Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole to consider and report of matters referred.

Motion agreed to.

The committee has before it for consideration Bill 49, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1997. Does the honourable minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much, no, Mr. Chairman. I made my comments at second reading, and I have provided the critic from the official opposition with some committee reading notes, so I am certainly prepared to move on to questions.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): No, but we have some few specific questions to ask as we proceed through the bill.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the critic for that. If the minister's staff would enter the Chamber at this time.

The bill will be considered clause by clause. During the consideration of a bill, the title and the preamble are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order by the committee. We will also put aside the table of contents.

Is it the wish of the committee to do it in groups of clauses? [agreed]

Shall Clause 1 pass?

Mr. Leonard Evans: I hope I have the right area here, but we are talking about corporation capital tax? I guess we do not oppose what the minister is proposing, but my question is why increase it, say, from $2 million to $3 million for this particular period? I note you say it will increase the exemption for about 700 small corporations, but why not $4 million? Why not $5 million? I am just wondering why this particular decision, why this particular cutoff.

Also, could you tell us how many in total will now be taken off the capital tax rolls?

* (1100)

Mr. Stefanson: First, I would like to introduce the two staff who have joined me. On my right is Mr. Barry Draward. He is the Acting Assistant Deputy Minister of Taxation, and on my left is Mr. René Perreault who is the director of Taxation and Federal/Provincial Relations.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to very briefly take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Brandon East and his wife Alice on 44 years of marriage. I am sure I speak on behalf of all members of this Chamber in wishing them all the best on this special occasion and many more happy returns and great days in the years ahead.

In terms of his specific question, when we look at the amount, we do look at it in every budget, and we have moved the exemption once before. As the member knows, it was originally a million dollars. We moved it to $2 million a couple of budgets ago. We have now moved it to $3 million. So our decision is based on the financial impact and obviously the numbers of companies that are affected by making the adjustment. So it is an issue that we will look at again in our 1998 budget as to whether or not there is capacity to move again, what that impact would be on companies and so on.

After having said all of that, Mr. Chairman, as the member mentioned, about 700 corporations were removed from the tax roll as a result of this. That leaves about 3,800 corporations still affected by the capital tax.

Mr. Leonard Evans: First, I want to thank the honourable minister for his kind words, and I will certainly pass on his congratulations to my wife who will be glad to hear of them. Thank you very much.

I was not sure whether I heard the minister correctly, but I gather 3,800 are now exempt by virtue of this latest change. I do not know whether I heard him correctly. Is it 3,800 that are exempt, or how many are left who are not exempt? Maybe I could put it that way. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask honourable members who want to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge. We are having great difficulty--[interjection] Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members who want to carry on their conversation to do so in the halls or in the loge. The honourable minister and the critic are having great difficulty hearing each other. We will continue once the conversations stop. Thank you.

Mr. Stefanson: The answer to that last question, that is the 3,800. There are 3,800 corporations that still are on the corporation capital tax roll, approximately.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chairman, then, if there are 3,800 on the tax rolls, do we know how many are not on or is that impossible to know? I guess you would have to guess as to the total number of corporations in the province.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, a very difficult question to answer. I am told there are in excess of 40,000 corporations in Manitoba, but beyond that I do not have the specific number for the member.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I can appreciate the difficulty, Mr. Chairman, of the department and the minister getting that information. I guess it would be based on estimates made by Statistics Canada of the corporations that exist out there. Either that or registrations, I suppose.

At any rate, I wondered if the minister could comment on how effective he thinks that this corporation capital tax exemption is. Certainly it will be welcomed by those businesses, obviously. Is there any sort of impact assessment of these exemptions in terms of the success of the corporation or the growth of these businesses?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, there is no specific study that shows the direct cause and effect of this particular tax adjustment. As the member for Brandon East knows, this capital tax is applied against debt and equity in corporations. So when we meet with many of the business organizations, like the Chambers of Commerce, like the Federation of Independent Business, they point to the fact that this tax can be a deterrent in terms of businesses that want to borrow some money to then invest because it might push them over the threshold, or, of course, it might also increase their tax.

