ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. to consider, in this order, Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Production Tax and Oil and Gas Amendment Act, as well as Bill 43, The Municipal Assessment Amendment, City of Winnipeg Amendment and Assessment Validation Act.
I would also like to ask you to call, when we have finished these announcements, bills in the following order: Bill 25, Bill 11, Bill 66, Bill 52, Bill 62 and Bill 67.
Madam Speaker, if you could canvass the House, I think you will find that there is agreement at 4:30, instead of going into private members' hour, that we revert to or we enter into Opposition Day Motions and consider the motion as it appears on the Order Paper. I believe it is the motion of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I would also ask if you could canvass the House at that time. I believe under the rules it calls for the vote on this matter to be put one-half hour before adjournment. Given that that would reduce the time for debate, you may find that there is agreement to have that vote called at 5:15 instead of five o'clock which would allow members more time to debate the matters at hand.
Madam Speaker: Firstly, I will make the announcement regarding the standing committee. The Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Thursday, October 3, at 9:30 a.m. to consider Bills 21 and 43.
Is there leave of the House to waive Private Members' Business? [agreed]
Is there leave of the House at 4:30 p.m. in lieu of Private Members' Business to have Opposition Day Motions dealt with? [agreed]
Is there leave of the House to change the rule regarding the time of the vote preceding the end of Opposition Day Motions to 5:15? [agreed]
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, it has been brought to my attention by the Clerk that I had made a slight error yesterday when Bill 47 was before the House for second reading. I had stood the bill in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) when it was still standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I apologize to the House.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I thank the honourable member for St. Norbert for that clarification.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 25--The Jury Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 25, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jurés), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I believe this bill was adjourned for me to make comments before any other comments from the other parties in the Legislature.
* (1440)
We are dealing here with amendments to The Jury Act. It is interesting; I came across a Manitoba government news release that boldly proclaimed: Jury act amendments to protect jobs while on jury duty, and later, in the local newspapers, the headlines: McCrae puts some teeth into jury law. Indeed it was under the name McCrae because that news release was back in 1992. What happened? Because there is a new press release out now, in May of 1996, promising that The Jury Act amendment would protect jobs. What happened, I think, reflects on the incompetence of the other side and I think reflects on how the former Minister of Justice was not paying close attention to what his duty was.
In 1992 The Jury Act was amended to protect the employment of people who are summoned to serve on jury duty because an individual in Thompson lost her job when she was so summoned. Why is it that amendments had to be brought back into this House so soon after those other amendments? Well, it was not long ago that Mary Goodwin, an employee of Best Care Cleaners on Main Street, a place I go by every day, lost her job when she told her boss that she was called on to serve her duty as a citizen and serve her duty on a jury. When she was fired, lo and behold, those 1992 amendments caused great difficulty. It was unfortunate that it was only a short time after the 1992 amendments were enacted that Ms. Goodwin was fired.
Unfortunately, the case of Ms. Goodwin went to the Provincial Court; it went to the Court of Queen's Bench and it went to the Court of Appeal and then was sent back again to trial. At both the Provincial Court and the Court of Queen's Bench, it was found that nothing could be done to prosecute Ms. Goodwin's boss. Fortunately the Court of Appeal saved the day and with some innovative thinking, with a liberal interpretation being applied to the written laws, they were able to find that prosecution was possible.
But, Madam Speaker, this bill is really responding to not just the inconvenience, if you will, of the great burden put on Ms. Goodwin as a result of the uncertainty of law, but was because of the damning indictment by both the Court of Appeal and the Queen's Bench. In the Court of Appeal, although the majority, as I stated earlier, came through and saved the day, the judgment of Mr. Justice Kroft I think is a very strong indication of the problems of the amendments from 1992. After noting how the Queen's Bench judge demonstrated the inadequacy and uncertainty of the Manitoba legislation, he went on to talk about the Manitoba legislation being, to use his words, poorly drafted. He concluded by saying, and I quote: Notwithstanding that I have been persuaded that Justice Clearwater, Queen's Bench, applied the wrong standard of interpretation, I am convinced that the Legislature would be well advised to reconsider the language which it used in attempting to pursue what is undeniably a laudable social objective. He said: Surely those employed to draft our statutes should be able to use words that say what the legislators mean.
I would add that I think it is important that legislators also review what the drafters say. I think what we see in this Legislature today, and not just with the banter that is taking place in this Chamber but the decision, the conscious decision of members opposite, to either not speak at all, which was the original advice to us, or to speak to only 10 bills or so or those that they find most in need of defence, speaks loudly to the problem.
When this Legislature is not vigilant, when this Legislature and its members are not both answering concerns of the opposition and are not reading statutes that are brought in here in bill form, problems as occurred following 1992 are apt to reoccur.
There were two issues that were discovered at the court level stemming from the 1992 amendments. The first issue was whether an individual, in this case Mr. Loscerbo, Ms. Goodwin's boss, could be classified as her employer, when in fact Mr. Loscerbo was a principal of a corporation. Justice Clearwater laments that the Manitoba law did not include the good definitions of “employer” and “employee” that are found in Saskatchewan legislation. If the Saskatchewan definitions had been included in the Manitoba law, Justice Clearwater said that clearly Mr. Loscerbo would have been an employer.
The second issue raised is, I think, more troublesome. As Judge Clearwater noted, the act either deliberately or inadvertently worded the sanction section different than the prohibition section. In The Jury Act, as amended, in 1992, a response to a summons is required before the legislation can come in and provide a remedy or provide an offence and penalty. Of course, Judge Clearwater found that Ms. Goodwin was only summoned to serve as a juror and not responded to a summons and therefore could not find against Mr. Loscerbo. He laments that the Manitoba wording did not accomplish the intention of the legislation.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
So it is important, and we agree with the government, that the legislation be clarified. Although the Court of Appeal did save the day, it is important to avoid future uncertainty but what an unfortunate series of events. Ms. Goodwin was fired on July 28 of 1992, and the Court of Appeal had not even finished its deliberations by April of 1994, almost two years later, and even then the Court of Appeal referred the matter back to trial.
I think this is a good instruction for members, to be careful of the legislation that they are agreeing to, that they have within their hands. It shows the impact of uncertainty on the lives of individuals, the people that we are here to give tools to and to protect.
* (1450)
Now will the government get it right this time, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Upon reviewing the legislation it appears that the objective is adequately reflected in the wording, but then that is just with regard to the issue of definitions of employer and employee and the issue of not requiring a response to a summons before the legislation kicks in.
There is another issue that is raised in the bill, and that is the one I want to address right now. As a preliminary matter, the bill imposes a penalty of $5,000 on an employer who threatens or dismisses an employee because of jury duty. We ask if this is a serious deterrent. Why $5,000?
