LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
June 25, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Crown Corporations Public
Review and Accountability Act): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Fourth
Annual Report for the year ended December 31, 1992, of the Crown Corporations
Council.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative
Review for Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Rural Development.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
today His Excellency Alexander Belonogov, the Russian Ambassador to
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning, sir.
Also with us this morning, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning.
*
(1005)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Grain
Market Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by
congratulating the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) on his 24th
anniversary of elected office to this fine, fine House, the 2 i/c dean of the
Legislature here.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier.
In December of 1990, and again in April of
1992, we asked questions about the action that
I asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) then to
worry about the U.S. subsidy program, because they were in fact competing
against markets that
At that point, we were told the only
culprits in the grain war were the GATT countries, and that there would not be
action taken.
Today we have confirmation of the rumours
over the last couple of days that I am sure all members will join in
condemning, that the
I would like to know from the government,
what action will they be taking and what strategy will they be taking to deal
with about the third initiative of the
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are‑‑as well as
the government, representing a lot of our rural constituencies‑‑extremely
alarmed with the predictions of impact on Canadian wheat prices and, in fact,
causing them to be lowered, and fully support the federal minister responsible
for Agriculture, who is reported in the press as making comments that they will
be drafting a letter of protest to the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. We fully support the protest that is being
put forward.
Grain
Market Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we would have wished that the
federal government and the provincial Conservatives would have moved on the
Mr. Speaker, what will the impact of a
decline of 14 percent in grain prices be on
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I want
to also join with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) in saying it is very
unfortunate that the
I want the member to know that this is a very
complex issue. I think if we look at what has happened over the last three or
four years, we have seen the Americans using EEP in the world and actually
lowering the value of grain in those various markets beyond
I am very disturbed at the action of the
present
I want to tell the member also, the Leader
of the Opposition, that the farm community is somewhat protected because GRIP
is in place. If we get less from the
marketplace, GRIP will kick in and make payments to help subsidize or stabilize
the farm community.
Nonetheless, the actions taken are very
contrary to fair and free trade. Yes,
they started out saying
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall the
questions we asked about the
Mr. Speaker, the member of the Crop
Insurance Board has stated that this decline in prices will have a direct
impact on the taxpayers of
Can the government today indicate what the
potential impact will be to the taxpayers of
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has given
estimates on what the final return of the wheat pool for the 1992 crop has
been. They have also given projections
for what the pool results have been for '93.
That figure has changed over the course of the last month, gone
lower. It is difficult to give an actual
estimate of what the cost will be to the taxpayer of
I can tell the member that their deficit
was run up in the GRIP program in the 1991 crop of, I believe it was a $40‑million
cost to the taxpayers of
For the 1993 crop that is currently in the
ground, it is very difficult to project at this time, although I will tell you
what the initial estimates were. Given
grain prices as we saw three or four months ago, it looked like there would be
no deficit on the 1993 crop. Now, that
is obviously somewhat in doubt.
Youth
Violence
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Last night, there was an extremely violent
incident at the Ex involving over 400 people, including many youths. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice
today what his government is doing to protect families and tourists, such as
the 40 school bands that are here today to participate in the Red River
Exhibition, from such violent incidents.
What is he prepared to do?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable
member's concern, and this matter was raised just last month in
There was also, at the urging of the
In addition,
*
(1010)
Reduction
Strategy
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, there have been no clear
answers to questions on youth violence that we have raised in the House before,
no clear answer from the Minister of Justice today, the same kind of
misinformation that the government gave us on the Family Violence Court
backlog.
When is the government going to stop
talking, stop hiding behind incorrect answers or no answers at all, like the
Minister of Justice just gave us, and start doing something preventive to stop
the increase‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): There is one thing I have never done, Mr.
Speaker, that has been to hide from anything.
I am very pleased also that in
We are pleased with the work being done by
the Youth Justice Committees, RCMP advisory committees working in the
communities, and I encourage that in every community in the
Ms. Barrett: Committees and ministerial meetings are not
going to make the Red River Exhibition this summer safe.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Justice one more time: What specific preventive steps is he prepared to take to
make the Red River Exhibition, a major tourist attraction and a major family
event in the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the City of
Winnipeg Police Department is vigilant to problems that might arise, especially
in the light of incidents that have taken place.
The City of
Gambling
Government Strategy
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today,
the second bingo and VLT gambling palace opens up in the city of
My question is for the Minister
responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation.
All the while the government has given the
people of this province no indication as to where they are going with gambling
in this province, and our party has called for a halt on the expansion of
gambling until such time as we have had some public consultation, Mr. Speaker.
My question for the minister is: How much is going to be enough? Where are we going with gambling in this
province? Can the minister articulate
that?‑‑because it has been the Crystal Casino, then it is open
Sundays, then we take it to the riverboats, then we take VLTs to the rural
areas, then we bring them to the city, and now we have these gambling palaces
in this city. Where are we going with
gambling in this province?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
We have committed to act responsibly in
expansion of gaming so that, indeed, minors cannot play. The Leader of the Second Opposition does not
talk about the 300 jobs that have been created in the two new entertainment
facilities that mean jobs for Winnipeggers, for Manitobans.
*
(1015)
Expansion
Moratorium
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, what the minister never talks
about is the social consequences of going the route she is going. This is the minister, by the way, who called
this good family entertainment just a few years ago, so it is interesting that
her whole answer is based on the nonaccess of minors.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: Given the concerns which are
being raised today and going to be raised today by the native community, who
are claiming that they have rights to expand gambling on their reserves, will
the minister halt the unrestricted, unthinking expansion of government‑sponsored
gambling until such time as this government has consulted with the people of
this province, including the native community, to try to define and understand
and consult to know where we are going with gambling and what the consequences
are?
Will she stop the expansion until we have
had that debate?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister charged with the administration of The
So we have been acting responsibly; we
have been dealing with the issues that affect our aboriginal people and native
gaming in the
Mr. Edwards: A sign of the minister's wonderful success at
consultation, they are going to be demonstrating today from the Roseau River
Reserve at the new location on McPhillips.
That is a sign of how successful she has been.
Video
Lottery Terminals
Social
Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My final question
for the minister is: There are 1,700 or
1,800 VLTs scheduled for 225 locations in this city for September. The minister has not yet produced the paper
that she has asked to be presented on the social consequences. The mayor of this city has expressed a great
amount of concern not knowing the social consequences and has expressed a lot
of concern about those VLTs going into the city. Will the minister at least stop the expansion
to the extent of those hundreds and hundreds of VLTs in the city until she has
produced some evidence that she has any idea about the social consequences of
what she is doing?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
It is really nice to be able to have it
both ways, just like the Liberal gaming policy that says that they would expand
and build four casinos throughout the
We are the third province across the
country that has entered into a study on the effects of gaming in the
*
(1020)
Student
Social Allowances
Program Reinstatement
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this government has always
maintained that no other province had a program like Student Social
Allowances. They used this as a
justification to eliminate the
I want to ask the Minister of Education
again today to treat this as a matter of common sense, as a matter of
educational urgency to get those more than a thousand students back into the
classroom and to begin to get on the ladder of post‑secondary education.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker,
Now the member is indicating that there
are not other avenues. Yesterday,
members opposite were saying that people who were accessing the single‑parent
social allowances are not eligible to attend school. That is not true. Those people have the ability to attend
school when they are on the single‑parent social allowances.
We have some 11,000 or 12,000 cases in the
province who do access that social allowance.
As well, we spend upwards of $12 million on programs and training for
people who are on social assistance who want to get into the workforce.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, since it is the minister of
social services who is going to answer this, I will ask him. Will he confirm that
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that there are
options available for students. We have
thousands and thousands of students throughout the province who work summers,
who work part time, and attend school.
We also have students who are accessing the children's social welfare
system who, where the agencies are responsible for them, also attend schools.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge
that
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member fails to realize that
*
(1025)
Firearms
Control
Government
Policy
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) took notice for me of a question from the honourable member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). It appears that
the honourable member is concerned that I might have suggested that law‑abiding
citizens ought not to be treated like criminals. I, frankly, do not know why that would
concern the honourable member.
I would like the honourable member to know
that, indeed, the policy of this government is today and has been that guns
should not be held in the hands of criminals.