So whenever I met with those kinds of organizations, the taxes that they most often point to as being, from their perspective and their membership's perspective, the most negative in terms of the economy and the growth in those businesses are usually the payroll tax and the capital tax.

So that is the anecdotal information. We certainly track growth in private sector investment in Manitoba. The member knows that our growth in private sector investment in Manitoba has been relatively strong in the last few years, relatively within Canada. I guess one could make the point that this is one contributing factor, but there is no specific study that says this removal of $1 million has exactly this impact on our economy.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chairman, I understand you would permit discussions and questions on all the items in the bill and then we would pass the whole bill at that time, rather than calling them section by section. So I would just highlight some of our concerns.

The other major change here is the payroll tax exemption; again, increasing it, I know to set a cost of about $3.8 million. I know the criticism about a payroll tax is that it has a dampening effect on job creation. I know a lot of economists make that argument. Nevertheless, I appreciate and I think the minister appreciates the fact that it is a very significant source of revenue for the Treasury of Manitoba. It is not one that is as easy to give up as one would like. No one likes taxes. No one wants to increase taxes; no party does. I am sure no Minister of Finance does, but nevertheless the tax still remains.

So I just make that observation. As a matter of fact, the tax not only remains in place in spite of previous commitments made by the former Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier (Mr. Filmon), that the health and education levy would be totally eliminated. It still remains. I note that in the Estimates, in the budget, that the amount of revenue from this source is actually going to increase this year, in spite of the increase of the exemption.

Just passing on to the Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit, again, could the minister--this has been extended for another three years--give us any assessment of the impact of this tax credit? Is there anything he can point to, to show--again, it may be very difficult, but is there any analysis he has or any conclusions he has about the tax credit on manufacturing investment being of some benefit to the province?

* (1110)

Mr. Stefanson: In terms of the payroll tax, as the member for Brandon East and I discussed the other day, these changes now reduce the number down to, I believe, about 1,600 firms that will be paying the payroll tax, so, again, a significant reduction in numbers paying, but the gross dollars are similar because approximately half of the revenue that comes in comes in from either the federal government or other organizations, other public organizations here in Manitoba.

On the expenditure side, we actually refund some of the payroll tax that we collect, as the member knows. We refund it to education, to public schools. We refund it to municipalities and so on. So on the one hand we have a gross revenue figure, but some of it is offset through some expenditures, and about half of it does come from government or government related kinds of organizations.

In terms of his very specific question on the Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit, again, when I meet various business organizations, the ones I referred to, the Chamber, the Federation of Independent Business, accounting organizations like CAs and CGAs, they all point very directly to this as being a very positive aspect of the growth in our economy. In fact, particularly people in the accounting professions who would see it first-hand on tax returns and the impact on businesses say that this definitely is having a significant impact in terms of economic activity in Manitoba.

We do not have a specific, again, study related to it, but if we look at since the introduction of the Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit, the growth in manufacturing shipments have increased every year. In fact, in 1996 the growth was 8 percent, the third best in Canada and far in excess of the increase of 2.9 percent. So, again, if you look at much of our performance in manufacturing, I would suggest that a lot of it is, in fact, related to the investment tax credit, and, interestingly, now some other jurisdictions have introduced similar programs, I believe.

Just to conclude, I mean provinces like Saskatchewan, but when we have been in discussions with companies that are expanding through I, T and T or relocating, this topic does come up on a fairly regular basis as being something that companies do look at in terms of their expansion. We felt it was then the responsible thing to do, to put it in place for a slightly longer period of time. To give three years, it creates more stability, more predictability and hopefully will encourage even more businesses to expand here in Manitoba, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, to encourage manufacturing in this province and to promote manufacturing is a very great challenge. It is probably the most difficult job I think any minister has, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry. It is very, very difficult for all kinds of basic structural reasons, it seems to me.