There is other legislation in this province that deals with discriminatory decisions made by employers, for example, under The Workplace Safety and Health Act. The sanctions there go way beyond any $5,000. It talks in terms of penalties of $15,000 for a first offence and $30,000 for subsequent offences.
But the main issue that I want to address now is, why did this government create the ability of the court to order compensation to a victim, to an employee who is fired because of jury duty, but has so halfheartedly done so that it really brings into question the ability of this government to understand either the needs of people, of employees and the importance of juries in our system of government.
What the government says here is that now employees will be able to claim--in other words have a compensation order--for wage loss up to $5,000. Why $5,000 is set as a limit I have no idea. The government went partway and recognized a principle, the principle being that the court should take affirmative approaches to these issues and, on behalf of the victim, seek compensation, not just an offence and a penalty.
But why cap it at $5,000? If the loss for being fired because of serving on a jury is greater than $5,000, then there should be an award for the amount that is lost. If $10,000 is lost, if $20,000, if someone cannot get back into the workforce for a year because of market conditions, because of other factors, then why is that individual not compensated? To go further, why is there not compensation for all losses incurred, not just wage loss?
The Law Reform Commission, it was back in 1980, made recommendations to better protect the employment of people serving on juries. They acknowledged that the recommendations must provide for a remedy of reinstatement because, it said, in many cases it is unrealistic to expect that liquidated monetary compensation can compensate for loss of continuing employment. Did the government not read that recommendation? Did they not think this through? Why not order reinstatement in this bill?
There are other ramifications of being fired for discriminatory reasons. They can be loss of benefits, loss of seniority. They can be personal expenses. There is injury to dignity, to feelings, self-respect, and we ask, why is the government rejecting the notion of full compensation rather than requiring the individual to have to go to the civil courts, hire a lawyer and pursue a wrongful dismissal case? Having gone part way and acknowledging that at least there should be some wage loss compensation, it has a duty to fully embrace a principle of compensation and do, for example, as the Human Rights code enables, and that is to include the ability to order that an employer refrain from doing anything contrary to the purposes of the act, to rectify the circumstances, to fully compensate all financial losses sustained and expenses incurred and benefits lost, general damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. Indeed, in Manitoba, in wrongful dismissal actions, general damages, albeit modest, can be awarded, and why not the ability to order exemplary or punitive damages? It has been ordered in Manitoba. I think of the UGG case, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I go back to the Law Reform Commission report, which not only recommended a fuller compensation package but recommended a legislative provision to make officers or agents of corporations personally liable if they have authorized or acquiesced in the contravention of the prohibition section. The Law Reform Commission also recommended that it would be advisable to include a provision putting the onus of proof on the defendant if the employee was dismissed while serving on jury so that the defendant had to prove the employee's jury service was not the cause of the dismissal.
So it is important, not only for compensation but for deterrents, and it is important that there be full compensation because of the importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of jury service. Why this half-hearted commitment to juries? This half-hearted commitment is not compatible with a society's need for the jury system to operate without protecting the employment. You know, it was Blackstone that called the jury “the glory of the English law.”
Sir James Stephen wrote that trial by jury interests large numbers of people in the administration of justice. It makes them responsible for it. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this. It gives a degree of power and of popularity to the administration of justice which could hardly be derived from any other source.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that now more than any other time in recent history it is important to pursue that objective. I refer you to a document, and I do not think the members opposite have ever read this, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report. It states there on page 377 that a jury “guarantees community scrutiny of the criminal justice system.”
* (1500)
The whole objective of the Law Reform Commission report in 1980 was to point out that we had to have substantial improvement to the jury system. It said: The personal well-being of jurors seems at times to be neglected under the present practices. So it recognized the need for not only increased protection of the juror's employment, but also the need for juries to more nearly represent the random cross-section of the community and a system to ensure that jury duty was not a hardship for jurors.
Now what is the fear on the part of the government on giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report from 1980 and from giving meaning to the observations of many, including those from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, who note the importance of juries? It is a great democratizing institution, juries are. Are they afraid of greater community scrutiny? Do they not want to fully embrace the educational role of juries, the participation by ordinary people in the criminal justice system? Are they afraid of empowerment in a real way?
I think that one of the best observations of the role of the jury was in the Law Commission report. It said: Jury service requires the public to participate directly in an important government process. It informs people about the workings of the criminal justice system. It educates them about the aims of the penal system, the values of procedural due process. It engenders a sense of efficacy among the public by permitting them directly to influence the implementation of the criminal law and do so on a equal basis with everyone else. It reaffirms the duties of each individual owing to society. It compels judges and lawyers to proceed in a manner understandable to laypersons. By permitting people to view and participate in the system firsthand, the jury decreases the mystique of a criminal justice system and increases its acceptability.
Why does not the government embrace this? Where is the full compensation that should be available to jurors, not by having to go to the civil court system, not by having to hire a lawyer and carry the burden of litigation? It could be accomplished simply by coming through on the bill that is currently before the House.
There are some other issues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we regret are not being addressed in the amendments to The Jury Act. Way back when the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry said, and I quote: “We believe the jury system in Manitoba is a glaring example of systemic discrimination against Aboriginal people. . . . Aboriginal people are significantly under-represented on juries in northern Manitoba and are almost completely absent from juries in the city of Winnipeg.
“Of all the ways that aboriginal people are underrepresented in the justice system, this is one of the most disturbing.”
Then it concludes, in accordance with the conclusions of the Law Reform Commission: “If a significant portion of that public is not properly represented on juries, it would not be surprising to discover that a portion of the public never comes to view the justice system as anything other than a foreign and imposed system.”
There are many excellent recommendations in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report dealing with juries. What a sad comment. One of the darkest clouds over this government is how it has responded, or failed to respond, to the inquiry's report. It is an affront to all Manitobans, not just aboriginal peoples.
How can they bring in amendments to The Jury Act, these niggardly amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the face of the recommendations from the inquiry report, recommendations that ask after a solid research and investigation throughout this province that juries should be held in local communities, that people who cannot serve be replaced by people from local communities, that jurors be drawn exactly from within 40 kilometres, they said? I think that is a statement of objective, 40 kilometres of the community in which a trial is to be held.
They urge that the Manitoba Jury Act be amended to permit an aboriginal person who does not speak and understand either French or English but who speaks and understands an aboriginal language and is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror that in such cases translation services be provided. That was modelled on legislation enacted in the Northwest Territories that resulted in a significant change in the representation by aboriginal peoples and juries.
One other matter that has been ignored by this government up to now and unfortunately is not addressed by the amendments to The Jury Act is the need to better deal with the financial pressure on jurors who serve and indeed deal with the pressures on small businesses and others when jury service is called for.