Everything that we have done here in
The perception is, amongst a lot of people
who are law‑abiding gun owners, that our gun control laws could be better
received if criminals who use guns were handled more effectively and more
sternly. I think that is what maybe has
got the honourable member a little confused about it, but surely the honourable
member and her colleagues would not suggest that law‑abiding gun owners
or anybody else ought to be treated like criminals when they are not criminals.
Oak
Hammock Marsh Bird Count
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I have the study on Oak Hammock
Marsh which shows the bird numbers have declined substantially, some 77
percent, since this government and Ducks Unlimited undertook the construction
of the office complex there in the marsh.
The cover of the report says November
1992. I would ask the Minister of
Natural Resources: When did the
government receive the report, and what happened with the report between the
end of 1992 and June 1993?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, knowing precisely that this question was going to be asked and partly
as a condition of the licence granted, Ducks Unlimited
This report covers those precise four
acres of land that were disturbed during construction. Now, Mr. Speaker, the meadowlark, the little
red, red robin that goes bob‑bob‑bobbing along knows that when a
Caterpillar is about to come near its nest, it is not going to nest there. He flew 50 feet over and nested in the other
8,000 acres of the marsh.
This report only involves the three acres,
and next year Ducks Unlimited is going to do another study‑‑not the
government; Ducks Unlimited is going to do it, and they are going to find that,
when the tall grass prairie is growing over all the four acres and in among the
6,000 trees and shrubs that have been planted, there will be twice as many
birds, twice as many red robins. There
will be no little dickeybird sitting on a branch shaking its head about a
sorrowful song. There will be lots of
nests there.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that the
minister's answers are for the birds.
Point of
Order
Mr. Enns: It is hardly relevant whether or not my
answers are for the birds. What counts
is whether my actions are.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
*
(1030)
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. I would ask the minister: Why was the report not released at the end of
1992? Could it be because this would be
very, very bad for the public relations that went on for the opening of the
Ducks Unlimited complex on May 1, '93?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in my initial
answer, this is part of the provisions that Ducks Unlimited Canada agreed to
when it was awarded by the Clean Environment Commission the licence to proceed
with the construction. They indicated
that they would undertake to do precisely this kind of a study of the actual
construction area.
Mr. Speaker, I simply have to repeat over
and over again. The misleading headline that suggests that bird life is down in
the overall 8,000 hectare or acre site of Oak Hammock Marsh is totally
misleading. The study site is the four
acres of the actual construction site alone‑‑four acres. In anticipation that precisely this kind of a
suggestion might be made, there has been no net loss of habitat, actually
none. In fact, the marsh grew by 156
acres.
Just so that no criticism could be made
that not one single square inch of habitat would be lost to wildlife, before
the construction program started Ducks Unlimited Canada acquired another full
quarter section, 160 acres of land, of which four acres were given up for the
construction of the facility. So the net
increase to habitat is 156 acres of undisturbed habitat for the marsh.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain how
then, if there is no comparative study, he can table any comparative study for
other regions so that we can make this comparison? How can they claim that this study is showing
a decline in birds and it is not due to the building itself or the construction
of the building? Can he table a
comparative study, and how can they say that the decline in these birds is not
related to the construction of the building?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely the comparative
studies that were done. Ducks Unlimited
Canada carried out, did a study before any construction took place on these
four acres. They did one after the
construction took place so that we could have a comparison, and we will
continue doing them for another four or five years so that we can have the
comparative database that the member speaks about, so that two years from now,
three years from now, five years from now, because that study was taken before
the site was started, surely this is precisely what environmentalists would
want us to do. Certainly we are carrying
out exactly the intent of the act.
Now we will have a study that said this
was the actual wildlife and bird life activity on this four‑acre site
before construction started. This is what
the study showed right after the construction period ended, and they are
committed to doing it for the next five years.
That will provide the kind of database that I am sure the honourable
member for Radisson would sooner or later stand up and say‑‑she
will regret this line of questioning at this time‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the honourable
minister who is in full flight at this time.
Family
Violence
Court Backlog
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we were guaranteed from this
government that the court backlog in Family Violence Courts would be reduced to
three months. It is now six months, and
the 12 extra court days the Premier (Mr. Filmon) espoused in this House the other
day do not result in extra service.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us what
he is prepared to do to ensure that his promise of zero tolerance can become a
reality by ensuring that family violence cases are dealt with quickly?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the court referred to by
the honourable member has been used by many, many people since its
inception. In fact, in the two years,
this year there is expected to be a 70 percent increase in the caseload from
the initial year, from 1,800 cases to 3,000‑plus this year.
So the honourable member will understand
that we acknowledge the pressure that we are creating for ourselves by trying
to open up the system for victims so that we can deal with their cases more
sensitively than we have in the past.
We need to look at that pressure, and we
are indeed doing that. The number of
sittings has indeed increased, but only marginally, so we are looking at
bringing on a new Crown attorney in July.
There are judicial vacancies.
Those vacancies we hope to fill just as soon as we can.
As I say, the implementation committee,
which keeps an eye on the operations of this court, will be meeting on Monday
of next week. So perhaps we will hear
further from them on how we can keep a control on the traffic in that court.
Reduced
Workweek
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, the committee may be meeting,
but there is a very obvious suggestion for this minister and the suggestion
is: Why is there a workweek reduction
for individuals who are working in the Family Violence Courts, when in fact you
know that your workload has increased tremendously? Why are you going ahead
with the workweek reduction?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The workweek reduction is a policy of
the government of
However, by using the flexibility that exists
in the court system which the honourable member's Leader is very well aware of,
we can make this court work and we are determined to do that. We have been completely committed to doing
that since the inception of the court.
We are the ones who brought the court into existence in the first
place. We are the ones who are going to
make sure it continues to work properly.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary for
the Minister of Justice.
If I can just ask the minister then‑‑this
minister is stating that he is prepared to sacrifice the safety of women, to
sacrifice his policy of zero tolerance to save a few dollars in the case of the
staff who would be working throughout the summer and not taking the days off. He is prepared to sacrifice safety of
individuals. He is prepared to sacrifice
zero tolerance policy for the sake of a few dollars.
Is that his policy?
Mr. McCrae: The honourable member's rhetoric does not
match the reality of the situation.
There is no government in this country more committed to stamping out
domestic violence than the government of
I point out to the honourable member that
in Liberal and NDP Ontario, 50,000 cases had to be thrown out because of the
Askov decision‑‑under Liberal and NDP Ontario. So honourable members ought to note that we
have not lost any of those kinds of cases because of the lapse of time in the
court system.
The honourable member can be assured that
we will give every attention to the operation of this court.
Gretchen
FamilyRomanian Adoption
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the federal Department of
Immigration has recommended the Gretchen child be allowed into
Can the minister confirm whether or not
the family will have to wait the entire weekend for an official to come back to
make the decision or to review the documents that have been filed by the
Gretchen family, or will the department be expeditiously on it today in order
to resolve this matter, because it is very pressing and urgent, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again my honourable friend
attempts to put incorrect information as to process on the record. We become accustomed to that.
When my honourable friend's colleagues
governed the
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we have only received
as of yesterday afternoon the information that we expected to have on
Wednesday. We are expediting the review of that in order to ascertain whether
there is any opportunity for the pediatrician to provide these services at a
cost that he says is significantly less, et cetera. We will deal with this case as expeditiously
as people who say they can provide different processes agree to same.
Department
of Northern Affairs
Assistant
Deputy Minister
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are indeed tired of
Tory patronage, certainly when it comes to the Senate, but also when it comes
to appointments in the
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Northern
Affairs explain why a defeated Tory candidate was appointed to be the Assistant
Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs without competition when the previous
incumbent in that position resigned effective June 12, 1992? Can the minister explain why the government
found it impracticable to hold a competition so that northerners and natives in
northern
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, positions are filled with qualified people. Secondly,
the individual whom the member refers to is from northern
*
(1040)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, northerners suffer high
unemployment. They suffer from the ignorance and the indifference of this
government every day.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister now
bulletin that position so people in northern Manitoba who understand the
concerns of those communities, members of the Northern Association of Community
Councils, the MKO can have a chance and have an open competition, so we can get
rid of this backdoor Tory patronage?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, from a member of a government
that some way found a way to hire Phil Eyler, who was a former NDP member of
the Legislature, and put him in the department, to find a position for Mr.