While we have some advantages for economic location, we also have some disadvantages, unfortunately. Of course, probably the weather is one of them, in January, February sort of thing, but apart from that, there are other disadvantages. That is why it is always a struggle, and even though I appreciate the manufacturing shipment value of manufacturing shipments have gone up, some of that, of course, is inflation, but I am not suggesting the total physical output has not gone up. I am just saying that the value in current dollars tends to exaggerate the increased output of manufacturing.

It is a little disturbing when you look at the employment in manufacturing this year. The first five months that we have of this year, which is the latest information we have from the labour force survey, shows a decline in the employment of persons in manufacturing. I do not know how the minister can explain that, but there is a 1 percent decline in the first five months of this year. That is nearly half a year where we see the level of employment declining. Of course, if we look back, while there has been some increases in the last few years, if we look back to 1988, I believe the level of employment actually was higher at that time.

So I am just saying that we have these incentives, such as the investment tax credit for manufacturers. I think they may be of some benefit, but I think they are limited. Obviously, they are not permitting a massive expansion of manufacturing jobs in this province. As I say, in the first five months of this year, we had fewer people working in manufacturing than we had in the first five months of last year.

That is a comment. I am just passing on--unless the minister wants to respond, I pass on to the next item, which is the Manitoba Film and Video Production Tax Credit, which I want to congratulate the minister on introducing. I think this is a very good move, and it will, hopefully, enhance our film and video industries.

I think cultural industries, when we are talking about jobs, are not as appreciated as they should be for job creation potential, apart from all the other value, of course, of providing tax credits for this industry, such as the enhancement of Manitoba culture, the enhancement of culture generally, providing of opportunities for a lot of other firms that relate to this industry, so we have no trouble whatsoever.

I stand to be corrected, and I could ask the minister this question. Is it approximately $16 million to $17 million of tax revenue that will be involved in credits for this particular industry? In other words, this formula, when it is worked out for this industry, is it correct that it will be $15 million, $16 million, $17 million worth of tax revenue that is being given up?

Mr. Stefanson: I did not bring with me all of my statistics on jobs and so on, so we can certainly leave that discussion for another day. I know over the last several years our performance on an overall basis in manufacturing jobs has been quite strong in a relative sense within Canada, but just to conclude on the Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit because it really has a cause and effect in terms of investment, from 1992 to 1997, the average annual change in capital investment in Canada was 2.2 percent. The average change in Manitoba was 18.6 percent, so I think the investment tax credit is obviously having an impact in terms of the capital investment because if you look at Saskatchewan over the same period, they actually had a reduction of 13.8 percent, and even Alberta only grew by 7.3 percent, so I think that credit does have a significant impact.

* (1120)

In terms of the next issue, the film and video production tax credit, I thank the member for Brandon East for his compliments relative to the introduction of this tax credit. I agree. I think it is very timely. It is going to have a positive impact on this sector of our economy. It is a sector that has been growing significantly over the last few years with tremendous opportunities in Manitoba from cost competitiveness, the quality of our employees in this area and so on.

In terms of his very specific question on cost, in 1997-98, we are estimating the cost to be about $1.5 million, and over the three-year lifetime of this credit, at this stage we are estimating the cost to be between $5 million and $10 million. Obviously, we will have a much better indication after the first year, but the total cost over the three years, we are expecting it to cost between $5 million and $10 million, but, obviously, we also expect a significant degree of activity in this sector of our economy.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I just have one or two other areas to cover and we can pass the bill.

I just want to comment on the first-time-buyer retail sales tax rebate which is being extended. We have been critical of the rebate, not that we are critical of rebates or not that we are critical of enhancing housing construction. Our criticism is not of taking initiative to enhance housing construction, but our criticism is that it is not as effective as it should be. The actual rebate is $2,500, I understand, and it has not really translated into much improvement in the level of housing starts.

The minister need only look at the housing starts over the years to see how pathetic the level of housing starts in Manitoba is in the last several years. It was not uncommon for us to have 5,000, 6,000 housing starts per annum in Manitoba, and now we are down. The last few years, we have been just barely over a thousand. In fact, the urban--at least I have some urban housing statistics here. The total is a bit higher, but, nevertheless, it gives you the same pattern.