You know, the per diem rate for jury service has not changed in Manitoba since 1987. The government has frozen. Despite the intelligence that is offered from the Law Reform Commission to deal more effectively with how we can ensure supports and income for jurors, this government goes on its merry way and ignores these issues.
In Newfoundland salaries must be paid by employers when one serves on a jury. That raises lots of questions. What is the impact on small businesses if that legislation is enforced? What happens, for example, to the per diems that are paid? Should they be paid in the event that wages are paid?
But I would urge the government to consider the recommendations on page 68 of the Law Reform Commission report, particularly Recommendation No. 2, that the daily remuneration, in order to remain relevant in terms of the cost of living and to avoid frequent adjustment by legislation could be based on the provincial minimum wage or expressed as a percentage of that sum.
But these are issues that must be canvassed. Unfortunately the government has not had the gumption or seen it as a priority to pursue despite the importance of juries to our system of government and the criminal justice system. We should also deal, of course, with trying to reduce the waiting time for jury selection and unnecessary trips to court, but the government here across the way did not get it right the first time back in 1992, and are they going to get it right this time?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Mackintosh: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they are not. This legislation misses the mark and they should come in with amendments. We will certainly be proposing those as this moves to committee. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just to add a few more comments to the member's for St. Johns, and I think we agree with his position on this bill, that it is a step in the right direction, but it is like the first step in a marathon, there is a long way to go.
We wonder why the government has not gone further in this amendment to The Jury Act. Is it because, after listening to the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) talk about the resolution yesterday about benefits to part-time employees, that maybe they are scared that by making it more harsh for employers not to give fair benefit to people serving on juries that they will create a hostile environment for business? From the member for River Heights' comments, I think he would like the minimum wage to be dropped by half, to have the workweek be 80 hours a week, have no workplace health and safety regulations, and we would double the jobs in Manitoba. I do not know how long the people would survive in those jobs, but it makes me wonder if that is why this Jury Amendment Act does not go much further to make employers recognize the value of their employees doing their civic duty and serving as jurors, and it does not go anywhere near what the Law Reform Commission said on this subject.
So as the member for St. Johns said, there is room for many amendments when this goes to committee and we welcome it to go to committee so that can be done. Thank you.
* (1510)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 25. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, I am just wondering if the government House leader can advise this House whether the Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey), who is responsible for this legislation, is going to respond to the issues raised by this side of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House--
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, it is a time-honoured and tested tradition in this House that when significant matters are raised on the second reading of a bill, the minister who is responsible for piloting the legislation through the House will get up and respond to those points, so there is full discussion on this. It does not have to happen all the time, but I think in this case there are significant issues raised. I ask, will the Attorney General not do her job and stand up here and defend her bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have already advised the honourable member that he did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question before the House at this time, is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 11--The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 11, The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pratique relative aux successions devant la Cour du Banc de la Reine), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the principle of this bill is to increase the value of an estate from $5,000 to $10,000, that can be administered in an expedited way without all those formal requirements to post a bond or a surety or pursue a formal grant of probate or administration and without the need to conduct an extensive search for errors. The amount increasing from $5,000 to $10,000 does not seem out of line with inflationary trends. We note that the threshold was $1,000 until 1983, when then it became $5,000. In other words, the amount has been $5,000 from 1983 to 1996, so we see no reason to oppose this amendment on these grounds.
The executor still is bound by the terms of the will, bound by the duties on an executor, and the beneficiary still has the right to the passing of accounts. With the increase in the threshold, beneficiaries arguably must become more vigilant, but we will certainly see this bill to committee. If any concerns are raised either there or beforehand from the community, we will be interested in hearing those. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): The member for St. Johns, once again, has outlined the main points of this bill, and we are looking forward to seeing it going to committee and see if the public brings presentations or any concerns that should be addressed at the committee stage. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 11. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 66--The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Sport (Mr. Ernst), Bill 66, The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte) standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am, as you can see by my desk here, trying to prepare to deal with a variety of issues, including a lot of documentation that is related to this bill. It raises a lot of issues related to the regulation of violence as entertainment, particularly related to boxing and wrestling. I am speaking of Bill 66, which is an amendment to The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act.
We have a number of issues that we want to raise in relation to this bill, but I want to begin by just describing what this bill does and then talk a little bit about another bill that was passed by the Legislature in 1993, which has a more substantive number of amendments to the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, and which has not yet been proclaimed. I am hoping we would have some clarification from the minister as to how that legislation could have been left sitting without being proclaimed, and now we have more amendments. I am wondering if they are all going to be proclaimed in one bunch or if we are going to see these outstanding issues not addressed.
It was disconcerting when I first was reviewing the bill. It was amending sections of the acts that were not in the legislation that we had on our books, and it was necessary to go to the library and discover that there was this other, more lengthy bill that has not yet been proclaimed.
The government is, in this bill, deregulating wrestling. What that means is it is no longer going to be licensed under this commission; it is going to be considered entertainment. There are some issues, I think, that are related to that that are of concern. I am going to speak in detail later about the emergence of a number of new types of combat--some would call them sports; some would call them just brutal violence--that are emerging.
One of the concerns that we have with the deregulation of wrestling is that there will be ongoing new types of wrestling that will be considered entertainment and will not have any regulation at all under the commission and are going to proceed to show very violent, disturbing activities, and we do not have any indication from the minister of how that is going to be dealt with, especially if it is live bouts. I mean, some of us may be surprised to find out that they are saying now that wrestling is choreographed, that it is not necessarily real, that it is not a real fight, and some may think that is hearsay, but that is in fact what the commission and, I would suggest, the minister are doing with this bill: saying that wrestling is entertainment. It is interesting, though, that I have been assured when, talking with the commissioner for the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, these deregulated wrestling bouts could still be in violation of the Criminal Code with respect to assault, I would think, because now they are also going to require the Criminal Code to deal with other areas with respect to this bill.
* (1520)
The other thing that this bill does that is of concern is that it changes the definition of boxing, and it is going to broaden the definition of boxing and the ability for the commission to regulate in the area of kick boxing and other martial arts and any similar sport. This is part of the area of the bill that I find also disconcerting. We know that, when the Boxing Commission regulates a bout, they have regulations around safety. They also will then receive 3 percent of the revenue from the bout, and that is all going to come to bear on these new forms of combat sport, kick boxing. I am told there are four different types of kick boxing, and there is one muai-Thai that is particularly a problem that needs to be monitored. So there is going to be some framework to regulate those, and that is positive.
I am concerned that the consultations for those regulations on the bill would have public consultations, as well as only consulting with the parties that promote and train and put on the bouts, because I think that the public would have a great deal to say about the type of violent entertainment that this bill is dealing with. One of the things I wanted to put on the record is that as the minister is going forward in bringing in the regulations with respect to that section of the bill that he broadens his consultation to include a general input from the public and not just those who are directly involved in putting on and staging these kinds of events.