Terry Sargeant, who is a former Member of Parliament for Selkirk, now has the
audacity to stand in his place and criticize this government for going through
a normal hiring practice, an acting position for a long‑term position
that will be panelled, I think the public of Manitoba will see the member for
Flin Flon for what he is.
Workforce
Reduction
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, details are coming out about the
impact of the elimination of 480 positions at Manitoba Hydro. It appears that the initial announcements
have not dealt with the fact that many of the jobs are going to be from rural
I would like to ask the minister if he can
confirm that many of the positions that are being eliminated will come from
rural
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for The
I will check into the details as to where
the reductions will come from, but the member has to acknowledge that
approximately 200 of those positions are early retirements and less than 100
are actual people who are going to be laid off.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Emerson have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay
tribute to a number of events that are very closely related.
First of all, the Post Road Heritage
society unveiled a heritage interpretive plaque on June 16 at the Emerson
travel information centre depicting the history of the Emerson‑Fort
Dufferin area.
Also, the Emerson Chamber of Commerce is
organizing a wagon train, which will leave Emerson on July 5 and travel west on
the Boundary Commission Trail up to the Pembina Crossing area around the
Manitou area.
These two events remind us of our rich
heritage in the Emerson area. Whenever
we pay tribute to the past, as the Emerson Chamber of Commerce is doing, it
gives us an opportunity to preserve important pieces of our history. For example, the Northwest Mounted Police
once followed the same Boundary Commission Trail to establish and to enforce
Canadian laws in western
I feel privileged to be able to share with
all of my honourable friends our heritage that is very much a part of our
everyday lives. I would like to commend
all the hardworking people who have spent countless hours organizing this train
ride and other similar events. They help
to build a sense of being true Canadians by increasing our knowledge and our
pride of our own Canadian history.
I salute those who will be travelling on
the wagon train and the trail ride next week, as well as the hard workers at
the Emerson Travel Info Centre who are trying to identify for travellers into
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the
member for
And I move, seconded by the honourable
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) for the
member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns); the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson)
for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for Brandon West
(Mr. McCrae) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to announce formally that the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections, which was going to consider the Freedom of Information report, which
was scheduled tomorrow morning at ten o'clock if necessary, I think there has
been agreement between the parties that that committee hearing is no longer
necessary. So we will cancel that.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, I thank the government House leader.
Mr. Manness: I will make an announcement, Mr. Speaker,
that standing committee will, with leave of the House, sit next Tuesday at 2:30
p.m. But, of course, I require leave of
the House to have it sit at that time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to have that committee sit at 2:30, I believe he says on
Tuesday? Leave is needed because we have
to have leave‑‑the House will be sitting‑‑for that
committee to be going. There is leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, the honourable government House leader
does have leave for that.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, at this time, would you call
Bills 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, and then 42, in that order.
SECOND
Bill 46‑The
Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 46, The Criminal
Injuries Compensation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation
des victimes d'actes criminels), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: The purpose of this legislation is to effect
an adjustment to The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, to bring it in line
for fiscal 1993‑94, at least, with some of the economic realities that
have already resulted in the reduction of services and programs across
government.
Honourable members will recall that The
Criminal Injuries Compensation Act provides that people who are the victims of
crime and who are injured as a result of this crime may apply for financial
compensation for such injuries. This act
established the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board which is an agency of my department. This board reviews and administers claims for
compensation as they arise.
The intention of the bill is to amend
Section 23 of this act. Currently, the
bill provides that if a crime victim is determined to be entitled to receive
benefits on an ongoing basis, he or she should be subject to a similar benefit
scheme as an injured worker would be under The Workers Compensation Act.
Worker compensation benefits have been
automatically indexed to the cost of living, and thus so have benefits received
by the injured victims of crime. As of
June 30, 1993, this element of the compensation package will end, and
thereafter, benefits to injured crime victims will not be automatically
indexed.
Clearly, this change is regrettable for
current and future crime victims injured during the course of a crime. We believe, however, that it is a necessary
adjustment to further our government's commitment to a fair and comprehensive
approach to controlling and reducing the costs of government and avoiding any
increase to the provincial debt.
*
(1050)
The legislation now before the House would
also give this or any future government the power by regulation to index these
compensation benefits at any time. This
means that should our fiscal circumstances ease to any extent, we might again
look at the option of returning to full indexation without having to bring a
further amendment before this House.
We believe this legislation balances the
immediate and urgent need for this government to pursue all reasonable means of
fiscal responsibility and responsible spending practices with the right of
injured crime victims to receive fair and adequate compensation.
I commend this bill to honourable members,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading‑‑oh, the honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 48‑The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 48, The Statute Law
Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions
legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Motion presented.
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, usually when the
Minister of Finance in any government tables The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, it is an indication that the session is coming to a close. I do not know whether that is necessarily the
case or not around this time.
Nevertheless, as I will say a couple of times
through my notes, I request of the opposition parties that speedy passage be
given to this particular act, only in the sense that the federal government is
prepared to collect provincial tax at the border, but they will not do so until
this act has been passed. So I ask the
members to take that into consideration.
In the 1993 Budget Address, I announced
our government's planned fiscal measures.
Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993, provides
legislative authority for these changes as well as for various technical and
housekeeping amendments.
I will touch only briefly on the contents
of Bill 48, as I believe the fuller discussion and debate will provide all
members with the opportunity to express their position on its content. To assist
in the deliberations, I have provided opposition critics with a detailed
explanation of the provisions of the bill, and I hope they received those
yesterday.
Madam Deputy Speaker, since taking office
in 1988, this government has presented a coherent and sensible policy of
encouraging growth in the private sector, the driving force of the
economy. I think members would all agree
that the private sector is the driving force of the economy.
Bill 48 builds on the foundations we have
set in the past five years. It maintains
and strengthens our efforts at developing a competitive taxation environment, a
prime ingredient in encouraging business investment.
The bill contains provisions to encourage
the transportation industry by reducing railway, diesel and aviation fuel taxes
by 3.15 cents and 0.8 cents per litre, respectively. It eliminates entirely the aviation fuel tax
for cargo flights from or to overseas destinations. It encourages small businesses to create new
jobs by increasing the exemption from the payroll tax by 25 percent to
$750,000. It encourages investment in
manufacturing and processing by extending the 10 percent manufacturing
investment tax credit for an additional year.
The bill introduces a new environmental
tax preference of 5 cents per litre for recycling used oil into diesel fuel,
along with two other measures to assist recycling in
Bill 48 includes legislation to permit
taxpayers to request advanced tax rulings under The Corporation Capital Tax,
The Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy and The Retail Sales Tax Acts
to assist businesses in their corporate planning.
Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill
also contains clauses which will affect most, if not all,
Bill 48 authorizes a one‑cent‑per‑litre
increase in gasoline tax to 11.5 cents, the fourth lowest in the country. This bill also reduces the tax preference on
gasohol by one cent per litre. Effective
midnight June 21, as I announced previously, raw leaf tobacco is taxed at four
cents per gram or 57 cents per ounce, a lower rate than that applied to fine
cut tobacco.
The largest single tax measure is the
broadening of the retail sales tax base to include many items previously
exempt. Most of the broadening measures were essential to secure federal
approval for collection by Customs and Excise of the provincial sales tax at
the border starting on July 1, 1993. I
ask the members to please receive that date when they are contemplating the
process of time required to debate this bill‑‑July 1, 1993. We
believe this is important to help protect local jobs and level the playing
field for retail business.
Since May 1, sales tax has been payable on
restaurant meals under $6, snack foods, nonprescription drugs, newspapers and
magazines, personal hygiene supplies, certain safety equipment, school
supplies, baby supplies, sewing patterns and children's clothing items costing
more than $100.
Effective August 1, 1993, the application
of provincial sales tax to private sales of automobiles will be tightened under
the provisions of this bill.
The changes to
The minimum property tax credit is reduced
from $325 to $250. Most nonseniors with
income under $20,000 will receive higher property tax credits through the
income tax system sufficient to offset the reduced minimum. Generally, senior citizens with income under
$30,000 will also receive $75 more in property tax credits through the income
tax system next year. All claimants to the property tax credit will be required
to make a minimum contribution of $250 towards local property taxes, directly
as homeowners or through rent for tenants, before they are eligible for
provincial tax credits. Claimants of
Now the federal definition of income,
including Workers Compensation, guaranteed income supplements, social
allowances and foreign pensions, will be used to ensure that people with the
same level of income, even from these sources, will qualify for the same level
of tax credit assistance.