The urban housing starts are only 1,243 in 1996; the year before, 1995, were 1,215; 1994, there were 1,664; in 1993, 1,702; 1992, 1,821. So we seem to be coming down rather than going up in terms of the level of housing starts. For the life of me, I do not understand why there is so little activity in the residential construction industry in this province, given all the other good news statistics the minister keeps talking about. It is certainly not being translated in terms of new housing construction.

So I do not see how this tax rebate has been of any particular significance in enhancing this industry.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, well, first of all, since its inception in 1994, the program has rebated about $1.9 million to 889 qualified applicants, and with the extension we expect it to create and maintain up to about 150 jobs in the construction industry, and we actually are estimating about 400 first-time home buyers to take advantage of the program in the upcoming year.

I meet with many groups when I prepare Manitoba's budget. One of the groups I meet with is the Manitoba Home Builders Association, and they certainly, as an industry, speak very positively about this program. They requested its extension. I know that it has received some media coverage where they speak very positively about the impact of this program. I see the City of Winnipeg, here in Winnipeg, just introduced an initiative relative to new home construction. The good news in this sector is that in 1997 our growth right now is amongst the best in Canada.

So it is an area that has struggled over the last few years. That is not unique to Manitoba. Housing in various parts of Canada has struggled over the last few years, Mr. Chairman, but I think a combination of several factors today, the lower interest rates, the solid economic growth, more jobs, strong retail sales, all of these things are adding to what we see as being significant growth in 1997 in the house-building industry. I know I had the opportunity just the other day to speak to one of the main firms in this area, and to date in 1997 they are very pleased, and they also are very complimentary of this program.

So I appreciate the concerns that the member expresses, but within the industry this program is acknowledged as being one element of helping to maintain and sustain growth in new homes.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I am sure the industry is happy to have this kind of sales tax rebate in effect and, of course, the particular buyers themselves who benefit from it. Our criticism is that it is not enough, that maybe the government should bring in a bit more because of the very sluggish nature of the residential housing industry in this province.

I appreciate that there has been some increase in '97 over '96. Percentage-wise, it looks good, but when it comes down to the level of housing starts, it is still far, far below where it was about a decade ago, and there are some reasons for it. Fortunately, mortgage rates are coming down, so that will be of assistance. I believe, however, another constraining factor is the ability of Manitobans to actually undertake a mortgage. In other words, it is an income problem.

As I was pointing out in Question Period today, there has been a serious drop in real wages in the past year alone, and the average industrial wage in real dollars has gone down by over $10 a week, over $40 a month, so that sort of phenomenon does have a dampening impact on the demand for new housing.

At any rate, just passing on, Mr. Chairman, because I know we are limited for time, just the last point we will touch on is the aircraft gasoline tax rate that is being reduced by one cent per litre. How do we compare now with other jurisdictions? I imagine the minister has some information on that. Is this one-cent reduction considered to be sufficient to perhaps enhance air transport in Manitoba, or especially the Winnipeg Airport?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the short answer to the question is, yes, we do think it will be enough. We did a detailed analysis of this issue of the gasoline tax for aircraft, and we did it based on an industry model that we utilized. Today, when we look at what our rates are, to give the member a comparison, at gasoline tax rates in our neighbouring provinces, B.C. is at 5 cents, Alberta is at 1.5 cents, Saskatchewan is at 3.5 cents. We are now at 3.2 cents.

So within western Canada we are certainly competitive, and, as I say, the short answer is, yes, we think this step maintains that competitive aspect and will ensure that we get our share of activity taking place in Manitoba. That was the whole objective, to be sure that the activity continues to take place here in Manitoba.

Mr. Leonard Evans: While there are other questions, many other questions we could ask of the minister in this bill, because of time constraints, I think we will conclude at this point and just say that while we do not agree with every item in the bill, by and large we support the initiatives taken by the minister and, again, I repeat, particularly the film and video production tax credit, which is new. I think it is very positive, and we look forward to some positive results.