The other section of that part of the bill that is also a concern in terms of changing the definition for boxing is where it says, or any similar sport, and what that means is then the Boxing Commission can get into the business of developing regulations and licensing any new violent sport, combat sport, that is emerging. I am going to get into some detail in a few moments talking about extreme or ultimate fighting, because we know that one of the big concerns right now in this whole area is how to regulate these emerging combat events, very violent combat events.
I am concerned that with the way that this bill is worded right now that some other commission, perhaps under some other government at some time in the future, could license and could develop regulations to license more brutal, violent sports like this ultimate and extreme fighting which have very limited rules. I have some definitions here that talk about ultimate fighting as mayhem, where two combatants are locked in a steel cage with the understanding that only the meanest will survive. I have information about how one young man was killed by fighting in one of these contests. He was not really aware of what he was getting into. He was in his early twenties in the United States, and his mother has now taken upon herself to try and bring in some regulation of this type of brutal sport, if you want to call it sport.
The promoters of this kind of violent entertainment bill it as the most brutal event in the history of sport. They describe it as a 15-minute contest of human cockfighting, and they have some pretty graphic descriptions in some of the information that I have about the kinds of holds and moves that are undertaken. I have never seen any of this. I understand that you can get it on video. There are lots of ways you can have access to this type of event, but I would think that those of us who are concerned about limiting violence in our society would take a keen interest in ensuring that this bill is not in any way going to open the door for an increase in the licensing of any additional types of these kinds of violent sports.
I see the minister is shaking his head, negatively he is shaking his head, and I want to suggest, and I am going to get into this, that there are many other jurisdictions that are out and out banning these kinds of bouts. There are 30 states and provinces in North America, including Quebec, that have banned this kind of ultimate or extreme fighting by their boxing commissions. I have with me a regulation from Minnesota, where they have in the regulations dealing with their Boxing Commission specifically listed the kinds of holds or moves that are not allowed. That is the kind of thing I think that we should have in Manitoba so that it is very explicit that this kind of thing can be prohibited in our province.
Now, in Manitoba the way that this is going to be dealt with is simply by not licensing these events under this current commission and under this current government, and then the police or RCMP authorities would have to be called to intervene and to lay charges and to use the Criminal Code to deal with any kind of fight. I think that that could be strengthened by specifically ensuring that there is a banning on the kinds of fights that I have been describing.
Other jurisdictions are dealing with this as well. I know that in British Columbia there was recently a fight that was in a field. There was a biker gang that was involved in hosting it. They gave out handbills to try and promote the fight. There was also another instance in British Columbia where a fight was stopped because they were trying to host it in a publicly funded venue, and I am going to follow up to see the current ownership at the Walker Theatre because, the minister knows because I raised this in the House, there are concerns about the broadcasting of one of these bouts at the Walker Theatre. Perhaps we could use that same approach in dealing with that fight that occurred.
The Tacoma, Washington state, the general assembly there is seeking to limit combat sport known as ultimate fighting. The lawmakers there voted 138 to three to increase the regulatory powers of their Consumer Protection commissioner to ban this. There are a couple of U.S. senators that have taken upon themselves to try and sort out how both the broadcasting and the live bouts can be controlled. I have with me also something from the American Medical Association, which is opposed to these new kinds of fights and are doing their part to try and ensure that the proper regulation is put in place.
I also want to make mention that the last council meeting on September 25 in our own city of Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg passed a resolution unanimously. It was introduced by Councillors Vandal and Thomas that the City of Winnipeg urge the Province of Manitoba to explicitly outlaw extreme fighting in their current revision of The Manitoba Boxing and Wrestling Act and urge the federal government to regulate the broadcast of extreme fighting in the public venue.
So I think that there has been a lot of concern at different levels of government in how to deal with the regulations of this. In British Columbia the Attorney General has released September 16 a commitment to ensure that there is an investigation into the bouts that occurred in British Columbia.
* (1530)
I want to speak a little bit more specifically about the difficulty of the dealing with the regulations around the broadcasting side of this. We know that we can try and ban, through our own Boxing Commission here, the licensing and the fights that are going to go on live. The problem is, as occurred at the Walker Theatre, when they are brought in through closed-circuit TV, when they are linked in live via satellite.
I was interested to find out, unfortunately after I asked the minister the questions in the House the other day, that the section of the Boxing Commission regulation I was referring to, Section 25, was repealed in 1995, and I am wondering if the minister has followed up on that to contact the CRTC to ensure that they will close this loophole and make sure that there is going to be some regulation to deal with the closed-circuit broadcasting by satellite of these kinds of violent fights?
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters also has taken an interest in this area. They have guidelines that have an outright ban on broadcasting of gratuitous violence. They have, as of this past spring, April or March, banned the pay-per-view broadcast of this kind of violent entertainment.
The Canadian Advertising Foundation, in its code of practice, responds to public complaints about advertising in the media. They have a section on taste and public decency that says advertising must not present demeaning or derogatory portrayals of individuals or groups and must not exploit violence, sexuality, children, the customers, et cetera. So I am also concerned about the way that this is promoted and if there are not, through CAF, the Canadian Advertising Foundation, ways that they can limit the way that it is promoted.
But I want to focus a little bit more on the CRTC and what they could do. Yes, I have just been reminded that this is on video for rental. Those of course would have to be classified by our Film Review Board. It is interesting that the bout that occurred two Fridays ago in the Walker Theatre, they contacted our Film Review Board and they tried to figure out if they had to classify it. Because it is not taped, it is via live satellite, they do not have to get a classification for it. They gave it their own classification of PG17. It seems that they are being quite confident as they go about phoning the different regulatory bodies that they are going to be able to continue to broadcast this type of event.
So what we need then is an amendment to the broadcast act, which currently does not include regulations on or jurisdiction over transmission of programs that is made solely for performance or display in a public place. I would think that if the minister is serious, as he and his Boxing Commission and his Sport Manitoba have said, that they want to make sure that these kinds of violent combat sports are limited, that they would follow through with the federal regulatory bodies and make sure that this is going to be dealt with, especially since they were told by their legal department to repeal the sections of the boxing regulation that previously had dealt with closed-circuit broadcasting of boxing and wrestling.
I want to speak a little bit about the use of the Criminal Code in regulating this. I am glad the City of Winnipeg has gone as far and put forward their resolution, because it would be the City of Winnipeg police that would have to go in. It is Section 83 of the Criminal Code which prohibits any prizefight from going on that is not licensed by the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, and infractions under that section of the Criminal Code have two years of incarceration.
Section 264.1 of the Criminal Code also has two years penalty, and that deals with the issuing of threats. That has been used in other jurisdictions to close down some of the bouts that have gone on. Section 265 of the Criminal Code has a 14-year penalty, and that is for aggravated assault. So all of those also could be used and should be used to deal with these fights.