I would ask all members to support passage
of this bill before July 1 so that border collections may start on time and
help level the playing field for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend Bill 48 to
all the members. Thank you very much.
*
(1100)
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I adjourn the
debate, I wonder if I could ask the minister one question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable Minister of Finance be
prepared to accept one question from the honourable member for Brandon East?
Mr. Manness: Yes.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, because of the claims
made by the distributors of raw leaf tobacco regarding the unfairness of the
tax, I wonder if the minister would undertake to review or reanalyze the
proposed raw leaf tobacco tax that is proposed in this bill, to ensure that the
tax burden on raw leaf tobacco is no greater than the burden on the tailor‑made
or manufactured tobacco products?
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, the short answer is
yes, although I have looked at this at many angles. I will try to give him more information on
this on paper, but at this time I would indicate to the member that basically a
raw leaf of tobacco is 225 grams in weight, and taking into account the waste
that is associated with the stem, a full 25 grams, we sense that what we are
comparing then is 200 grams of raw leaf versus 200 grams of cut tobacco which
most of us are familiar with. It comes
within the can that we have seen for some time.
The comparable rates of taxation are the
following: 5.3 cents per gram on the
processed, refined tobacco in a can, and 4 cents a gram, basically, on 200
grams of raw leaf tobacco after the stem has been removed.
I will undertake to give him something on
paper with greater clarity if that is what he so wishes.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I would move, seconded by the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 49‑The
Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill
49, The Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires et apportant des modifications
correlatives a une autre loi), be now read a second time and referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy Speaker, the purpose of this
legislation is twofold and relates to the manner in which this province deals
with parking and traffic offences.
The first objective is to remove parking
tickets and traffic fines from this department's fine‑option program. The second is to remove incarceration as the
penalty for failing to pay such fines incurred for parking and traffic
violations.
We fully expect these measures to help set
the stage for more effective and proportionate measures for collecting and
enforcing these fines in the future.
Honourable members will recall that
The province has agreements with nonprofit
groups to deliver this program. There is
now a network of more than 140 community resource centres and over 500 work
centres.
In 1992, nearly 15,000 people registered
to work off their fines; 62 percent completed their required hours; 10 percent
did some work and then chose to pay off the remainder of the fine. However,
some offenders have had to be arrested and jailed for failing to carry out the
fine‑option program.
Expenditures for the program are
increasing as well. The province pays a
fee of $40 per work assignment to the nonprofit organizations. In fiscal year 1992‑93, these fees
totalled $453,000.
One weakness of the program is that people
can use the fine‑option program for small fines, including parking
tickets and minor traffic violations. In
some cases, the fine may be less than the $40 fee paid by the province.
This amendment proposes to eliminate this
shortcoming by removing the fine option for parking and Highway Traffic Act
offences. Combined, these types of fines
account for almost 55 percent of all fine‑option registrations. By removing them, we could save the province
in the order of $250,000 annually, beginning with just under $125,000 this
fiscal year.
As I stated, the second objective of this
amendment is to remove incarceration as a penalty for nonpayment of parking
tickets or Highway Traffic Act fines.
Quite simply, the punishment is too severe for the crime. It offends our sense of fairness and may also
contravene the Canadian Constitution.
This is an issue many jurisdictions in this country are now addressing.
In
The present amendments address primarily
the removal of parking tickets and traffic fines from the fine‑option
program and the removal of jail as the penalty for nonpayment of these
fines. We believe that in combination
with other legislation these measures will strengthen the ability of the courts
to enforce and collect fines and continue our progress towards a more effective
and proportionate approach to this issue.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 50‑The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded
by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that
Bill 50, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy Speaker, as honourable members
are aware, The Statute Law Amendment Act is the omnibus bill presented each
year to the Legislature. The primary
purpose of this legislation is to correct minor errors in statutes that have
been identified in the course of the year.
This year's bill is made somewhat lengthy
by the inclusion of Part 2, which corrects all references to the titles of
ministers and departments, made necessary by changes made over the years under
The Executive Government Organization Act.
Part 1 of the bill contains the usual
range of minor changes to correct typographical and other errors in the
statutes. There are a few changes in
Part 1, however, which I would like to highlight for honourable members because
of their substantive effect.
*
(1110)
Changes are included here to The
Communities Economic Development Fund Act.
These changes bring the provisions of that act into line with the
provisions of The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act in
that the chairperson of the board and the chief executive officer will now be
separate positions, and the fund will be required to prepare quarterly
financial statements.
A minor change to The Provincial Court Act
is included to clear up an ambiguity concerning the status of the chairperson
of a nominating committee under Section 8 of that act. The Financial Administration Act is changed
to authorize the minister to write off uncollectible debts due to the government
without prejudicing the government's right to collect them in the future. The amendments to this act also extend the
minister's power to collect debts due by way of setoff from monies payable to a
debtor by any government agency, rather than just from monies payable to the
debtor by government departments.
Certain points of clarification that must
be implemented before the new Homestead Act comes into force have also been
included. These changes are required to
ensure an orderly transition to the new act.
They will also serve to clarify the definition of homestead, as will a
provision governing equalization payments under The Marital Property Act.
A minor change to The Housing and Renewal
Corporation Act has been included in authorizing the appointment of employees
of certain housing authorities and Crown agencies to the board of the
corporation in addition to civil servants.
Changes to The Marriage Act have been
included to ensure consistency with federal laws. There is also one change to delete an
obsolete requirement regarding marriage certificates.
Several acts are being amended to
implement a decision to authorize the Land Titles Office to charge fees for the
services it provides to government agencies.
In addition, this bill includes an amendment to ensure awards of the
board of reference under The Public Schools Act are valid, notwithstanding a
failure to comply with the technical requirements of The Regulations Act.
Subsection 11(7) of The Public Trustee Act
is being changed to reflect the current office practice as it relates to
calculation and payment of interest on client accounts. The current office practice is more
beneficial to clients of the Public Trustee's office. A change included in this bill to The Rural
Development Bonds Act will remove from financial institutions the benefit of
the government guarantee that is available to other bond holders.
Finally, I would note that a minor change
to The Teachers' Pensions Act has been included. This change corrects a subsection reference
that creates an ambiguity between the role of the investment committee and the
role of the board in connection with investment decisions.
I will be pleased to provide any
background information that honourable members may wish at the committee stage
on Bill 50. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 51‑The
Municipal Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that
Bill 51, The Municipal Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les
municipalites, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Deputy Speaker, the amendments to The
Municipal Act before this House are in response to the urgent need to replace
some outdated sections of this legislation.
The proposed amendments reflect changing
needs of municipal bodies in a wide variety of areas. The proposed amendments to The Municipal Act
include several changes. The first one
is changing the expropriation provisions to allow a municipality to assemble
land for municipal purposes without restricting the proposed use of this land.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the City of
The second item, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
the deletion of the requirement for public transit fares to be approved by the
Public Utilities Board. The City of
The next one, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
absolving municipalities from liability for nuisance claims resulting from
sewer backups. This provision parallels
that of the city of
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
The next one, Mr. Speaker, is the
correction of an inconsistency between The Municipal Act and The Intoxicated
Persons Detention Act. Municipal by‑laws
dealing with drunkenness are no longer required since this is covered by other
provincial legislation.
Another amendment, Mr. Speaker, is
providing municipalities with authority to invest in treasury bill mutual
funds. The Municipal Act currently
restricts investments made by municipalities as to security. Municipalities, as well as two chartered
banks, have requested this amendment to allow them to invest in mutual funds
which invest exclusively in treasury bills.
The original intent of the provision in the
act was to restrict investments to those that are guaranteed. As such, this amendment is consistent with
the original provision. This amendment
has been, again, requested by municipal associations and chartered banks to be
included as authorized investment opportunities under the act.
Another amendment is to allow
municipalities to appoint their own municipal auditors and negotiate their own
rates of remuneration for those auditors.
This amendment is necessitated both by request of municipalities, and,
indeed, we have seen fit to include this as part of the revisions or amendments
to The Municipal Act. This change in
legislation will give municipalities the responsibility to appoint their own
auditors and to negotiate their own audit fees.
