be a moral
requirement, and that is what I want the minister to, if he would, investigate
on behalf of my constituent. That is
simply what I put forward.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to ask
the minister a couple of more questions.
One of the areas I would like to touch on is, the minister has told us
how badly he feels about the cuts his department has had to take, particularly
in the area of parks and park maintenance and those kinds of things. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) has just announced a program that is going to have young people doing
the jobs that these Parks people should have been doing. I want to ask the Minister of Natural
Resources his position on this. Is he in
support of the youth of
Mr.
Enns: Let me, first of all, just for the record
indicate that certainly as minister I was not overjoyed with the fact that my
department was called upon to make a substantial contribution to the problems
of deficit financing in this province.
Certainly my department was not overjoyed that to enable us to continue
the identified priorities of my government in Health, in Education, in Family
Services, so that those departments could, in fact, see substantial increases
in their budgets, that my department along with other departments including the
Department of Agriculture, including the Department of Rural Development,
including a number of other line departments within government saw no increases
or some net losses in increase to make that possible with a flat revenue
situation that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was facing. So I want to put that into perspective.
I
have been candid, if you like, or forthright in not being afraid to express the
fact that I regret that my department has not got more dollars.
The
honourable member asks a specific question with respect to the REDI program
announced just recently. In the first instance,
the Parks Branch has over the many years of its tradition always been an
employer of young people throughout the summer season in many different
capacities. We have in terms of our own
budget controls not been able to do as much of it in the last few years as we
would like to do.
* (2320)
What
this program will assist us in‑‑they will not be doing the things
that my staff necessarily does. They
will assist us in getting around to doing them faster, building, maintenance, building
that may have been scheduled for or should be repainted will get repainted a
year earlier. A dock that was damaged
with ice flows and something like that will get repaired a little quicker. It enables us to use the maintenance dollars
that we have within the Parks Branch, which is sizable, to get on with some of
the major repairs to an aging infrastructure.
Our
infrastructure throughout our Parks system is getting old and it is showing the
signs of it. Never mind the demands of a
new facility, such as showers or bathrooms and so forth in various parts of the
province. What I see is just a welcome support
to making our parks more acceptable, more attractive to the many visitors that
come to us throughout a summer season.
By
the way, we get many visitors. We log up
to 5.5 million to 6 million people who come and visit
Ms.
Wowchuk: Madam Chairperson, I guess I will have to
disagree with the minister on his answer, because in reality there have been
job cuts. As much as I am happy to see
young people working in rural
Because
of our time limit, I have one other area that I want to touch on, so I am going
to change to bear licensing. The bear licences
were allocated several years ago. It
appears that there are several people who have large numbers of licences. Smaller operators are concerned that they
want some of those licences. There is some question that trappers have
licences, whether or not they can be reallocated for tourist bear licences.
I
want to ask the minister whether any consideration is being given to reviewing
the allocation of bear licences? What is
happening with that? Are there more bear
licences being allocated? Is there any
consideration being given to reallocation of those licences that are now for
trappers, whether those are being considered?
What is the status of the bear allocation and what is being reconsidered
at the present time?
Mr.
Enns: The practice of the allocation and the
licensing of bears is relatively new as the member knows. This only happened, I think, in '87 or in the
last five or six years. I agree that there
are some concerns about how the system is working. There has been a general shrinking of the
number of licences available, partly because of a greater control about the
numbers of bears that are being harvested, also the number of bears that have
been harvested illegally.
The
question of bears being harvested through the trapping system is a legitimate
one. The trappers, of course, feel strongly
about it. They were trapping bears for
year and years and years before bears became an attractive animal from an outfitter's
point of view, from a tourist's point of view for their purposes, but I am not
totally happy. I am aware that the distribution
of licences is very uneven. We have one
or two very large outfitters. Now, they
happen to be aggressive and provide a service to their clientele and that is
why they are where they are at, but I think the honourable member is right,
that a review is timely, and I will take her good advice and see whether we cannot
bring about a review of the whole allocation system. It has problems in an area and I am aware of
that fact and I accept the member's good advice in this issue.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to
expand a little on my colleague's question regarding the REDI program and the
jobs to the young people in the province that were announced yesterday. I put it on record that we are not certainly
opposed to, again, young people working.