The problem is, and this is where we have to look at the whole issue of broadcasting of these bouts, the logic of allowing something in Manitoba to be broadcast live by a satellite that would not be allowed if it was live. I think that we have to try and make sure, with the challenges of the new technologies that are being developed very rapidly, that we keep up with regulation. If they can do it for Pay Per View, they can do it for the kind of bout that occurred here at the Walker Theatre.
I might also make mention that there was also a tough man--a You Think You're Tough contest they called it--in the Clandeboye gravel pits not too long ago. I would think that if the Boxing Commission knows about these things, then they have to make sure that they use the regulatory powers that they have to enforce the regulations and make sure that these types of bouts do not get a foothold and get a following. I know that the minister and the members opposite would be concerned about the problem of having a gang-related--biker gangs or whoever, other unseemly characters involved in this kind of event or activity.
We are calling on the government then to have something similar to what they have in Minnesota, where they explicitly define the bouts or the kinds of holds that are prohibited, and that there would be a clarification in Bill 66 that the words “any similar sport” that could be brought under the auspices of this commission will not include that kind of violent fight.
With that said, I want to turn my attention to what time is left to deal with some of the other issues that have faced the Boxing and Wrestling Commission in Manitoba over the years, and I want to urge the minister, as he is developing new regulations and legislation in this area, to turn the attention to enforcement.
We have in this House also had discussions about the inadequacy of the enforcement of the Boxing Commission to ensure that boxers have EKGs and a heart test and an EEG, which monitors the waves of the brain prior to being able to fight. We know that there have been many cases where the boxers have not properly had their health certified. We also know that there have been violations of agreements on the weights of boxers. When the cards are developed, a boxer is mandated only to fight boxers of a similar size and weight, and in Manitoba we have had examples of where that is not in force. The cards are allowed to be quite imbalanced, and, of course, that puts the safety of the boxers at risk.
So I think it is important that the Boxing Commission would take seriously its role of ensuring that we do not have a return to the era of the gladiators and the kind of brutal violence that is being billed as entertainment. When I was reading through some of the material, I could not believe how some of the promoters were exalting this on the one hand and saying it is the most brutal and violent thing you could ever imagine, and then on the other hand they were saying, but it is only entertainment; no one is getting really hurt here.
But the blood has been real and the deaths have been real, and we know that there are also deaths in boxing which is more regulated and I guess culturally accepted by some members of the community. I think we want to move in the direction of reducing the kinds of violent combat sports that we have in our community, the kind of violence as entertainment, not paving the way for increasing the kind of violent entertainment that many of us find so disturbing and so distasteful.
I have with me, as well, a number of documented studies that show very clearly, particularly with children, that watching violence affects their behaviour; it affects their attitudes; it affects their relationships, and I am horrified to think that children will have access to this kind of fighting on videotape and that they will then try to enact that in their play with their siblings or their peers. That is what we want to try and make sure we are avoiding, so whether it is via satellite, whether it is via videos, we have to make sure that these kinds of violent entertainment events are regulated and not influence particularly children.
* (1540)
There are many of us who still shade our eyes and turn our heads when there is violence in a movie or violence on a television show. Statistics Canada shows that by the time most Canadian children are 12 years old, they have seen up to 12,000 violent deaths on TV. They show that children's TV programming actually contains 68 percent more violent scenes than programming for adults. You can bet that the children who watch those kinds of programs are going to have that affect their behaviour and their attitudes. I think that as responsible representatives of the public, we want to do everything we can to follow up on the kind of research that has been done that shows very clearly the relationship between the consumption of violent entertainment and the behaviour and actions of individuals.
So with that I think I will conclude my remarks and just once again urge the minister to get back to me. I notice that I have sent him other letters as far back as March 12, 1996, which I do not think he has responded to, or I raised a number of issues with respect to the Boxing Commission, including some irregularities respecting the Auditor's Report. I will look forward to the committee hearing on this bill. I do not know if we will have very many presentations. This is something that has not got a lot of attention, but I will do my utmost to make sure that Manitobans know that we can have better regulation of violence as entertainment and we want this government to do as much as it can. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know if it has already been outlined that this act sets out a structure and responsibility of the Boxing Commission in Manitoba. All professional and amateur fights fall under its jurisdiction.
Amendments to the 1987 Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act have not been proclaimed. This act will correct that omission.
Nevertheless, boxing is sometimes a very politically sensitive topic. Boxers have been known to die in the ring. It does have a popular following, but a great many people would like to see boxing banned outright. Medical doctors have spoken out against the sport, but it is our opinion that if boxing was banned outright, it would just go underground. You will never do away with the sport. So it is important to have a strong Boxing Commission to prevent the emergence of extreme fighting and other unregulated events.
This act does nothing to explicitly ban extreme fighting, although it is unlikely any promoter will be given permission to stage such an event as long as we have a strong Boxing Commission. So we look forward to seeing this bill go to committee and hearing public presentations. Thank you.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and join with my colleague from Radisson in order to make a few remarks about Bill 66. I am speaking today particularly as a critic for the Status of Women. I have discussed this bill with women and with women's groups in the community, and they have some concerns, and so I am speaking in that capacity.
I understand from the minister's remarks at second reading that the bill removes professional wrestling from the act but broadens the Boxing Commission's jurisdiction to include other forms of combat sports and kick boxing, full contact martial arts or any other similar sport and, here I am quoting, any other similar sport in which blows may be struck by the fist or by both the fist and the feet.
Personally, I cannot even pretend to understand combat sports like boxing or like martial arts. As I have been telling my colleagues, personally, they have neither charm nor interest for me, nor do I think that the vast majority of women in the province of Manitoba are terribly interested in those sports, but perhaps those remarks are irrelevant to this particular bill. Martial arts are properly and effectively regulated that they do have a place in amateur and professional sport. That is what I have been told.
What really disturbs me in this bill is the language and particularly that ominous phrase and, again, I am quoting, or any similar sport in which blows may be struck by the fist or by both fists and the feet. The phrase disturbs me because it appears to me, and I could well be corrected, but it appears to me that this phrase may well make room for extreme or ultimate fighting in the province of Manitoba and especially because it is not specifically banned by the bill.
Like my colleague from Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Winnipeg city councillors who last Thursday unanimously agreed on two points, and these, I understand, are they: first of all, to urge the government of Manitoba during this current revision of the act explicitly to ban extreme fighting; and, secondly, to urge the federal government to ban radio and television transmission of extreme or ultimate fighting.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I specifically want to extend my personal congratulations to Councillor Daniel Vandal from St. Boniface for his leadership in this matter. It was through his initiative that these matters were brought to City Council, and I think he deserves our admiration and our respect for doing this. I trust that the Minister of Sport (Mr. Ernst) will now follow Mr.Vandal's example and either introduce an amendment to this bill or possibly support amendments regarding extreme fighting that the opposition might choose to propose at the committee stage.