Another change, Mr. Speaker, is the
clarification of indemnity allowances for municipal councillors. This is a housekeeping amendment to correct,
if you like, housekeeping issues, to correct references and numbering of subsections
in order to clarify consistency of expenditures and indemnity provisions
between rural and urban municipalities.
The last change, Mr. Speaker, is to allow
for a change of references to local government support services branch, which
reflects the recent restructuring of the Department of Rural Development.
Mr. Speaker, all of these proposed
amendments arise from significant consultation between rural municipalities and
urban municipalities as well as our department.
Rural Development supports these amendments to The Municipal Act as a means
of providing municipal authorities with the means to meet the needs of their
residents that they have responsibility for.
With that, Mr. Speaker, we recommend this
bill to the House. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
*
(1120)
Bill 52‑The
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Bill 52, The
Manitoba Foundation Act (Loi sur la Fondation du Manitoba), be now read a
second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the
Under The Income Tax Act, an individual or
trust donor may claim a nonrefundable tax credit which reduces both federal and
provincial income tax liabilities subject to donations not exceeding 20 percent
of the donor's net income for the year. Corporations may deduct their gifts
subject to the 20 percent limit from taxable income.
However, Mr. Speaker, donations to the
Crown, to
Mr. Speaker, Bill 52 establishes the
Manitoba Foundation, the Crown agency foundation announced in the 1993 Budget
Address, an umbrella foundation to receive and distribute gifts destined for
The Manitoba Foundation will act as a
conduit from donors to designated institutions, the universities, colleges,
hospitals and museums which the province primarily supports. Such institutions will be designated where
they are registered charities under The Income Tax Act and receive most of
their revenue from the province. The
institutions will continue their own fundraising.
Bill 52 establishes a fund into which
gifts of money will be deposited or to which property will be transferred. When a potential donor needs deductability
for a gift in excess of 20 percent of net income, the donor may make the gift
to the Manitoba Foundation. The
foundation will receive the gift, deposit it into the fund, issue a receipt
and, per the trustee's directions, subsequently forward or transfer the gift to
the appropriate institution.
Administrative expense of the foundation
will be drawn from the fund. The board
of trustees overseeing the fund will consist of up to 13 members, the majority
of which are appointed directly by the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
with additional members nominated by the designated institutions. Other members concerning the operation of the
foundation will be provided in notes accompanying Bill 52.
Mr. Speaker, I call on all members to
support this bill.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 53‑The
Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 53, The Justice for Victims
of Crime Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes
d'actes criminels), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is
to clarify the intention of The Justice for Victims of Crime Act. Honourable
members will recall that this act was passed in 1987 to provide for a Victims
Assistance Fund that could be used to fund programs to assist people who have
been the victims of crimes. In due
course, the Victims Assistance Fund was established and a committee set up to
review proposals.
The wording of the existing act is
somewhat unclear as to whether the government is able to access funds from the
Victims Assistance Fund to use in government‑sponsored victims'
programs. The amendments put forward in
this bill will allow for the cost recovery of government‑driven programs
from the Victims Assistance Fund. This
will enable these programs to expand and provide better service to victims of
crime in
I commend this bill to all honourable
members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 42‑The
Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 42, The
Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la reglementation des alcools et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce
The Liquor Control Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act which will update
and improve The Manitoba Liquor Control Act through a series of amendments.
The proposed legislation would allow for a
better selection of wines for
To reinforce our government's commitment
to the responsible consumption of alcohol, the act would also provide for
stiffer penalties for those who sell liquor to intoxicated people or to
minors. The amendments also include
several changes designed to update the entire regulatory framework governing
the sale and consumption of alcohol in the province.
Mr. Speaker, as well, in order to increase
convenience to consumers, the MLCC stores, specialty wine stores and beer
vendors will be allowed to accept credit cards.
Consumers have been able to purchase beverage alcohol by glass with
credit cards for many years, and this privilege is now being extended to the
purchase of alcohol beverage by bottle.
Beer vendors will be permitted to sell imported beer as well as domestic
beer as a result of these changes.
With these proposed changes, Mr. Speaker,
the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission would allow a limited number of
specialty wine stores throughout the province which we hope to see target new
niches in the marketplace with a wider variety of specialty wines and wine‑related
products and services to customers.
These stores would be able to sell wine exclusively or in addition to
specialty foods. They would not sell any
other type of liquor.
The Manitoba Liquor Control Commission
would regulate sales by such specialty stores to on‑premises
licencees. Specialty stores would sell
wine by the bottle and only wine by the bottle, although sampling would be
permitted, as in the MLCC stores. They would be able to sell wine products that
are sold in MLCC stores, as well as the ones that are not currently available
through that source.
Any products also available at MLCC stores
would have to be sold at MLCC prices, while products not sold in our outlets
could be sold at prices set by the retailer.
The wine boutiques would be subject to The Retail Businesses Holiday
Closing Act, and wine producers and holders of licences permitting the serving
the liquor would not be able to hold a specialty wine store licence.
In proposing this bill as well, Mr.
Speaker, we are acting to discourage people from abusing the privilege of
purchasing alcohol through the imposition of stiffer penalties. Our laws will become among the toughest, we
believe, in the country with respect to people who sell to minors and
intoxicated people. Under the changes, both these offences will become major
rather than general offences, which, in turn, would allow for more severe
penalties. In fact, the penalties will
approximately double.
In the future, a photo driver's licence or
a government‑issued photo identification would be the only acceptable
form of proof of age ID for the purchase of liquor. Moreover, under proposed
changes to The Highway Traffic Act, anyone who lends his or her driver's
licence to a minor for the purpose of buying liquor or who borrows another's
for that purpose would automatically have their licence suspended. Currently,
licence suspension is an optional penalty.
Other amendments designed to update The
Liquor Control Act include the following legislative changes. The hours of operation of cabarets would
change from 5 p.m. to 2 a.m. to 4 p.m. to 2 a.m., allowing the cabarets to have
better access to the after‑work trade.
Hotel beer vendors would be permitted to remain open until 2:30 a.m.
instead of the current 2 a.m. This is
actually a return to a practice of beer vendors being allowed to stay open for
half an hour after their licensed premises close.
Licensed dining rooms will be given the
flexibility to close at 9 p.m. instead of 11 p.m. and keep their cocktail
lounges open. Minors will be allowed in
cabarets only when accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse who is of legal
age. Licencees would be responsible for
their outside property and parking lot, and a definition of a boat, vessel or
launch as a residence will be added to the act, allowing for charges to be laid
against people drinking in a boat that is not a residence.
*
(1130)
The regulation of the MLCC can dictate
which store the holders of occasional permits can buy liquor from would change
in form which store they will buy from, and that store must be printed on the
permit.
The MLCC would encourage and aggressively
pursue discounts from wine producers, and the MLCC would allow and encourage point
of sale mail and rebate coupons from producers.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are a
large number of regulations under The Liquor Control Act that would be
eliminated, and generally these affect issues where we feel the MLCC regulation
is not appropriate or necessary or is outdated and no longer current practice.
These include such issues as the type of
glasses used in licensed premises; credit arrangements offered by licencees;
food and liquor menus; the decor of licensed premises; their washrooms or
patios; and the type of cutlery used in dining rooms. All of these matters and others are currently
regulated by the MLCC, and we feel that is no longer necessary.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, as Minister
responsible for The Manitoba Liquor Control Act, I believe these amendments are
necessary to provide for better service to consumers, to increase selection of
wines and beers, and to make the act more effective and appropriate in its
regulation of licensed premises.
As well our government is committed to
promoting safe and responsible consumption of alcohol through stiffer penalties
for those who violate the law.
I believe this bill reflects our
commitment in that regard, and with these few brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, I
submit this bill for second reading.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Honourable government House leader, what are
your intentions, sir?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call on adjourned debate, Bills 41, 47 and 37.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 41‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 47‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 47, The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la
location a usage d'habitation, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr.
Cummings), Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance
publique du Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bills 34, 32, 3, 39 and 29.
Bill 34‑The
Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 32‑The
Social Allowances Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), Bill 32, The Social Allowances
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), who has 19 minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: She is finished.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for that one to stand?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Okay, leave is denied there.
Also standing in the name of the
honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who has 13 minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: He is finished.