I have had the opportunity over many years to assist young people in
working through summer through different programs that were in place that our
government at the time had implemented and that this government had cut back on.
My
feeling and the feeling of the small business people within rural Manitoba whom
I have spoken to since the VLT operation came into play, again was told to us
was initiated for the fact of developing the economic development of rural Manitoba,
economic development. I guess it is a
flip flop. On one hand I applaud the
government for providing jobs; on the other hand I find it very, very strange
that we should be using a resource, the minister's department, to enhance jobs
created for the young people of Manitoba when in fact there are many people who
have lost their permanent jobs because of the cuts in the minister's
department.
I
feel that there should be some sort of a balance on this whole thing. I do not really feel that the government is
really going on what they have said even though they are attempting to provide
what we are calling for‑‑some jobs for the young people in this
province to at least provide them with some income. But I do not feel that truly this government
is really doing what they said they were going to do with these monies.
Mr.
Enns: I make absolutely no apologies for the
program, it is a sound, good program and 200 jobs in rural
I
realize it is not building plants, or it is not creating a great deal of
permanent industrial jobs, but it can be considered economic development. Furthermore, what we are dedicating is one week's
revenue of the VLT revenues. One week's
revenues for this issue and I think the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach) and my department, this government, have nothing to apologize for providing
200 jobs for our youngsters under this program.
Thank you.
An
Honourable Member: Committee rise.
Madam
Chairperson: Committee rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
* (2330)
IN SESSION
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
please determine if there is leave to waive subrule 65(11) to permit the
introduction of a motion, namely private member's Resolution 77.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House to waive rule
65(11) to introduce the resolution of the honourable member of The Maples? Is
there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 77‑Five Principles of Medicare
Mr.
Speaker: I must draw to the attention of the House
that when this proposed resolution was placed on a notice paper, a paragraph
was inadvertently omitted. The paragraph
in question reads as follows:
WHEREAS
the First Ministers also directed Health ministers to initiate work to apply
the broad principles of the Canadian health care system to the objectives of
sustainability, affordability, responsiveness and effectiveness of the system, funded
without destabilizing provincial and federal finances.
I
am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to insert the paragraph that
was inadvertently omitted. Is there
unanimous consent. Agreed? That is agreed and so ordered.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
WHEREAS
the Canada Health Act mandates the five fundamental principles by which the
Canadian health care system is governed; and
WHEREAS
the preservation and maintenance of the fundamental principles of the health
care system is vital to its survival; and
WHEREAS
Manitobans believe that the fundamental principles of the health care system
must be protected.
WHEREAS
the First Ministers also directed Health ministers to initiate work to apply
the broad principles of the Canadian health care system to the objectives of
sustainability, affordability, responsiveness and effectiveness of the system, funded
without destabilizing provincial and federal finances.
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the
government of
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I am very grateful to the two other parties for allowing
this resolution to come forward.
I
think, by doing that, the government and the NDP and other parties are sending
a very strong message to the people of
Mr.
Speaker, as you know, most people right now are very concerned and very
worried, not only in this province, but across this nation that we are in very
rough shape. How are we going to uphold
the five basic principles of the medicare system? Each and every province has its own ways of
delivering a health care system. No one
province has ever put the medicare five basic principles into law. That is why we have 10 or 12 different medicare
systems in this country.
To
address that issue, there was a report out of
Mr.
Speaker, however, there have been difficulties in terms of the interpretation
of the whole thing and what is the legal obligation if those five basic
principles were held in Manitoba law. So
I am still very happy that we, at least, are acknowledging those five basic
principles, even in the form of a resolution and sending, as I said, a very
strong message to the people of Manitoba that no one is more serious than all
of us here collectively to uphold those five principles, which they really
deserve and should have.
Mr.
Speaker, it is a very important issue for all of us. At times we get very emotional and very angry
and very frustrated, and rightly so. We
should be, because it is a very important issue. However, the third paragraph in this
resolution, which is a very important statement which came out of the First
Ministers Conference of this nation was to ask the Ministers of Health to initiate,
to work on those five basic principles, but they have asked for a very specific
wording here; they are asking for a "responsiveness and effectiveness of
the system."
Mr.