I also want to take the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) and suggest that he get together with the Minister of Sport so that they might work as a team and work with other provincial ministers in pressuring the federal government and the CRTC to ban the transmission of extreme or ultimate fighting. My most recent information, like that of my colleague for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), is that a couple of weeks ago when the Walker Theatre screened extreme fighting they were not required to obtain a broadcast licence, but I am told that the theatre arbitrarily dreamed up a new film classification PG17-Plus and labelled the performance with this new classification. Now clearly this kind of arbitrary action flies in the face of the Film Classification Board and insults the work that these excellent people do at the Film Classification Board, and I am sure that the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship will agree that this matter requires his immediate attention.
* (1550)
Most of us have some familiarity with the excesses of extreme or ultimate fighting. They have been well documented by the media. I think we have all read about them in the print media. Some of us have seen them on television or pieces of them on television or certainly heard about them via television or via radio. The phrases that appear to be connected with extreme or ultimate fighting are words like “blood sport,” “cockfighting,” “bashing,” “brawling.” These are the kinds of words that are used to characterize this kind of fighting. Commentators, and this is based on my research and reading, frequently link this kind of sport, and I use the term advisedly, link this kind of activity with the gladiatorial combats of a declining Rome, and I think they do this for some pretty obvious reasons.
Personally what I want to do today is link extreme fighting with the violence that generally characterizes our society and increasingly characterizes our society. For example, link it with violence in the media, violence in movies, street violence, violence in our schools, gang violence, child abuse, and domestic violence, and I mention domestic violence at the end because women are so often at the end of the pecking order and women are so often on the receiving end of fists swung in anger and, of course, I do not mean to forget kicking, slapping, pinching, burning, strangling, biting, eye-gouging, torturing and even murder. This kind of activity, we are told, and we know from research, goes on in one out of 10 Canadian homes. If one hears a litany of the crimes committed against women, it certainly sounds a lot like extreme fighting.
It has been frequently said that a society can be properly judged by its aberrations and by its extremes, and personally, while I hope for a world where we will not feel a need to bash each other about even in the carefully regulated manner prescribed by the Boxing Commission, I know that that world is not with us yet.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, lest we be judged by barbarians and show ourselves to be barbarians I do ask the Minister of Sport (Mr. Ernst) to take the necessary steps to ensure that extreme and ultimate fighting are banned in the province of Manitoba. You know, as politicians, I think we often shake our heads and wring our hands and wonder, especially these days, what we can do to stem the tide of violence. Here is one very small concrete step. So I do again urge the Minister of Sport to demonstrate some moral, social and political leadership and ask him to signal thumbs down on this most recent version of gladiators in the arena, that is, of course, extreme fighting.
I want to add that when he is done, I ask him to take the next step and work with the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) to ensure that the transmission of these violent and cruel brutalities are stopped.
Finally, let us remember that it is illogical to condemn violence on the street and violence in the home and violence in the school; it is illogical to brag about zero tolerance and at the same time to allow the transmission of extreme violence and not explicitly to ban extreme fighting in this current Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act.
With these remarks I will take my seat, and I welcome the opportunity to have spoken today and brought the concerns of women of Manitoba to this House.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a few comments today regarding Bill 66, and I think at the outset that the government here has the opportunity to do the right thing and specifically ban extreme fighting in this bill. The minister just minutes ago muttered a comment about censorship, and I really think that it is incumbent upon this government to take a stand against violence in sport. That is what this boils down to, and at the root of the problem is that it is all about money. Violence sells in this society. We have violence in sports like hockey, football, in fact all sports, and as much as we try to restrict the violence in the sports and do something about it, at the end of the day unless the sport is violent it does not sell tickets, and it does not go anywhere in society. That is one of the fundamental problems.
In fact, every time that violence is regulated or attempts are made to curb violence in hockey, for example, rules are made to limit it in some ways but promote it in others, because the owners of the sport, the promoters of the sport, know that is what sells the tickets and that is what puts people into the sport.
Now, it is--[interjection] Well, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) talks about volleyball. This is a very, very serious issue. Society is grappling with a problem of widespread violence, increasing violence in society. When we have an opportunity--at every opportunity that we have to deal with the issue we should deal with the issue decisively. The City Council of this city has made a move in the right direction with Councillors Vandal and Thomas passing a resolution on the matter, encouraging the province to do something about it. We are encouraging, and the city is encouraging, the federal government to amend the broadcast act to take care of the broadcasting part of the issue. These issues have to be dealt with; you cannot simply hide your head in the sand and hope that they are going to go away.
Children learn from what they see, and we cannot allow this trend to continue. I mean, we are paying for it in so many different areas right now with the youth gang violence problem, and these things are connected. They are all interconnected, and they feed upon themselves. When we are in a position where we can do something about it, then it is incumbent upon us to do so. Now our side of the House is proposing, has proposed an amendment to this bill that will specifically exclude extreme fighting.
* (1600)
The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has pointed out that there are at least four different types of kick boxing that probably should be outlawed as well or at least monitored, and we are in a situation, the government is in a situation, where it is basically a permissive--it is essentially attempting to facilitate what it sees as business. For these people, that is what it all boils down to--business. When they consult on the bills, they consult the business sectors to see how it affects them; they consult the business sectors to get the rules set up as favourable as possible for the businesses, all the while knowing that it is self-defeating, that at the end of the day when this bill is passed and over a period of time there will be more violence in society and not less.
The member for Radisson talked about Minnesota as being an example of a jurisdiction that has prohibited and defines certain types of bouts, fairly restricts different types of bouts that can occur, and that is essentially what we need. She made reference to a number of states, I believe 30 states, that have banned extreme fighting outright, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are examples of jurisdictions that are attempting to deal with the problem, the general level of violence in sports and the increasing level of violence in society in general.
There is no use pretending that somehow you can compartmentalize it and departmentalize it and say, well, we will deal with it through the Justice department, we will deal with the gang issue over here, but then on the other side of the coin in the area of the Sports department, we will promote aggressive behaviour in sports, we will promote various types of violence in sports. That is essentially what the state is doing in this area--[interjection] Well, you know, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) talks about kids. The fact of matter is that the system is structured in such a way that coaches and referees in hockey--coaches in the hockey system in this country push the kids to act in violent ways. So the minister certainly cannot sit there--the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) cannot tell me that somehow the system is not organized in such a way that promotes violence in sports. You tell me how it is or why it is that hockey violence is not promoted. It certainly is. [interjection]
Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Lakeside talks about this as socialist tinkering. The result of action not being taken. Let us suppose for a moment, the member for Lakeside, that the 30 states in the United States had not banned extreme fighting. If they had not banned it, and they were allowing extreme fighting in those states, does he not feel that would promote violence? Does he want to live in a society, as in southern Florida, in Miami, where the murder rate is very high, where people are afraid to walk on the streets?
Now I know he is a very big fan of the American system and he has done many things to promote the integration of Canada into the United States. I have always suggested he wants to be a senator. His desire is to be a senator, and he understands that it is an American senator, not a senator in the Canadian House that he is interested in. So we have to understand here that violence in sport is at all-time levels. It is fuelled by a system that promotes the violence.
For example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when fights are promoted out of Las Vegas, if the fights do not last very long or if the fights are not bloody enough, the tickets are not sold. The Walker Theatre will be empty. It is in the interests of the system to promote a bit of blood and gore in these bouts. The promotion of this blood and gore and violence sells the tickets and allows the promoters to fill the stands. This is what we have to fight against, and I know that we are basically just chipping at a very big problem. We are not going to solve the problem overnight, but we have to start somewhere.
I would suggest that this government and the members of this government wake up and recognize that it is a problem, recognize it is a problem and perhaps even introduce the amendment themselves or support our amendment to ban extreme fighting and to try to clean up sports in this province and show Manitoba in a good light, show Manitoba as an example for other jurisdictions in this country to follow in terms of trying to restrict and diminish the amount of violence in sports in this province.
And with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 66. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 52--The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 52, The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'accord de mise en oeuvre de la première nation de York Factory relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I just want to make a few remarks on Bill 52, The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act. This, like Bill 53, which we spoke about last week, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act, these two bills, with this one that we are going to touch on this afternoon, Bill 52, formalize the Hydro flooding settlement agreement with these two communities, with two remaining, Cross Lake and also Norway House.
It stems back, of course, to the Northern Flood Agreement that occurred in 1977, an agreement that took place between the Manitoba government, Manitoba Hydro and the five affected First Nations, which included, of course, Nelson House, York Landing, Split Lake, Norway House and Cross Lake. We on this side are very pleased that these agreements have been finally reached with the approval of both these communities, the bills that are currently before us, Bill 53 and this one, 52.
We have had the opportunity in the past to be in York Factory and also in Nelson House, and both these communities, including the York Factory First Nation, were very seriously affected by past hydro development. My colleague the MLA for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member for Thompson, talked in detail about how these people came to be in the current community they are now in. These people originally came from York Factory, which was the capital of northern Manitoba at one point in Manitoba's history. It was a central location, much like Norway House was the capital of northern Manitoba at one point, but York Factory being situated near the bay, near Hudson Bay, served as a trading post to many of the northern First Nations people who occupied much of northern Manitoba. In the '50s, of course, the people of York Factory were moved to where they are currently located now at York Landing, which is not too far of a distance from the Split Lake community.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
One has to consider the human and social costs that hydro development placed upon these people and other communities affected by projects, and it cannot be rectified by simply dollar figures, because indeed the hydro development that is now benefiting many southern Canadians and southern Manitobans particularly, many will never see the devastating effects it had on the people of York Landing and the other affected northern communities that were part of the northern flood bands, as we come to know them today.
* (1610)
Unfortunately, as well, it has become apparent that as negotiations have gone on and on, it has become more than clear to us that lawyers and professional negotiators themselves have been the chief financial beneficiaries of many of these agreements. Madam Speaker, these communities need and deserve the funds that will flow due to the signing of these agreements, because there is a lot of work to be done in the communities as far as catching up with the rest of the world and being ready to tackle the 21st Century, is how many of the elders and also the current day leaders view what is going on in northern Manitoba.
Chief Eric Saunders and, prior to him, the previous leaders of the York Landing First Nation have been patient, and they have undergone many, many hours and many days and years of negotiations in realizing this objective, and remote northern communities like York Factory, not only have much higher costs of living than southern communities, but they also have very few government resources and services that they can draw on, perhaps many southern Manitobans take for granted, and accordingly these cutbacks have a much higher impact in northern Manitoba.
The traditional way of life, trapping and hunting, have greatly declined throughout northern Manitoba, due to both hydro development and animal rights activists who have greatly hurt prices of fur, for example. Additionally the federal government eliminated the freight subsidy for northern fishermen, and the provincial government cut back the province's freight subsidy for fishermen, and that hurt a lot of people in that industry. These actions have had a devastating effect upon northern communities, and it is our hope that the revenue from these flood agreements will be able to fund economic development, and communities be developed to catch up with the rest of the world. Many times members like myself have talked about the Third World conditions that exist right in our own backyard.
York Landing is no different than those other communities that we have described in comments that we have made. We have been to York Landing and many improvements and many new developments are occurring in that community that we are very much proud of. We are very proud of the current day leadership that is undertaking these initiatives for the good of the future and for the good of the young people that are going to be replacing our leaders in those positions.
It should be noted that this legislation is quite identical to the previous Split Lake agreement and the one that we talked about and are currently talking about in this House, Bill 53. It is also in the interest of all Manitobans, particularly those in southern Manitoba, that Bill 52 and Bill 53 be ratified very quickly. The agreements upon which these bills were drafted have been approved for some time now and, as such, Bill 52 and Bill 53 could be more accurately termed simply official rubber-stamps of the agreements, not original debatable legislation. Similar bills are now in the House of Commons and, as I understand, will soon be made into law in the time to come in the House of Commons.
We hope, of course, that agreements between the remaining northern flood communities, Norway House and Cross Lake, will soon follow and be finalized in the near future.
As well, we want to stress that we on this side of the House are mindful of the negotiations that occurred, and we are very mindful of the fact that the Northern Flood Agreement and the implementation agreements that are now occurring are viewed as modern day treaties, above and beyond what was signed in 1875, Treaty No. 5, that was signed with the Crees and the Ojibway Indians at Norway House and Berens River and the adhesions after that date. So the view of the First Nations in these communities, including York Landing and others, view this as a modern day agreement. I recognize it as such and my colleagues certainly in the official opposition view it as such as well.
We have listened with great interest to the stories of elders and other residents of the northern flood communities who have told us about the irreversible damages that have been done to these communities, and there are things that will never be replaced that have been lost because of flooding and because of any interest of development. We are, of course, in a position and in a situation where we cannot go back and correct some of the past wrongs that have occurred. However, we can, I believe, be mindful, if we are going to embark upon any future initiatives, to be much more careful than we have been in the past. Although we would like to correct some of the wrongs that have been done on, particularly, aboriginal people in the past, certainly, I believe that we are more mindful today that these things will not recur again.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by expressing my sincere congratulations to the efforts of the elders, the leaders, the council members and particularly Chief Eric Saunders of the York Landing-York Factory First Nation on their perseverance and their hard work, their dedication in ensuring that an agreement be finally agreed upon.