Mr. Speaker: He is finished also? Leave is denied there.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, for those people, and there
are many in this province who have been following this issue as it has unfolded
over the past months, they are aware that this piece of legislation has
absolutely only‑‑well, I guess it has two main principles and purposes,
neither of which is stated in the minister's comments, either in the House on
debate on second reading or in response to the many questions that have been
asked by our caucus, particularly the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and in
response by the Minister of Family Services when he appeared before a large
group of young people who will be adversely affected by this piece of
legislation, should the government, in its lack of wisdom, see fit to actually
pass this bill.
The government states that the reason
behind this legislation is that no other jurisdiction has the categorical
program Student Social Allowances that Manitoba does, and in these "tough
economic times, tough choices had to be made," and this was one of those
tough choices.
Mr. Speaker, we in this House do not
believe for a moment that this was a tough choice for this particular
government to make. It was no tougher a
choice to do this than it was to cut programming to the ACCESS education system. It was no tougher a choice for this
government than the removal of government funding from Indian and Metis
friendship centres, from other groups such as the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization. The list could go on and
on of the nontough choices this government has made in its five years, six
budgets, but most particularly this last session since the throne speech and
since the budget was brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
It was not a tough decision, Mr. Speaker,
because it did not impact on the people who matter to this government. The cut in the Student Social Allowances
Program does not hurt Bob Kozminski. The
cut to the Student Social Allowances Program does not hurt Arni Thorsteinson. The cut to the Student Social Allowances
Program does not hurt the hundreds of profit‑making corporations in this
province that support financially and politically the Progressive Conservative
government. The cut to the Student
Social Allowances Program has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the
government is allowing its chair of the PC Manitoba Fund to get away with $6
million in monies owing to the province. (interjection)
*
(1140)
The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) talks about the debt that this government is
facing, the debt that the people of
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
There are lots‑‑(interjection) Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Minister of Finance says that it is not owing to the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, people on social
assistance who fall behind in their bills are not given a cushion. They are not allowed to go months and perhaps
years before being asked by the government to pay what is owed by them to the
people of
An Honourable Member: I thought it was pigs, actually.
Ms. Barrett: Well, the Tory fat cats‑‑yes, as
an owner of cats, I would like to change the analogy. Of course, I do not like using the analogy
"hogs" either because they are very positive animals, but I digress,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would like to talk specifically about
the bill under discussion here, The Social Allowances Amendment Act.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the member for
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, the discussion about
the‑‑(interjection) I would
like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
that, if she really wants to discuss this issue, she is free to get up and
debate the issue in the House on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's
real reason, I am convinced, behind the initiation or the introduction of Bill
32 is not so much to cut back on the expenditures of this government, but it is
to follow up on a principle that I think was very clearly enunciated last night
by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in the discussion and debate in public
hearings on Bill 22.
The Minister of Finance stated, and I am
looking forward with a great deal of anticipation to Hansard to be able to get
the exact quotes, but the gist of his comment was in talking and asking a
question of a presenter who was saying, please do not implement Bill 22, the
horrible damage that it will do to the education of our children in this
province, and the Minister of Finance asked this presenter if he did not agree
with the fact that the poor in this country or this province will not be helped
by the destruction of the rich. The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said, in the gist of his comments, not word
for word, but what the parallel was, that you cannot help the poor by
destroying the rich.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly, in
one phrase, what the Reaganomics, the Thatcherite monetarist trickle‑down
economics of the discredited economics of the 1980s states, that you protect
the rich and somehow that is going to make everything better for the poor. Well, the obverse of that is, if you do not
ask the rich and the affluent to pay their fair share to support the children,
the young people, the families of this province and this country, if you do not
ask them to do that, then by definition, you have to take it from those who
have less.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what
this bill does. It eliminates a program that has proven itself over the years
of its existence to be a very successful program. Statistics have shown that the vast majority
of the young people who have made use of the Student Social Allowances Program
have completed their education and have been given a leg up on the ladder of
success. As the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has stated on numerous occasions
in this House, what this government's Bill 32 does, is it takes those rungs
away from those people.
What I find particularly reprehensible
about the Minister of Family Services' (Mr. Gilleshammer) comments on second
reading dealing with this bill, and even most particularly reprehensible, was
when he went out and spoke to the people who are going to be affected by this
bill, when he suggested the alternatives and the options.
Madam Deputy Speaker, he must have been
doing it with tongue‑in‑cheek, because the reality, if the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), and most particularly, the
person who must take ultimate responsibility for this and other actions of his
government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon)‑‑if they had gone outside of
their own narrow little constituencies and actually talked to people who are
affected by the actions of this government, they would know that the options
put forward by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and his
government bear no relation to what is actually available to the young people
in this province, the people who were taking advantage of this program.
The option of going home, now, the
minister of Family Services‑‑this is just incredible. The Minister of Family Services has spent
almost three years now‑‑
An Honourable Member: Three years?
Ms. Barrett: Yes, the Minister of Family Services became
Minister of Family Services in October of 1990.
He has spent almost three years cutting and slashing and decreasing
programs and services to the families of
The reason the welfare budget line is
increasing year after year after year is that the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the Minister of
Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson), are doing nothing to provide an economic, a social framework
within which the people of Manitoba can grow and prosper.
So the outcome, the unalterable outcome of
all of their easy decisions for them to make, difficult decisions for the
people of Manitoba to live with, is that we have more people on welfare because
there is no work in this province, because there are no education programs
allowing young people and people who want to come back to school to get an
education.
So the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) is right. His department's
budget has increased, but it has increased in the wrong places. It has increased in social assistance payouts
to the record number of people who are on municipal and provincial social
assistance. It has not increased in the
areas that we feel it needs to be increased to provide meaningful support and
assistance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it interests me
because the government always says that they know how to manage the economy. They know how to deal with finances, and New
Democrats could not manage a peanut stand. (interjection) Yes, I remember that phrase. Well, when we left government six budgets
ago, there was an operating surplus. We
were the first province out of the 1981‑82 recession. We had a booming economy, as did the rest of
the country.
On all indicators, we have gone downhill
in relation to the rest of the provinces in this country due to those
"tough" choices this government has had to make. Those tough choices have made
*
(1150)
Madam Deputy Speaker, if we had not
eliminated the Student Social Allowances Program, which, as the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) has pointed out over the last two days in Question
Period, is a program similar in its benefits and in the people whom it serves
to five other provincial jurisdictions, if we had not eliminated this program
which is being seen across the country to be the kind of program that is
effective in helping people get out of welfare and to get on to the work rolls,
then we would not see the need for increasing welfare rolls to the degree that
we have seen in the past.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is
cynical. It is regressive. It is a typical classic Conservative
move. It is a typical classic Conservative
program cut. I will tell you, not just
in New Democrat parts of the city and the province, but in talking with people
throughout this province, many of whom are not New Democrats, when they talk
about the problems with this government, there are two things that they
mention. They mention two programs: one is the Children's Dental Program cuts
that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) initiated months ago, and two is the
Student Social Allowances cutbacks.
You want to know why people of all political
persuasions in all parts of this province pick these two programs, because
these two programs show that this government does not care about providing
services for people who need them. This
government does not care about being fiscally responsible because people say,
in discussing these two programs, where is the logic in this? Where is the financial prudence? Where is the management skills in these
decisions? (interjection) As the
Minister of Health said, there is no logic.
He is accurate in this. There is
no logic.
Point of Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of
order. I did say there is no logic in
the NDP.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: I was engaging, I must admit‑‑and
I am ashamed of myself, because I was engaging in the kind of behaviour that
the Minister of Health engages in every day in this House and that was taking‑‑(interjection) Yes, my comments were not
nearly in the same category as the Minister of Health's.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 32, the Student
Social Allowances bill is going to be seen and is being seen by many people in
this province as‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Yes, I wonder if the member would be willing
to entertain a question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs is requesting leave to ask a question of the honourable
member for
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, absolutely not. She will have her opportunity when she‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suggest to the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and particularly the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard), and most particularly the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey),
that they will all have an opportunity not to ask questions of me, but to ask
questions of the students who are directly affected by these cuts at one
o'clock at the rally outside.