* (1130)

Mr. Chairperson: As previously agreed, we shall do groups of clauses.

Clauses 1 and 2--pass; subclauses 3(1) to 4(2)--pass; 5(1) and 5(2)--pass; 5(3) to 6(2)--pass; 6(3) through 9--pass; 10 through 11(4)--pass; 12(1) through 14--pass; 15(1) through 16(2)--pass; 17 to 19--pass; 20(1)--pass; 20(2) to 20(4)--pass; 20(5)--pass; 20(6) through 21--pass; 22 and 23--pass; 24(1) to 28--pass; 29(1) to 30--pass; 31 through 32(6)--pass; 32(7) to 32(10)--pass; 32(11) through 34--pass; 35 and 36(1)--pass; 36(2) through 37--pass; 38(1) through 38(7)--pass; 38(8) through 38(12)--pass; preamble--pass; table of contents--pass; title--pass. Bill be reported.

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 49, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1997, and reports the same without amendment.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Bill 41.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I adjourned the report stage debate yesterday in order to ensure that the Health minister responds to the concerns raised by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) on the report stage amendment that is currently before the House.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the amendment, this particular amendment, arises out of a representation from the interfaith association.

Under Bill 49 passed last year by this Assembly which created regional health authorities, the plan as envisioned at that time was that in rural and northern Manitoba, facilities would be evolving into the regional health authorities.

Under Revenue Canada's ruling, it is our understanding that they were to be treated as mergers for tax purposes resulting in no tax consequence, so in order to accommodate that tax requirement, the act required them to dissolve. What the Interfaith Association has requested--and this is why this amendment is, in fact, out of scope in this bill and requires approval to be considered because we are dealing with an item from last year--was that there may be the rare circumstance where a corporation that holds a facility that is evolving does not wish to dissolve. It has another purpose with which to continue. I would point out, for example, the Grey Nuns is not probably a good one because most of the holdings of religious orders are, in fact, held as corporate bodies in which the religious order is the shareholder. So you could still have the dissolution of that particular corporation without affecting the function of that order.

However, if we were to have a circumstance arise where a corporation owning a building was going to turn that building over to the RHA but for some reason had an asset or some portion that they wish to continue, this provision would allow, with the approval of the minister, for that to happen. Why the approval is required is that particular action may result in tax consequences to the province or to the regional health authority or to that religious order that would have to be negotiated as part of that agreement. So having the approval required for the minister ensures that the public interest and those tax consequences will, in fact, be dealt with.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I thank the minister for that explanation. I did call legal counsel for the faith groups last night, and they agreed that this amendment would do the job from their perspective. Although they were not sure that the approval issue was required, they did not think it would do any harm. So we are prepared to support it, and I appreciate the minister's explanation.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the amendment on Bill 41, moved by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach)--dispense.

THAT the following be added after Section 9 of the bill:

9.1 Section 49 is renumbered as subsection 49(1), and the following is added as subsection 49(2):

Exception

49(2) Subject to the approval of the minister, a health corporation is not required to dissolve or disestablish under clause (1)(b) or (c) if it does not transfer all of its operations and property to the regional health authority.

[French version]

Il est proposé d'ajouter, après l'article 9 du projet de loi, ce qui suit:

9.1 L'article 49 devient le paragraphe 49(1) et il est ajouté, après ce paragraphe, ce qui suit:

Exception

49(2) Sous réserve de l'approbation du ministre, la personne morale dispensant des services de santé n'est pas tenue de procéder à sa dissolution en application de l'alinéa (1)b) ou c) si elle ne transfère pas l'ensemble de ses activités et de son actif à l'office régional de la santé.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the amendment? Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: First of all, does the honourable government House leader have leave? [agreed]

Motion agreed to.

* (1140)

Bill 41--The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): With the leave of the House, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 41, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et modifications corrélatives), be now read a third time and passed.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? [agreed]

Motion presented.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my comments will be brief, because we have commented at previous readings of this bill with respect to our difficulties, but I do want to put a few short comments on the record.