We move that, certainly, this bill now move into committee to allow the members of the community the opportunity to perhaps express their views on how they view this and perhaps give other people in this Legislature an opportunity to hear about the effects that northern flooding has had on aboriginal people in northern Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, just a few comments on this Bill 52, The York Factory and Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement.
This ratifies the agreement related to the Northern Flood Comprehensive Implementation Agreement. It is a companion legislation to be passed in the House of Commons. It is modelled on the Split Lake agreement passed last year. The effect of this legislation, Madam Speaker, is to prevent any claims for compensation against Manitoba from being brought forward by individuals from York Factory and Nelson House First Nations under the terms of the Northern Flood Agreement, this legislation with the claims of the citizens of that community on a comprehensive basis. Under the terms of this legislation, Manitoba is released from any future obligation under the Northern Flood Agreement. Any claim or matter under dispute shall be settled in accordance with the terms of this settlement agreement between the federal government and the provincial government, Manitoba Hydro and the York Factory-Nelson House First Nations.
Madam Speaker, of course, this bill obviously is another step in settling one of the Northern Flood Agreement, this one involving the York Factory and Nelson House. As many--in fact, I am sure all this House--recognize, there has been far too long a process, settlement of these claims under this agreement, for the previous five affected communities, First Nations. I think it is very important, regardless of the moment, just leaving the specific details of this agreement and some of the others being negotiated, so that you will reflect the history of this. I think 25-years-plus is way overdue since the damage which incurred, which led to this agreement, is now only leading to some of the final settlement of these claims.
* (1620)
Madam Speaker, I think it a tragedy of really unspeakable proportions that this has gone far too long with reconciliation without understanding of the consequences of those hydro projects. I think the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) has very well detailed what it has cost these communities.
I would like to think that Manitoba Hydro and the members of this Legislature who are represented in this House have learned that it is not the way hydro development should have occurred and should not occur in the future. The members of this House, I hope, will take a second look at the tragedy which all parties, I think, understand that has occurred in the past and will support this bill so that, once and for all, our communities, First Nations, will be settled for the better and go forward in the communities for themselves and for the children of the future.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Bill 62--The Jobs Fund Repeal Act.
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 62, The Jobs Fund Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Fonds de soutien à l'emploi), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to put a few words on the record with regard to this particular bill which virtually legally eliminates the existence of the Manitoba Jobs Fund. The Manitoba Jobs Fund was originally set up around the early 1980s. In fact, it came out of a conference convened by the Pawley NDP government at that time, an economic summit conference in Portage la Prairie in 1982 involving leaders from the business community, from industry, labour and generally from a broad section of Manitoba's society, to deal with the question of job creation because at that time, '82, '83, Canada was experiencing a very serious recession causing a great deal of unemployment and causing a lot of economic strife throughout the country.
In Manitoba we decided in government at that time that we would take initiatives to combat the unemployment of the time, to combat the economic recession of the time, and I suppose, in good Keynesian economic policy fashion--in other words, to utilize the power that the provincial government has to do whatever it can to offset the business cycle, thereby helping everybody in the province; helping business, helping employers, helping employees, helping Manitobans get jobs at a time when jobs were disappearing because of the national, indeed continental, economic recession that we were experiencing at that time.
In the very first year of the Jobs Fund, records show that 21,000 jobs were created through various initiatives taken by the fund. The fund was actually an umbrella organization which went way beyond straight job creation programs; it involved grants to industry, to small business. It involved projects involving the municipalities, in fact, involving the federal government as well. As a matter of fact, with the monies that were put up by the provincial government, we have a figure here of 40 percent of the Jobs Fund related projects coming from the private sector and from municipal and federal governments. In other words, they were persuaded to put money into initiatives that the province undertook and, at that time, we were able to get $157 million put into the Jobs Fund related projects from the private sector and from municipal and federal governments. As a result, Madam Speaker, we did stimulate the economy. We did see jobs created, primarily in the private sector, but with the assistance of the province and, subsequently, with some federal money and of course municipalities who were involved in partly financing some of the projects.
I guess it is pretty fundamental that jobs means income and income means demand for goods and services that we produce and jobs mean output at a time when we have a great deal of idle and underutilized capacity, which we did at that time. Of course, providing jobs gives confidence to our people, particularly for young people struggling to find work for the first time, as well as for experienced workers, many of whom had families to support and whose livelihoods were lost or were in jeopardy because of the recession. Jobs were important because it means, in our view, it was a productive alternative, a positive alternative to simply collecting unemployment insurance or welfare or social allowances. That is why we felt it was totally imperative that we direct every available resource to creating and protecting as many jobs as we can.
I happened to do a little bit of statistical research, and I note that throughout the NDP years in government, from December '81, from the time that the Pawley government first took office, to March 1988, 37,000 jobs were created in Manitoba. This is total jobs, according to the labour force statistics. These are not government jobs. These are total jobs provided by the Manitoba economy, 37,000.
Under the present government, Madam Speaker, from April of 1988 right through till August of this year, only 15,000 jobs have been created. In other words, in the period of 6.3 years we were able to create 37,000 new jobs compared to only 15,000 with the present government, which has been in office for 8.4 years. We were in office for 6.3 years. This government has been in office for 8.4 years and have only provided a fraction of the number of jobs that we created.
As a matter of fact, when you compare what was going on in Manitoba with the national scene, and because it is important to compare with the national situation, we did not get the increase in jobs in Manitoba that we got in the country as a whole, but this has been typical. We only achieved roughly two-thirds of the national job creation rate but, unfortunately, under the present government from April '88 to August of 1996, the present government has only created about, well, 3 percent increase. It is about half or less than half of the Canadian rate. So you cannot say that the jobs were created under us because of what was happening to the national economy, because what we have done is compare what was going on in Manitoba with what was going on in the nation as a whole. So we did much better. We created about two-thirds--we, I mean all of Manitobans during the NDP administration--we created two-thirds of the national rate of job creation compared to less than one-half under the present government.
I submit, Madam Speaker, the reason for this is that under the previous NDP government, we had the Manitoba Jobs Fund and we had other initiatives to tackle the problems of unemployment dead on with the co-operation of the private sector. These are mainly private jobs. These are not public, government jobs. These are mainly private jobs. So with the co-operation of the municipalities and laterally with some federal government money as well, we did get the stimulus. I believe today we still have a serious unemployment problem and we have a problem whereby we just do not have enough jobs, particularly for the young people, and they are leaving the province, which is very, very regrettable, losing one of our most precious resources. In fact, the figures that we have so far this year--
* (1630)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) will have 22 minutes remaining, and as previously agreed, this bill will remain standing also in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
As previously agreed, the hour being 4:30 and time for Opposition Day Motions.