I throw down the gauntlet and urge, if not
demand, that the representatives of this government go out and try to explain
yet again, ask the questions the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was
going to ask me, ask the questions of those people who are directly
involved. Ask them. (interjection)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs makes a very good point, an accurate point from
her chair, when she says that I do not have to answer questions because I am
not accountable. She is accurate because
I am not yet in government, but I am accountable to the people whom I
represent, and I am accountable to the people in the
My role as an opposition member is to ask
the government for clarification and justification for its actions and to bring
to this House the concerns raised by the people of the
Finally, it will not be very long before I
will be a member of the government benches, and I will certainly take my
responsibilities to all of the people of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude
my remarks by, again, inviting members of the government to remain in the
Legislative Building for one‑half hour after the close of the official
business of the day so that they can dialogue with the people who are affected
by their actions, so that they can talk to people who are going to have their
opportunities sharply curtailed by the actions of the government, not only in
Bill 32, but specifically by the impact of Bill 32 and the cuts to the other
education and social service programming this government has undertaken.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to
close by saying the choices that this government has made, not only in this
budget but in its previous budgets, have not been tough choices. They have not
been difficult choices. They have been
stupid choices, and the people of the
The people of the province of Manitoba,
more and more every day, are beginning to realize and understand that, not only
from a personal, human, socially conscious point of view but from the point of
view of the supposed strengths of this government, which is the financial point
of view, Madam Deputy Speaker, and taken in context along with the other
actions of this government, they will be held accountable to the people of
Manitoba, and the sooner the better.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just have a few very
brief remarks on this bill. I do want to
speak on it, because I want to put on the record my opposition to the bill.
In doing so, I just want to relay the
comments of many of my constituents, who, upon hearing of this bill and the
action of the government in taking out the Student Social Allowances Program,
quite frankly, from a common‑sense point of view, do not understand why
the government is now saying it is better for many of these students to be on
welfare, period, than to be in the position where under the current system they
are eligible for social assistance and they can attend school.
I want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
have had a number of cases in my constituency of people who have been unable
even to get on the current program, who have been in the position of making the
very difficult choice of having to quit school because they cannot get into the
program and cannot continue with their education. What could make more sense than encouraging
students to continue their education through this social assistance
program? What can make more sense for
the people involved, to give them the opportunity to get ahead in terms of
their education?
Madam Deputy Speaker, study after study
shows that if you complete Grade 12, you have a much better chance of getting a
job. You have a much better chance of
getting off welfare. So common sense
dictates that this bill is wrong. It
makes no sense, and I would ask members of the government not to base their
vote on this bill on our speeches but to base it on the views of the people I
have talked to who say this bill just does not make sense.
I will, Madam Deputy Speaker, be voting
with them on the common‑sense approach of rejecting this bill.
Thank you.
*
(1200)
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 3‑The
Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 3 (The Oil and Gas and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, as critic for this
area, I can indicate I will be putting some comments on the record. We will be passing it into committee, because
we want to hear from people in the industry, the oil and gas industry. We want to hear from municipalities and other
residents of this province who are impacted by this bill.
I have had the opportunity, Madam Deputy
Speaker, to correspond with many people in the industry and also in areas
affected by the oil and gas industry in Manitoba, particularly southwest in the
province, to talk to people about this bill.
I will note and I am sure the minister
will acknowledge that some suggestions have been made to the minister. He has received correspondence, I know, in a
number of cases, making a number of suggestions. We look forward to the minister responding in
committee with some possible amendments.
I know of a couple of amendments that have been suggested. Of course, this being second reading, I
cannot get into the detail of it, but I do think they are quite reasonable
amendments.
I think it is important to put on the
record the intent of the bill, which is to replace Parts 2 and 3 of the present
Mines Act, The Pipe Line Act and Part 1 of The Gas Storage and Allocation
Act. Really it is a similar theme, I
assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the act that consolidated laws in terms of the
mining industry which we just dealt with in the previous session.
The legislation purports to address
environmental concerns through recognizing principles of sustainable
development. Obviously, that is a commendable statement. I think a committee, some members of the
public, may question the degree to which that is followed, but that is
certainly something that has to be governed, I think, by all particular acts.
There are also a number of provisions in
this particular bill that do refer to, as I said, principles of sustainable
development. There is a very fine‑sounding
statement that decisions respecting development of oil and gas resources be integrated
with decisions respecting protection and management of the environment so that
oil and gas industry activity is conducted with due regard for its impact on
the environment, and environmental programs and initiatives are instituted with
due regard for their economic impact. I
would stress that I feel that is absolutely fundamental in this particular
case, and I hope the words will have some impact in terms of governing the
industry.
I would point to a number of other aspects
of the particular bill which were, I think, quite important. Some concerns have been expressed about the
powers of the minister. That is
something we will be dealing with in committee.
I know that is something that has come up in my contact with people in
the industry.
I feel there is a real judgment called for
when it involves the power of the minister, Madam Deputy Speaker. If that power is used wisely, obviously there
is no great difficulty involved, but there is always the temptation for
political influence. (interjection)
Well, the minister says, not for me, but I would note that the minister just
happens to represent an area of the province that is the area where this focus
is in place. It is very important to his
constituency.
I am not arguing that he should not, as a
member of the Legislature, represent the interests of his area, but it does
involve some potential conflicts between the role as a constituency MLA and the
role of a minister.
I just point in another context, for
example, to the kinds of difficulties that arose in Nova Scotia with the
Westray Mine development, where you essentially had the Premier of the day who
prior to being Premier‑‑a former Premier now‑‑Madam
Deputy Speaker, just happened to be the MLA for the area. (interjection) That is right, off to the
I mean that as no offence, and I do not
want to get into Westray specifics, but I am talking about the potential for
conflict. I think in this particular
case, I think the minister may wish to address that, either in his concluding
remarks or certainly on third reading.
I think that is important, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because in going through most of the regulations, most of them are
fairly technical and deal with the development and construction operation of
not only oil and gas operations, but also pipelines and also development and
operation of underground storage reservoirs involving oil and gas. So it is fairly comprehensive, fairly
technical, but I think that is one more significant concern that has come up in
my consultation with, as I said, people in the industry, and I think that is
something that has to be addressed.
I would also note, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that there are tough times even in the minister's own area in southwest
It is a very difficult time in the
industry. We are looking already at 50
wells being abandoned in the area because they are no longer considered
economical. I think that is something
that has to be of significant concern.
If you look at the impact on some of the
small communities, I know, for example, in Waskada, and Waskada's population is
about 350, I believe; if you look at the impact, for example, of Omega
Hydrocarbons, which was in operation in the area in 1992, basically spent half
a million dollars in municipal taxes to the R.M.s of Arthur and Brenda;
$640,000 in payroll to 17 people in the community; $1.7 million in freehold
royalties to people holding mineral rights; $550,000 in land rental around the
wells; $325,000 in mineral taxes; and a hundred thousand in corporate taxes.
I use that example to point out the
significance to this industry of the very small communities, 350 or so people,
and our concern certainly on this side of the House with the difficult times
that have developed in the industry in that area. As I said, much of that is the result of
lower prices. We will see, Madam Deputy
Speaker, if some of the drilling incentives that have been put in place will
have an impact. The difficulty, of
course, is that, when you have low prices, all the incentives in the world
cannot compensate for that fact.
I want to indicate that certainly I hope
to see a thriving oil and gas industry.
We have had much promise and hope over the years, and it has been very
much dependent on those cycles in the industry.
As I said then, the act is fairly
technical in nature, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have raised some questions with the minister on the question to ensure
that treaty land entitlements in northern
We will have some detailed questions in
committee on some of the specific sections, and, in particular, as I said, on
the question of the impact of the minister.
I also requested a spreadsheet, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that might be useful at the committee
stage to help people work through what is a very detailed bill. I want to indicate that, while I have not
received that spreadsheet, which I think would be normal protocol, I am still
prepared to see the bill go to committee with appropriate notice, because I
think it is also important to get the members of the public, the industry and
southwest Manitoba in particular‑‑to give them the opportunity to participate
on this bill.
With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker,
we are prepared to see this bill go through to committee. I just, as I said, ask that the government
House leader not call it overnight, so to speak. At least give a number of days notice,
particularly given the fact there are a lot of out‑of‑town people
who may wish to present, given the opportunity, particularly from southwest
I think that, if we give adequate notice,
the committee stage can be quite useful.
I find committee stages on bills are particularly useful in this kind of
bill, a very technical redrafting to a number of acts. With that, we look forward to committee
discussions.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam
Deputy Speaker, let me say I am pleased to close debate and deal with two or
three points that the member raised, the first one being his concern for any
form of conflict.