Firstly, this government does not listen. When presentations were made with respect to the predecessor bill, Bill 49, the changes that were recommended by all of those presenters were simply not heard by the government in this amendment with respect to Bill 41 and the structure of the regional health authorities in Winnipeg. They simply do not listen, which is one of the reasons why we cannot support this bill.

Secondly, we were concerned about the fact that this was an omnibus bill. In fact, this bill does not only deal with regional authorities, but it deals with giving the minister power to take over operations of institutions, and, thirdly, it gives the minister power to take over the operation of public health in the city of Winnipeg. We object to the omnibus nature of the bill. However, having said that, we do support the provisions in the bill that deal with the ability of the minister to take over operations, even though we felt the minister had the power anyway.

We call this amendment the Holiday Haven amendment. It has, obviously, been brought in to try to deal with the extraordinarily bad situation that resulted from Holiday Haven Nursing Home and lack of government action, and this amendment that has been brought in will allow the minister to step in. I only hope that if the minister should have to ever utilize this section again, it will be utilized at the urging of citizens and individuals who raise it, rather than waiting seven months in order to invoke some changes at an institution that was as badly managed as Holiday Haven was.

The third part of the bill we cannot support, and not necessarily on principle are we against, for example, improving public health in the city of Winnipeg, but we are very concerned, because by virtue of the third part of this bill the government wants to take over the operation of public health in the core area of Winnipeg. We have found from unfortunate experience in this province that, whenever this provincial government steps in to manage some form of health care, it usually results in diminished health care. It usually results in cutbacks, and it usually results in the government offloading the services somewhere else. We will not allow them to take over the public health operations in the city of Winnipeg until we are guaranteed that the services that are going to be put in place are at least equal to or better than the services that are presently very well operated by the City of Winnipeg.

So we have a grave difficulty with supporting this, as well as the principle that, in fact, the civic government should be totally excluded from the provision of public health care. Madam Speaker, the province could learn from the city with respect to the provision of public health, rather than take over and say we are going to do it in many areas. In fact, there are many ways that public health in Winnipeg could teach the province a lesson. I am afraid the experience we have had in the province is that, when the province has taken over, it has been a decreasing service that they offer; it has been a worse service that they offer. That is why we cannot support that third aspect of the bill.

You know, I just did an interview with a reporter with respect to this bill who indicated to me for the first time the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) is saying, well, we might look at elections regarding regional boards. I wonder, Madam Speaker, because every presenter said we should have elections, and the minister completely quashed any suggestion. In fact, at no time did he even open slightly the crack or the door in terms of elections. But, of course, now that the bill is going through he said, well, at some point we might look at that, which is totally contrary to the recommendations of their own committee that set up these regional boards.

So, Madam Speaker, regrettably, we cannot support this bill. There are some provisions in it that we are supportive of, but, overall, the scheme and the way this government is using health authorities, it is something like we had predicted in the past that they are using them as political footballs to try to undertake the cuts. It is very clear from the way there has been severe budgetary cutbacks already. We are very concerned about the patronage appointments to those boards and, accordingly, we cannot support this bill.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 41, The Regional Health Authorities Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

An Honourable Member: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

* (1150)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Order, please. The question before the House is third reading, Bill 41.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed .

Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 22.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the agreement that we discussed yesterday had the House sitting until twelve o'clock. I do not know that the record of that is particularly clear, so we would now require agreement to sit a little past 12 to deal with the next couple of bills.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave for the Speaker not to see the clock? [agreed]

Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), 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 third time and passed.

Motion presented.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would just like to take a few minutes to put a few comments on the record with regard to this bill and say how harsh it is, in particular to several people who live in my constituency who have been victims of crime and have had their income reduced, their only income; they are unable to make a living. This government has absolutely no heart when they are dealing with these people. It just shows a true indication of what this government has been doing, not only to victims of crime but many people who live in this province. It shows the true heartlessness of this government.

It reflects very much in the community when the people have no other source of income. They are faced with increased costs of living but have nowhere to turn to have their expenses--or no ability to make a living, so I want to say on behalf of my constituents that this is very heartless legislation and one that we cannot support.

* (1200)

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, this government has come by with this face about being so concerned about victims and victims' rights. They talk about how victims have to come first. I have heard it in the election, I have heard it in this House day after day, but what is the heart and soul and hands of this government? It is to denigrate victims; it is to turn their backs on victims, and this speaks more loudly than anything of how this government views the role of victims in the justice system.

We see how they treat the victims of car theft, Madam Speaker, by ensuring that there are deductibles increased and applied to those victims. We have seen how this government and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) have broken an election promise to increase funding by a quarter million dollars last year to Victims Assistance. That money was frozen when they came into office.

We see how they leave the victims out of the justice system. We see how the minister so cruelly, when faced with the problems that Lisa Drover had to deal with when her case went to trial when no victims were subpoenaed, he would not even apologize to that victim. We saw how he dealt so heartlessly with the child who suffered sex assault just a couple of weeks ago.

Now with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which really can form the heart of a governmental response to victims' concerns, we see a capping of counselling sessions for victims. We see a de-indexing of benefits, and that is what the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) spoke about. We have seen how they have moved to a system of lump-sum payments to reduce the periodic payments that they were paying out before, and now this, Madam Speaker.

What does this bill do? It says if you are entering the workforce tomorrow and your job starts tomorrow, but you are a crime victim today and are unable to show up at the office tomorrow, you do not get a nickel for criminal injuries comp, not a nickel. If you are a seasonal worker and you are returning to work, but just before you return to work, you are a crime victim, you do not get anything. You actually have to be working on the day of the crime, Madam Speaker.

This is an immoral bill. It is heartless and it belies, it puts a lie to the promises and the rhetoric of this government. We do not support it, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 46. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Order, please. The question before the House is third reading of Bill 46.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed.

Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 22.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Motion presented.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, this bill represents one more in the long list of broken promises by the government.

When the former government made changes affecting the independence of the commission, this government screamed bloody murder, and they went into the election campaign in 1988 saying that they were going to restore the Law Reform Commission with full independence, public funding. When they came into office, they went ahead and they fulfilled that, and they introduced legislation into this House, legislation they said would ensure that the independence of the commission would never again be affected, that never again could a government go and destroy or affect the operations of the Law Reform Commission. Never again, they said.

Well, what we are looking at today, Madam Speaker, is just another sign of a pathetic administration that is just breaking more promises day after day. What now is the reason that the government gives to do away with the Law Reform Commission as we know it? Well, we need the money for public safety. Is that not interesting that just two weeks ago this same Law Reform Commission brought forward some of the most progressive ideas to deal with safety for women? It proposed a series of recommendations to help prevent and deal with stalking. Is the government saying by this legislation that women are not part of the public?

At the same time, by destroying this commission, the government has destroyed a paper that will lead to significant changes in how we deal with elder abuse. It has destroyed a paper that has been years in the making respecting the competency, dealing with issues that are so important to Manitoba seniors.

There are two bills on the Order Paper. That is because this government has completely bungled this initiative. They did not consult with anyone. They just went ahead and hacked, but it is our view that there is virtually no difference in outcome between Bill 22, The Law Reform Commission Repeal Act and this one, the Law Reform Commission Amendment Act. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading, Bill 58. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.

* (1210)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

The question before the House is third reading, Bill 58, The Law Reform Commission Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Commission de réforme du droit.

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed.

Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 22.

Madam Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, according to the discussions and agreement, this sitting of the House will adjourn in a moment or two, and a new sitting will begin at 1:30 this afternoon. I believe that is the agreement of the House.

Madam Speaker: This House is accordingly adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. McCrae: Point of order, Madam Speaker, I think in this situation we need to ask for the agreement of the House for that.

Madam Speaker: Is there agreement? [agreed]

This House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.