Speaker, to follow those five or six words by the First Ministers of this
country, which is represented by all the political spectrum, and in saying so,
it was a basically unanimous consent even at the national level, to make sure
that those five basic principles are being upheld‑‑but the wording
for "effectiveness of the system" is very crucial for the survival of
the system. It is very important that we
have a system with the five basic principles, but we have a system which is cost‑effective,
which is meeting the needs of the day, and we should be basing our expectations
and our hopes and aspirations around those lines.
Then
we have also looked at, as this resolution said, without destabilizing the
provincial and federal finances, and that can only be done if we have a system
which can change with the times, can change to meet the needs of the community
and individual groups. Above all, this
system must be responsible, not only responsible to the patient but also to the
taxpayer. In this situation they both
are the same. So it is very essential
that each one of us pays attention to this system because if we are not smart,
if we are not being very careful, we will lose it.
Mr.
Speaker, I will give you an example why I think we will lose it. First of all, the federal government has not
kept its promise to fund this system effectively. The second thing is the way health care
funding has gone up. For example, in
Manitoba the minister has given figures, that was last year, that we had been
spending more than‑‑spending on health care has gone up more than
178 percent for the last 10 years, and our population has only grown by 6
percent during that time. So something
has gone wrong because we are not more healthy than before. So something is not under control.
* (2340)
I
use the word "open-ended" system, because we have a system that
nobody wants to touch. As a taxpayer we
have no control because everyone is afraid to say which is right. That is why I think this third paragraph by
the First Ministers' conference was very important to give some meaning, real
meaning to the health care system in terms of needed reform, how the reform is
going to take place, and then nobody should have more control than the collective
taxpayers of this nation. That can be
only done if there are actual reforms happening.
So,
Mr. Speaker, to have this resolution put into place and have approval in this
House‑‑but if we can attach to this resolution the reform package
which will help us in long run, I think then we are doing a real service, not
only just putting words on the paper to mail to our constituents and say we
have done a great job, but we have to show that we have really entrusted, and
that is why it is very essential that we give a real meaning to the health
action plan, and make sure that as the opposition members, we play a very, very
constructive and very important role as the government will play for the next
two years to uphold those five basic principles.
So
all of us have worked very hard. I want
to mention the member for
The
timing is so important, because with the health care reform package, if we do
not have a unanimous approval in the House, then we are sending a wrong
message. As I have said many times, if
any one of us believes that any of the parties is going to kill medicare, they
are fooling, they are lying through their teeth. It is not true. Each one of us has the same basic principle,
but we have to see how we are going to deliver it.
Mr.
Speaker, it is a very, very important issue for me and my caucus, because we
have taken a very different approach for the last almost four years now. The approach we have taken is to preserve
medicare, because in our own way we have to do it, we have to show that we are
responsible and we have a vision also. The question is whether we can sustain
the pressure of the various interest groups to uphold those five basic
principles and not to be derailed from that process by short‑term
political gain. I think we are simply
reaffirming those things that we have done for four years. It may sound‑‑at the initial
stages probably people would call it political immaturity. Well, Mr. Speaker, I call it responsibility
and political smartness in the long run.
Definitely
we are concerned for medicare, but that can only be protected if you have
something to put forward, something to back up, so we are very happy indeed
that we have seen the health care package, we could see a unanimous approval in
this House, and then all of us can go and tell people not to be afraid of any of
the rumours, any of the fear‑mongering, any of the terrible in‑fighting
among various groups to go for the same tax dollar for health care.
We
can tell them that we, as elected officials, are very much interested to
preserve what is one of the best systems in the whole world. Why would we give up something which is so essential
to our existence? I want to mention here
one party in this country, the Reform Party, which is the only one who is not upholding
those principles. All other three
parties are upholding those principles, because I think it is important even though
we are debating provincially, because the Reform Party is a force which is not
going to disappear. People have to know what
they really actually stand for. People
have to realize that voting for a Reform Party is a vote against the medicare
system, because that is the outcome.
That is the inference I can draw from their stated policies which are very
clear that the user has to pay, and if you are rich you will be able to have a
system. If you are poor you will be left nowhere.
I
wanted to mention that even for one or two minutes, because people of Manitoba
must know at the next election, the federal election, because that election is
going to be very important for all of us to see which government is going to
come, and are they going to honour the commitments to fund the medicare system.
Mr.
Speaker, without going into other details, I want to again emphasize and have a
word of caution and a word of praise for the present government because they
have done something different. They have
at least come a long way and taken the image that the Tory party is against
health care away. Certainly that has
been shown very clearly.
The
second word of caution is because we want to make sure that this reform and the
trust we have all put in your government, we want you to do it well. We wish you all the best, but we want to make
sure that you will do it. That can only
be done if each one of us is going to play a very, very vigilant role, very
constructive role, and watch every move the government is going to make to
reimplement that reform package, because without that package, without a real
reform, without the effectiveness of the system, of the responsiveness of the
system, which is the fourth paragraph of this resolution, it is very important. It says more than the five basic principles.
It
says that the old thinking, old ways of doing the health care system is not
going to be workable in this nation. I
think we have a chance, in this province, and the government has an opportunity
to show their leadership capability to the rest of the country. That has been shown to some extent, but
sometimes it probably takes very bold steps.
We have used that word many times and I want some bold steps to be
taken, but always bold steps forward, not bold steps backward, because somebody
could easily derail the system.
That
is why I want to emphasize to the minister that to implement your reform
package, you must put the right people into the system so those individuals
have a real commitment and also a real understanding. Without those two things it will not function.
After
two years, whatever will happen still nobody can touch the system because
political experience or political manipulation, or whatever you want to call
it, people can destroy things for their own motives. That can only be saved if we continue to have
reform. Without reform the medicare
system will not exist. There is no
question about that. I think the role of
the Minister of Health is so crucial. It
is one of the most important departments in the whole government. We spend 33 percent of our provincial money
on this thing, and it is so essential everyone is being a part of the
system. Someone in your family or
yourself has used the system.
We
want to make sure the system is there for those who really need it and to do
that there is one component which is not part of the resolution which is a very
important one, is public education.
People have to be informed. The
medicare system is not a free system; it is paid by the taxpayer; it is for the
taxpayer. They have to use it very
effectively, very carefully and only during the time of very important
needs. I think that way people will get
more involved and it will be very difficult for any government to attack this
system as long as people have a good understanding.
Mr.
Speaker, I would end by saying that we are very happy to see this resolution
brought forward by the co‑operation of the other two parties, and we hope
that we can send a strong message to the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the
opportunity tonight to speak on behalf of government to this resolution by the
member for The Maples. I want to say at
the outset that my honourable friend proposed the essence of this resolution as
an amendment to The Health Services Insurance Act.
* (2350)
In
discussions that I had with my honourable friend, I indicated that the legal
advice that we had received from our Justice department cautioned us against
incorporation of the principles within the act for the reason that it may well
expose the province to litigation for‑‑I do not want to use the
words "frivolous challenges," but unnecessary challenges that would simply,
in my words‑‑not in legal counsel's words‑‑consume some
pretty significant resource from the province paying legal fees and court costs
rather than providing health care.
So
there was not an aversion to the principles that I expressed to my honourable
friend in terms of not being able to support the incorporation in The Health
Services Insurance Act as originally proposed, but merely an abundance of
caution that we do not set up yet another target for litigation which serves really
no useful purpose in terms of the provision of health care services to
Manitobans as all of us wish to do.
I
want to deal with three issues in my presentation. I want to be brief, Sir. Last fall in
The
second area we discussed, of course, was stable and adequate funding in
partnership with the federal government, and the third issue was a commitment
by provincial ministries to more effectively manage our health care
resources. I think my honourable friend
from The Maples (Mr. Cheema) and the official opposition critic, I shared that
communique with them during the course of Health Estimates.
Subsequent
to that, Sir, the First Ministers held a meeting on the economy March 24 and
25, 1992. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important
that I read the conclusion of their communique, because I have often said to
you and I know, Sir, that you are deeply interested, that I have been around
other council of ministers' tables before in my previous experience with the
Lyon administration, and there was not a unanimous goal and purpose that was
shared by all Ministers of Transportation, for instance, when I was there in
'79 and '80 and '81, nor of communications in '80 and '81. Every province seemed to have their own
agenda and were coming to a conference of ministers with certain goals and objectives
for their province, rightfully so.
But,
Sir, I was impressed in 1988 when I went to my first Health ministers' meeting,
in that, Ministers of Health from the provinces and territories, regardless of
political affiliation, were wrestling with the same kind of problems, same kind
of challenges. There was amazing
unanimity around the Ministers of Health, provincial and territorial, to seek
solutions, because all of us had a commitment and desire to maintain the Canada
Health Act and the five principles that are embodied.
George
McLeod was Minister of Health in
That
is what I want to read to my honourable friends, is the conclusion on effective
and efficient social programs that all First Ministers signed onto or bought
into or agreed to in this communique, March 25, 1992.
It
says, Sir, and I will quote: First
Ministers had a good discussion on health and social issues. They directed: (a) a meeting of federal, provincial and
territorial Health and Finance ministers be held within two months to deal with
issues relating to the cost of the health care system; (b) that the management initiatives
being undertaken by Health ministers be accelerated, they directed Health
ministers to continue their development of comprehensive, strategic directions
and plans to achieve essential health system reforms; and (c) a continuation of
the work of Social Services ministers to ensure that the social services system
is able to meet the challenges of the years ahead. To this end, they directed Social Services
ministers to set priorities for co‑ordination and integration of social services
programs.
It
concluded by saying: First Ministers
also directed Health ministers to initiate work to apply the broad principles
of the Canadian health care system to the objectives of sustainability, affordability,
flexibility, responsiveness and effectiveness of the system, funded without
destabilizing provincial and federal finances‑‑which my honourable
friend the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has wisely included as the fourth
WHEREAS in this resolution.
Sir,
I want to remind all members of the House that this was March 25, 1992, First
Ministers' Conference of Canada. At that
First Ministers' Conference there were three New Democratic Premiers‑‑four
actually, with the
What
it does, Sir, is demonstrate how committed all governments in
I
simply want to say that the whole system is moving through remarkable change
right now. Whether you are in
That
is not going to happen without some pretty significant challenge. It is only going to happen, Sir, if we have
the kind of co‑operation that I see emerging in this House tonight with the
unanimous passage of this resolution sponsored by the second opposition party
and their Health critic. It will only
emerge if we carry the unanimous approach that we can take in this House representing
three political parties to all of the care providers involved in the health
care system.
Gone
are the days, Sir, of the them‑and‑us mentality in health care
delivery, of the individual turf protection, of the individual ownership of
issue and program and care delivery, of the individual autonomy of an
institution. All of those barriers to
working together are crashing and crashing very quickly. It is almost as quick a disintegration as I
have seen in terms of any barriers to change that I have experienced in the
last 15 years that I have been elected, and that, Sir, is good.
* (0000)
I
want to close, Sir, by sharing some information from the Canadian Hospital
Association annual meeting which was held approximately 10 days ago in
The
message was to the membership at that Canadian Hospital Association‑‑and
bear in mind, those are some of the most powerful institutions in health care
delivery, and some of the most powerful people to resist change if they so
desire to do. I will tell you, Sir, that
a Minister of Health by himself or herself is almost powerless to the issue
development that can come out of a major hospital institution in terms of
bringing forward individual cases and causing alarm and concern. The message was clear to those people, this
is happening and it would be in the best interests of medicare for you to co‑operate
and get on with the agenda of change.
The underlining and the underpinning message that was delivered by this
speaker at the Canadian Hospital Association meeting was that if you do not co‑operate,
there may be more budgetary reactions such as
I
do not use the
The
Canadian Hospital Association spokespeople said that co‑operation is now
the environment of change. Get on board
with your governments when you go home, make the change happen in the most
reasoned form possible, because the alternative is not a reasonable one.
Sir,
I close by saying that is going to take co‑operation from our
institutions, our health care professionals, our unions and the citizens of
this province in understanding the need for change, No. 1, and No. 2, the
process of change and the end result of change being a health care system which
can uphold and maintain the five principles of the Canada Health Act, as put into
this resolution by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), to assure that our
health care system is there when we need it in the future.
I
look forward to the unanimous support for this resolution in the House so this
Chamber can send that kind of a positive message of reform and change to the
citizens of
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
The
Minister of Health just concluded his remarks by suggesting that we must get on
with change and put his focus and his attentions on change in our health care
system. It has been our position, from
Day One, that any health care reform must begin with an absolute reaffirmation
to the five principles of medicare, the Canada Health Act and our most
treasured national program.
Mr.
Speaker, let there be no mistaking this evening, the issue of medicare is the
heart and soul of this country. Let there
be no mistaking that medicare is
Let
me also say, Mr. Speaker, that medicare and the principles underlying this
national program are the heart and soul of the New Democratic Party. We are pleased to see that there has been
some movement on the part of the two old‑line parties who have operated
so much in concert over the last several months on an agenda which may be more
harmful than positive for
Mr.
Speaker, what is interesting this evening is that we have not heard one word
from the Liberal Health critic or the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) about why
we are in this dilemma of having to uphold and reaffirm our support for the
five principles of medicare. Let us put
some reality on record and recognize the crisis that is looming on the horizon
because of the Liberal and Conservative decisions over the last 10 years or so
that have steadfastly eroded medicare over a period of time.
Mr.
Speaker, I noted the words very carefully of the Liberal Health critic. He said, if we are not careful, we might lose
medicare. The situation is a little more
urgent than that. It is lost, it is
finished, it is dead unless we can get current federal policy reversed. Because let us remind ourselves the money
runs out, the money from the federal government for provincial health care
systems, as it now stands under current policy, runs out in less than a decade,
which is the beginning of the end, because then there is not the means to
enforce the principles of medicare, to ensure a national program.
So
if we do not start from that premise, what is the basis of this debate? What is the point of the discussion, except
to say, we are going to try, province by province, in a patchwork way, on an ad‑hoc
basis to try to ensure that there are these principles entrenched in different
provinces across the country. Well, that
is fine, but that assumes we have given up on medicare, we have given up on a
national health care program.
I
have no trouble supporting any effort to entrench the principles of medicare in
any aspect of law or any standards in any form available to us. But if that is where we are going to leave it
and that is how we are going to leave the discussion, we have done a great
disservice to this province and this country.
Mr.
Speaker, all of this fits very much with some of the talk we have heard from
Conservatives across this country. Let
us go back to Jake Epp who not too long ago said he was not necessarily opposed
to user fees. Let us go a little closer
in time to Bouchard who said he was not opposed to asymmetrical delivery of health
care. That is what we are left with.
That
is what we are talking about tonight. We
are talking about preserving, entrenching the principles in the province of Manitoba
so that in this one province, no matter what other direction the rest of the
country goes in, we might have some protection, some guarantees. Sure, that is great, that is fine, but that
is narrow‑minded. That is
selfish. It is not doing our job in
terms of preserving medicare in this country.
Where is the fight? Where is the
fight to change federal government policy to get EPF funds reinstated, and some
force behind the Canada Health Act‑‑some meaning? This does not do it. This might hold our Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) here in
* (0010)
Where
were the Liberals over the last two years when the federal government, bit by
bit, step by step, ate away at the EPF formula, froze it, year after year after
year, to the point where we are now facing the end of those funds in a very
short time? Where were the Liberals? Why
did they not go to
No,
you know what the Minister of Finance said when I said why is this government
not going to Ottawa and presenting Manitoba's concerns about the erosion of
medicare? The Minister of Finance said
we have our own ways and they are working.
They
really work, yes, C‑20 passed. The
freeze on the formula is extended for three years, bringing the end all that much
closer. Maybe the Minister of Finance
does not want to represent the feelings of Manitobans, but at least he should
look at the bottom‑line figures and see and understand and deal with the
terrible dilemma that any provincial government is placed in as a result of
Mulroney cutbacks in health care.
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health in his comments said he can support a
resolution. He could not support
legislation because the province might be open to litigation and, goodness knows,
we would not want to have people seeking some retribution for denial of access
to health care. Goodness knows, I do not
understand that logic, I have never heard such a spurious, illogical argument
in this Chamber.
That
is like saying we should not entrench equality between the sexes in law because
then, goodness knows, there will be an avenue to seek justice on the part of
women in this province, or we should not entrench antiracism programs and
measures in law because, goodness knows, then people who have experienced
racism will have an avenue to seek justice.
We are dealing with something that fundamental. This is the right to quality health care, the
right to health care‑‑period.
Now
if that does not warrant entrenchment in legislation, then I do not know what
does. I think the Minister of Health's argument
stinks, quite frankly, and it shows his lack of commitment. It makes us understand even better the kind
of cutbacks and erosion of health care programs here in
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health is right.
If this legislation, if these principles had been entrenched in legislation,
he and his colleagues in the Manitoba Conservative government would have been
in deep trouble. I will refer to the description
in the B.C. royal commission that the Liberal Health critic and the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) like to refer to, describing what it would mean to
entrench those principles in law, and it would mean this government would have
to account for the introduction of a $50‑user fee in the northern part of
this province. This government would
have to account for the delisting of calcium for senior citizens in this
province. This government would have to
account for the elimination of grants that are vital to our health care system
and are important terms of prevention.
The
Minister of Health and the member for the Liberal Party say they cannot believe
this. They cannot believe it. I cannot either, and I would hope that they
would enter the debate and defend prevention programs. Where does this minister get the basis for
cutting the entire St. John Ambulance program for rural
Where
does the minister get the basis for eliminating funding for a prevention
program like Childbirth and Family Education? How does it fit in the principles
before us in this resolution that the minister cannot commit funding for AIDS
education for newcomer population, for a StreetLINKS program that provides for a
valuable needle exchange program, for audiology services in our school system,
for the erosion of our children's dental health program, for the deinsurance of
the removal of varicose veins, and the list goes on and on?
Mr.
Speaker, this minister could not support these principles of legislation
because it would have been in violation of those principles. Yes, it can support principles in a
resolution because it knows that it is not bound by that resolution, and it can
violate the principles without being in trouble with the law and open to
litigation.
Mr.
Speaker, the future of medicare requires much more than a resolution
entrenching the principles of medicare.
This is a step and an important step, and I commend the Liberal Health critic
for bringing it forward. I am pleased to
see that there is all‑party support for this small step, but much bigger
steps have to be taken, much greater action has to be forthcoming from this
government, much more public open debate has to occur in the province of
Manitoba and right across this country if we are going to have a medicare
program at the turn of the century, and that is how serious it is.
I
am not talking about a patchwork of systems across this country where each one
is different and varies according to the kind of legislation that they
introduce and the principles that they adopt.
I am talking about one standard, one right that is the same right across
this country from coast to coast to coast and that is the fundamental human
right to have access to health care regardless of economic situation or
geographical situation.
Mr.
Speaker, I see that my time is up. I
want to conclude by saying that we have never hesitated over the last several
years when we first learned of the very major blow that has been dealt to our
medicare program by the federal Conservative government. We have had emergency
debate after emergency debate. We
brought forward a resolution to this House that the Liberals did not clearly
put on record their support, and the Minister of Health made a mockery out of
by his amendment. We will continue to do
our job, bring the issues forward and ensure that absolute, unwavering
commitment and support for medicare principles are upheld in this province and
right across this country.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
It is agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to announce to the House that the Law Amendments Committee, I understand,
has risen for this evening. That committee
will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. to do clause by clause on Bills 86, 87 and
101.
Furthermore,
Mr. Speaker, I am going to seek the unanimous consent of the House that we
recess this sitting at this time, and that we come back at 10 a.m. tomorrow
morning.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
recess at this hour and reconvene at 10 a.m. this morning? Agreed? That is agreed.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I should serve notice that the
other committee, indeed, if it does not complete its business before tonight
will also reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow.
That is the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs.
I
might also give prior notice to members opposite that there is a good
probability that I will probably be calling the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections for a short period tomorrow afternoon to deal with the
judicial issue that is before it. [interjection! Well, I am giving some notice
that that may be called at that time.
* (0020)
Mr.
Speaker, the Clerk advises me that I have to have leave of the House to have
standing committees of the House and the House sit at the same time, so I seek
that leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to have the committees sit at the same time as the House is sitting?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): There is no problem in
the morning with the additional sitting that is taking place in the morning;
however, we will discuss further, I am sure, between the House leaders in terms
of any possible sittings in the afternoon, so tomorrow morning is no problem.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to allow the committees to sit
at the same time as the House, in the morning?
That is agreed. Okay, that is it.
This House is now recessed until 10 a.m. this morning (Wednesday).
* * *
The
House took recess at 12:23 a.m.