*
(1210)
I personally do not believe I have any
conflict as it relates to activities that would be in relationship to this
bill, and would consider it not unlike the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) passing an agricultural bill, or the minister responsible for Autopac
passing Autopac legislation. I would see
it not any different from that. As I
said, I would not perceive as having any personal conflict as it relates to
this.
As far as the area is concerned, Madam
Deputy Speaker, the member refers to some of the difficulties that are faced.
Really, the reasoning for this bill is the separation of the oil and gas and
The Pipe Line Act from The Mines Act, which has now taken place. This is the second step. This initiative was started under the
previous Minister of Energy and Mines, and is just completing that process.
I do have a couple of other good areas to
report, and take this opportunity to do so.
Last year, we saw a substantially reduced drilling activity in
southwestern
I particularly want to compliment a
As well, we are seeing new technology, for
which this government introduced a royalty holiday for some of the new well
activity in horizontal drilling. I know
of at least one horizontal well‑‑which is new technology‑‑for
increased production has been completed.
I am not sure‑‑I have not got a report on the results of it,
but that has happened as well as several others.
Again, we have seen a record sale on Crown
lands this year, again, important to indicate how the oil industry, I believe,
is coming back to life again in southwestern
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 3. All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
The motion is accordingly carried.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, before you call the next bill, I would just like to announce the
Standing Committee on Economic Development will reconvene on Monday morning, 9
a.m., to consider Bill 22, in Room 255.
Bill 39‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 39
(The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour
provinciale), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable of member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux). Is there leave to permit the
bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 39. All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
The motion is accordingly carried.
Bill 29‑The
Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 29
(The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act; Loi sur le controle des
substances intoxicantes et les mineurs), on the proposed motion of the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I am pleased to speak on this Bill 29, which
is The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been
receiving a lot of calls, and a lot of people are very concerned about what is
happening across our province.
Under this act, it proposes to promote the
health and social well‑being of children and young people by protecting
them from the availability of certain products whose effects, when used as
intoxicants, are harmful to health and social development.
The intent of this bill is excellent. It is an excellent outline to the purpose of
this bill. When I was reading the
comments made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I was very surprised
wherein one of his comments‑‑he was making a statement that it is
not hard to recognize solvent abusers because you can tell by the way they are
dressed. They are unkempt, they smell,
and that way, when they try to get these products late at night, they are easy
to recognize.
I have to disagree with that because you
do not know who is purchasing these products and for what purposes, and when
you have someone who is not totally unkempt and does not smell and is a minor,
how do you know that this individual is not going to be abusing those
solvents? So I really had a hard time
understanding those comments, and I guess it was to try to justify the reason
behind this bill, that it would be easier to identify and charge individuals.
You know, when you talk about solvent
abuse, all you have to do is just look across
It becomes a real, real health issue where
the brain cells are killed off, and their motor functions rapidly decrease, and
even if we looked at the dollar sense of it and looked at how much it is
costing us in health care by not providing adequate treatment for the abusers
early in the stages of abuse.
We had an agreement. I do not know if it was the best bill
possible, but it was Bill 91 that was brought in three years ago, which was
brought in with agreement of all three parties at that time. The opportunity was there. If you could not enforce it or if it could
not work, the opportunity was there to make appropriate amendments, to make
adjustments, to make it a workable bill.
At that time, all three parties must have
agreed and must have thought, at least at that time, that it was a bill that could
be enforced and that it was a bill that would help us alleviate the serious
problems we have across
It is not just a problem we have with
youth. The bill that we have before us,
Bill 29, strictly deals with youth up to 18 years old. What happens to the adults over 18 years
old? Does their abuse problem just
disappear? It goes away and they no
longer abuse these solvents? I do not
think so.
That is why we have to look seriously at
making appropriate amendments and looking at something that is workable to meet
all citizens of
We need to look at the whole picture. We cannot just look at children under
18. We have to look at even the adults
who are over 18 who have this terrible, terrible problem.
When we look at dealing with a bill,
hopefully, we could look at‑‑
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge
to the left where we have Mr. John Angus, the former member for
* * *
*
(1220)
Mr. Hickes: Madam Deputy Speaker, what I was saying was that
the solvent abuse problem, this bill, to me anyway, has negative impacts where
it does not deal with adults. Also, what
this bill does is, it is looking at ability to charge and incarcerate our
youth.
That is fine and dandy if you are going to
be charging and putting the youth into group homes, but without the
availability of proper treatment, what happens?
All you do is put them in. They stay for possibly the weekend. Then they are out again, and they are right
back to square one.
With ability to charge these youth, I
think we should be looking at trying to remove the source that these
individuals get their solvent from.
When you look at this bill, and it talks
about the ability to charge the individuals who are supplying these individuals
under 18 years old, and it says in there, upon reasonable doubt that it is okay
to sell‑‑"that the person would not use the substance, or
cause or permit the substance to be used, as an intoxicant."
Well, what would happen, Madam Deputy
Speaker, if these sellers and individuals who are supplying the solvents to the
youth‑‑all they would have to say, the only comment they would have
to make as soon as someone came in to buy paint thinner or nail polish remover
or any of the solvent abuse products, no matter how they looked, how they
smelled or if they were reeking of gasoline or reeking of paint thinner, all
they would have to do is make one statement like, you are not going to use this
for sniffing, right? Of course, they are
going to say right.
So that automatically would remove the
ability of the police to lay charges, because they would say, well, within my
understtanding of a reasonable doubt, I did try to ascertain the information
that this individual was not going to use this for other purposes than what it
is really meant for. So, if you have an
unscrupulous owner or dealer, that is exactly the line they will use. Every time someone walked in, that is what
they will use over and over, that you are not going to abuse this. They will say no, and that is the end of
it. So that is very weak in this bill.
When you talk about the problem that we
have right across
When you have that economy going down,
what you end up with, you end up with more people living below the poverty
line. By some great mind in
When you look at the whole economy picture
right across Canada, not only in Manitoba but right across Canada, when the
economy is down so terribly, your poverty increases; people without homes, the
homeless, increase; and then what you have is you have an increase in child
care abuse situations, people abusing each other, because people lose track and
they lose hope. Once that is taken away
from individuals, once that hope is removed from people, then they try to
forget the world around them. That is
what happens; that is why you have people who are abusing all kinds of
products. We talk about products. You could talk about glue sniffing, Lysol,
nail polish remover.
I have to say again, Madam Deputy Speaker,
locking up our youth will not make the problem go away. One of the comments that I read in a letter
from the Justice department to the police force was that the opportunity of
charging these young offenders gives the police the opportunity to interrogate
the youth to find out where they got the product. Well, that is putting the young offenders
into much more serious circumstances and in very, very dangerous situations. (interjection) The Minister of Health
says that is wrong. If they squeal on
their seller and their seller finds out, what do you think will happen to that
youth?
An Honourable Member: The seller will go to jail. That is what will happen.
Mr. Hickes: If they can prove it. (interjection) No, I do not want to keep them on the street, but we
do not want to put the youth into more dangerous situations than is already
there.
When you have young children who are
saying so‑and‑so sold me this, and the police go and question, they
say, what are you talking about? I never
sold anything. Who told you this? In order to try and prove it, they have to
say, well, John Doe there told us that.
So what happens to John Doe? Of
course, the seller is going to go after those youth. That is common sense, so that puts the kids
into more danger.
Those are the kinds of things in this bill
that I think‑‑
An Honourable Member: That is silly.
Mr. Hickes: No, it is not silly. If you think about it, you know that a lot of
people even in school‑‑think about the time you were going to
school. If anyone told on the student to
the teacher, how many times did that student get beat up by either the person
they told on or the friends of that student.
So it is not silly. Just think
about it. That is what scares me about
that bill. (interjection) It is not
protecting the sellers. You have to
protect the youth, and you have to try and help the youth.
What you want to do is you want to be able
to go after the sellers and not put the youth in jeopardy. You know that is a silly, silly comment.
When you look at it that way, you are putting
the youth in more danger, so how well thought out was this bill? What the whole bill should do is try and get
after the suppliers and the sellers, not give them loopholes to try and get out
without the police being able to lay adequate charges.
I know by the Minister of Health's (Mr.
Orchard) comments, his party never thought that angle out. All we have to do is, like I said, revert to
our‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Point Douglas will have 24 minutes remaining.
The hour being 12:30 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday.