Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the second reading bills as listed on page 5 of today's Order Paper, with the exception of Bill 31. When we have completed those introductions, if you would then call the bills as listed on the Order Paper beginning at page 2 in the order that you see them there. If something should happen in the meantime that we might be able to deal with Bill 31, which is on page 5, we will perhaps let you know.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 32, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités et modifications corrélatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
* (1530)
Mr. Derkach: I am pleased to rise to speak in second reading to this bill, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Madam Speaker, members of this House will recall that in 1996 we passed a completely revised Municipal Act which took effect on January 1, 1997. The act has now been in place for approximately, well, more than a year now, and it appears to be serving Manitobans very well. I guess a measure of that success is that, through the consultative process that was established to redo The Municipal Act and the revisions of it, we have not had a lot of difficulty in terms of the way the act was implemented. By and large, municipalities are very satisfied with the act and with the way in which it has been implemented. So there have been very few amendments required to this point in time. However, as is often the case with major pieces of legislation, there are issues that come up from time to time and amendments are required for clarification and for housekeeping purposes.
Some of the amendments in this bill are of a housekeeping nature and are to clean up the act, so to speak, as it was introduced back in 1996, and others will accommodate locally driven initiatives for municipal restructuring. When I talk about municipal restructuring, I refer to the fact that over the last year we have had municipalities talking about such things as strengthening their regions and strengthening their ability to deal with local issues and looking at the possibilities of amalgamation and of working together. So one of the amendments that is incorporated in this legislation talks about strengthening the ability for local municipalities to restructure or to allow for amalgamation if that is their will.
Another of the recommendations or amendments in this bill relate to the ability of the Public Utilities Board, which is responsible for the approving of operating deficits, to be able to do so in a way which requires municipalities to inform the Public Utilities Board when they see that there is going to be a deficit in the water and sewer utility systems. In addition, there are amendments which will streamline some of the municipal administrative processes such as the expenditure of specific purpose reserve funds. As we indicated and brought in the act in 1996, municipalities today have much more flexibility in determining how they utilize their funds.
Madam Speaker, as well, the bill clarifies municipal responsibility with respect to the maintenance of such things as drains on municipal properties. It also allows municipalities to deal with the closure or the opening of drains on municipal properties which might be affecting their infrastructure works that they have within the municipality. Also, this bill clarifies the authority of a municipality to cancel taxes or impose supplementary taxes to recognize adjustments in assessments.
So, in keeping with our tradition of consulting with the major organizations and stakeholders that this bill and amendments of this bill will impact, we have sought input from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the municipal administrators among others when we prepared the amendments for this bill. So I am confident that the amendments will address a number of concerns that have been raised by municipal officials, and the amendments will also help to enhance The Municipal Act which has already received a wide level of acceptance throughout the province.
So, with these few comments, Madam Speaker, I certainly recommend this bill to the members of this Legislature.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Motion presented.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Speaker, once again I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill 33, The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act for second reading. Members of this House will once again recall that the new assessment legislation was enacted back in 1990 which implemented the recommendations that were contained in the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee report, and today property assessments reflect market values, and this, of course, promotes greater equity and public understanding of our assessment system.
Now the assessments are also kept current through the reassessment cycle that we have introduced and implemented in the province, and currently we are on a four-year reassessment cycle. I would like to point out to members of the House that since 1990, we have had three province-wide reassessments in Manitoba, and we have completed our latest just a year ago. I would like to report that the rate of appeal for our assessments has been dropping continuously since the implementation of market value assessment.
In a 1998 reassessment, Madam Speaker, our rate of appeal is down to 1.3 percent in our province, which is the lowest since we have moved to the market value system of assessment. So today I am pleased to be introducing amendments that will continue to improve the assessment system and strengthen the basic premise of legislation that property be assessed to the registered owner of the land and that the responsibility for the property taxes rests with that owner.
To support our government's commitment to a competitive aviation environment, we are also introducing an amendment which will deal with an exemption for specific air site improvements such as runways, aprons and fencing, and this amendment is being proposed in this legislation. This is consistent with other provincial jurisdictions where airports have been transferred to regional airport authorities, and it simply continues the exemption that was present under the municipal grants act when the federal government was responsible.
There are other amendments that will aid in the collection of information necessary for making assessments and to clarify the penalty provisions where a property owner may not wish to comply with the requests that are made for information. In addition, there are also provisions which will allow a nonprofit organization--it is an exemption from education taxes on property that they own or hold under a leasehold agreement or title. In addition, the provision setting out the formula charging municipalities for the cost of assessment services is being removed from the legislation and is being placed in a regulation.
This is being done in order to allow adjustments to the formula and to enable the formula to remain current. Input on the formula will be sought from our major stakeholders, and by that I mean the UMM and MAUM, and I would like to inform the members that the cost of assessment service to Manitoba municipalities at the current time is the lowest in Canada.
So, in concluding my remarks, Madam Speaker, I am confident that these legislative amendments will serve to strengthen our Municipal Assessment Act and renew our commitment to delivering a very high quality of property assessment efficiently and effectively for all residents and taxpayers and property owners within our province. So, once again, I recommend these amendments to the House.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* (1540)
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: As Minister of Education and Training, it is my pleasure to introduce Bill 34, an act to amend The Public Schools Act, for second reading. The bill introduces a number of housekeeping changes to The Public Schools Act and amendments that will align trustees' terms with municipal elections. Another provision facilitates the voluntary amalgamation of school boards. It also contains provisions concerning the type of information contained in an auditor's supplementary report to a school division, makes the language of the act consistent with the federal Immigration Act and makes school board by-laws on trustee indemnities subject to The Public Schools Act or any other act of the Legislature.
Bill 34 repeals Sections 203 and 204 regarding the ability of school boards to use their reserve funds and corrects a number of typographical errors. For consistency in language, Bill 34 introduces amendments such as deleting the reference to "landed and immigrant" and substituting "permanent resident as defined in the Immigration Act (Canada)".
Bill 34 proposes to amend Sections 21.3(d) and 25 to lengthen the term of office of school trustees to four years and puts school trustees on the same election cycle as municipal councils. We believe that this will encourage greater voter turnout and reduce the cost of holding separate elections. These changes will also align the act with proposed revisions to The Municipal Act.
Bill 34 adds a provision to subsection 41(12) to allow the minister to make regulations on the type of information to be contained in an auditor's supplementary report. The act already requires an auditor to submit such a report to the school board. The proposed amendment simply permits the minister to make a regulation defining the type of information the report should provide.
Currently The Public Schools Act allows school boards by by-law to pay annual indemnities to trustees and set the amount and conditions for payment. The amendment to Section 56(1) will make such by-laws subject to the act and any other act of the Legislature. By doing so, it will prohibit boards from offering any tax-free allowances for trustees, thus bringing their indemnities in line with the remuneration packages provided for members of the Legislative Assembly and municipal councils.
To facilitate voluntary school board amalgamations, we are committed to allowing an amalgamated school board to run a differential mill rate. For a period of no longer than three years, a newly formed school division will be able to levy different mill rates for school tax purposes. This will allow time to harmonize different cost structures and resolve any outstanding financial commitments that are recognized as the responsibility of the former school division ratepayers, such as an accumulated deficit. In this way, ratepayers will not be unfairly burdened with financial costs for which the previous division and its ratepayers are responsible. While there is a differential mill rate in effect, the bill also includes provision for the lowest mill rate to rise but not for the highest mill rate at the time of amalgamation to increase. This will protect residents in the amalgamated division from any loading of costs through a differential mill rate. By the end of the harmonization period, mill rates must be blended to one common mill rate.
Sections 203 and 204 of The Public Schools Act require school boards to make a written request of the Minister of Education and Training to expend portions of any reserve fund they may hold. Once permission to use some or all of its reserve fund is obtained, the Minister of Finance must then be authorized to pay from the reserve fund part or all of the funds requested by the school board.
Bill 34 proposes the repeal of Sections 203 and 204 to allow school boards greater responsibility in administering their own resources, and it removes disincentives for taking advantage of sound investment alternatives.
Madam Speaker, Bill 34 includes minor housekeeping changes but also makes significant amendments concerning how often and when school trustees are elected, the way in which they are remunerated and how school divisions can manage their own financial resources. It offers incentives that encourage school divisions to amalgamate voluntarily. We have encouraged school divisions over the years to find creative ways of reducing their costs of operations. We believe these amendments will offer additional incentives to do so and ultimately improve the workings of our education system.
I thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the time to put these few comments on the record.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill 36, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Bill 36 marks a significant step in the evolution of the unicity model of civic government. Our community today is not what it was 10 years ago or even 20 years ago. Accordingly, we need to respond to the realities of our times by putting in place a new and enhanced political and administrative organization that can effectively respond to the challenges of the 21st Century. More than ever, citizens are aware of the importance of good financial management on the part of a government because of the impact it has on their quality of life.
Having been impacted by government debt and deficits, residents increasingly want the governments they elect to provide quality services that are also affordable. Value for money, accountability for decisions, managing performance and long-range planning are the expectations which citizens today have of government.
To respond to these challenges at the local level, the structure of the city government needs to adapt to new ways of providing services, the need to explore and implement it where appropriate. Essentially, Bill 36 tries to position the city of Winnipeg to function as a first-rate capital city.
Broadly speaking, the amendments to this bill fall into one of three categories. The first group of amendments deals with political and administrative reforms to civic government. These reforms are intended to strengthen leadership, accountability and responsiveness of city government to the electorate. The second category of amendments contained in this bill are those which reflect the principle of local government autonomy. Wherever it is reasonable to do so, the bill puts the power in the hands of the city, the level of government closest to the people. The third group of amendments is intended to streamline the decision-making processes for the City of Winnipeg and to enable the city to use new approaches to service delivery.
* (1550)
Let me now discuss these amendments in Bill 36 in greater detail giving the changes to the political and the administrative structure of the city. Under the political and administrative restructuring, as members of the Legislature are aware, in 1997 Winnipeg City Council commissioned a study to assess the political and the administrative organization of the city and to recommend ways in which it could be improved.
As part of this review, George Cuff and associates conducted over 200 interviews with current and former councillors, the board of commissioners, city managers and directors, provincial officials, and also members of the public. In October of 1997, the Cuff report was released. The Cuff report aimed at achieving the following objectives: simplifying and streamlining the civic administration; providing better co-ordination between city departments; encouraging proactive management practices; ensuring administrative accountability; raising the level of trust between elected officials and senior management; and creating a co-ordinated, sound and coherent sense of direction for the city. After reviewing the report, City Council has acted decisively to implement it. It has also requested amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act to facilitate implementation of Cuff's recommendations.
This bill responds to council's request through a series of amendments which I now will outline. The term of office: The first significant amendment proposed in this bill is the extension of the term of office of the members of City Council from three years to four years, beginning with the 1998 civic election. As noted both by the Cuff report and the 1991 report of the Winnipeg Wards Review Committee, a four-year term provides a better opportunity than a three-year term for long-range planning at City Hall. Typically, the first year in office is spent developing cohesive and good working relationships among members of council, while most of the attention of the council during the final six months of the term is on the next election. That leaves only 18 months of a three-year term for focused and effective development and implementation of policies. A four-year term will give City Council a better opportunity to put their ideas and their plans into action.
Also under the amendments is the enhanced leadership role for the mayor. Unlike city councillors who are elected to represent a particular area of the city, the mayor is elected by all Winnipeggers and consequently represents the entire city. The mayor is therefore in a unique position to develop a city-wide vision, balancing local and neighbourhood interests against the interests of the city as a whole. The important leadership role which the mayor is uniquely capable of providing will be enhanced by this bill.
The changes proposed in the bill will grant the mayor of Winnipeg the authority to determine the size of Executive Policy Committee, which is EPC, to a maximum of seven, to appoint members of EPC, to cast a tie-breaking vote at council and to temporarily suspend the chief administrative officer, if necessary, subject to a review by EPC. These changes will grant mayors of the City of Winnipeg a greater ability to exercise a leadership role, giving them a greater opportunity to implement their vision for the city.
There is also greater flexibility to council. At the same time as it provides for a more significant role for the mayor, the bill also proposes several amendments that will give City Council greater latitude in its procedure and its operation.
The amendments are as follows. It eliminates the reference to community committees in the act. Council will instead be able to establish council committees and to delegate duties and functions to them. It allows council or its committees to use whatever approaches are appropriate to seek input from citizens instead of limiting the city to only using residential advisor groups as the vehicle for citizen participation. This will give the city as many opportunities, if not more, to hold public hearings on as many issues as it wants.
The amendments also open the door to innovative approaches to citizen consultation, be they in the form of advisory bodies, workshops, special forums or hearings. It also allows council to hold its meetings in camera. In certain situations, such as when discussing personnel issues, the purchase, the sale or the lease of land, and privileged communications with its solicitors, an in-camera by-law will identify those categories of issues which can be dealt with in camera. This amendment will put council on the same footing with EPC and standing committees of council who already have the authority to deal with this matter in camera. It also gives council the authority to determine whether or not to establish standing committees and the numbers of standing committees. It also grants council the power to appoint and dismiss the chief administrative officer.
There is also greater scope for the executive policy committee. The bill will also provide the Executive Policy Committee with greater freedom in carrying out its functions. For example, the bill enables EPC to establish subcommittees as it considers advisable. In addition, although the mayor will be empowered to suspend the chief administrative officer for up to three days, as mentioned earlier, EPC will have the final decision about upholding the suspension or reinstating the CAO.
The chief administrative office, or the CAO, the City Council will also proceed with an important recommendation in the Cuff report, which is the change from a Board of Commissioners model to a CAO model for the city's administrative structure. This change will ensure that City Council will have a single point of contact within the civic administration. The move to a CAO model will also ensure greater accountability of the administration to the elected representatives. The buck will stop with the CAO.
In recognition of this decision by council, the bill establishes the CAO position as a statutory position in the act. The CAO will ultimately be responsible for the following: to ensure the implementation of council's policies and the programs; to appoint and dismiss employees except to the extent council otherwise directs; to supervise, manage and direct employees except to the extent council otherwise directs, and also to ensure that budgets are prepared.
Delegation of authority to local government. Now let me turn to the second category of amendments in the bill, the delegation of authority to local government. Members will have noticed that many of the amendments flowing from the Cuff report involve less prescriptive and more permissive legislation. The city has been given more freedom to carry out its functions in ways that make the most sense at a local level rather than being micromanaged by the province. This principle also applies to other amendments contained in the bill.
Penalties for violating by-laws in the act. The City of Winnipeg Act currently sets out penalties for violating the provisions of the act and controls the penalties which may be set for contravening the by-laws, which includes the licensing and zoning by-laws which are passed by the city. In many cases the penalties are out of date. For example, one of the current provisions allows council to set a fine of no more than $25 for failing to obtain a licence for a mobile home. The current maximum penalty for tampering with, damaging or releasing dangerous substances into the city's water supply or waste water system is $1,000 for individuals and $5,000 for corporations. In many cases the act establishes the maximum penalties that can be imposed by the court and the other fines imposed by the court for violators are less costly than complying with the law. For example, the fines imposed for failing to obtain a business licence are often less than the cost of the licence itself.
The amendments proposed in this bill will grant City Council the authority to establish by by-law minimum and maximum penalties as well as progressive structures for volunteer payments of fines when this is appropriate. This delegation of authority is consistent with other provinces. In addition, City Council is in the best position to ensure that appropriate penalties are established for violators of civic offences and that these penalties remain current and up to date.
* (1600)
The bill also proposes provisions which will assist the city in enforcing compliance with the act and the city by-laws. For example, it requires judges to set a time limit for payment when a fine is imposed and permits the judge to impose other penalties if the fine is not paid within the time period.
The bill will clarify that the city's authority to provide grants in support of activities which are advantageous to the city includes economic development and initiatives. Other municipalities have been given this power under the new Municipal Act. This authority will give Winnipeg a needed tool to promote and to encourage economic activity within the city.
The City of Winnipeg Act currently prohibits construction over waterways in the city except for highways and utilities and for projects which have been approved by provincial regulation. This is inconsistent with parts of the act which give the city responsibility for approving building activity in Winnipeg and, by by-law-making authority, to maintain and improve drainage, riverbank stability, and water flow in Winnipeg waterways.
The amendment proposed in this bill would eliminate this anomaly. It empowers City Council to pass a by-law which sets out the rules and the criteria for construction over waterways in the city. Until this by-law is passed, the current restrictions on construction over waterways is maintained. Should council decide to do so, it can opt to pass a by-law permitting the types of development activity which are appropriate in, on, or over waterways.
Existing legislation allows anyone to access the information contained in property assessment and tax rolls. This information includes names and addresses of property owners in the city. For reasons of personal security, property owners have from time to time requested that their names be obscured from these rolls. This is currently permitted with respect to a voters list, but the city is not allowed to obscure names on its property assessment and tax rolls.
The amendment being proposed is modelled after provisions in The Local Authorities Election Act. It would permit the city to obscure an individual's name on assessment and tax rolls upon that person's request. This will provide better protection for those individuals who do not wish this personal information to be publicly available.
The third category of provisions in this bill are those which are designed to streamline decision-making processes and to provide for the framework for new approaches to service delivery. New legislation will enable Winnipeg City Council to establish special service units. Special operating agencies, SOAs, have proven very effective in reducing costs and increasing efficiencies at the provincial level, and the City of Winnipeg is interested in using alternative approaches to service delivery at the civic level.
Special service units will allow the city to provide goods and services to residents of Winnipeg in new and innovative ways. They will operate on the basis of a City Council approved charter which will set out the function of the special service unit as well as its operating terms and conditions, its source of financing, its contracting authority, and other parameters.
Apart from approving a special service units charter, the City Council will also be able to alter the operating charter of a special service unit or to dissolve it. Council must also approve an SSU's budget and will receive an annual report from each special service unit which will include an audited financial statement.
Finally, the legislation requires that council review the whole process of developing, implementing, operating, and evaluating special service units every five years. Through special service units, multiyear budgeting and multiyear planning will be new opportunities which City Council can pursue in an effort to streamline service delivery and to encourage long-term planning in the delivery of services.
The City of Winnipeg Act requires the Ward Boundaries Commission to review the boundaries of elected wards in the city of Winnipeg at specific intervals. The act sets out the criteria to be used in developing new ward boundaries, and the commission is required to hold public hearings in the course of its review.
Membership in this commission is established in the act. The commission is made up of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, the president of the University of Winnipeg, and the returning officer of the City of Winnipeg. The city is required to pay the costs of these boundaries reviews.
The bill proposes two changes in the way in which the Ward Boundaries Commission currently operates. First, the bill would eliminate the requirement that the recommendations of the Ward Boundaries Commission be implemented by provincial regulation. Wards boundaries can and should be dealt with at the local level. Accordingly, the bill proposes that the commission's report will be filed with the city clerk and tabled with City Council. The new wards boundaries will then come into effect at the date set by the commission without any further action by the province.
This proposal mirrors developments in other provinces. Its intent is to streamline the process of wards boundaries reviews. It will dispense with provincial involvement in a matter which is local in nature. Finally, it will eliminate any suggestion of political involvement in establishing wards boundaries by entrusting this responsibility to an independent and an impartial body.
Secondly, because of the changes to a four-year civic term cycle, the current requirement that wards be reviewed every nine years is being changed to a review of every 10 years commencing in 1999. Anyone who is affected by a decision with respect to subdivision of land, a rezoning, a Plan Winnipeg amendment, or a secondary planned amendment has a right to appeal such a decision on a question of law to the Court of Queen's Bench. Although the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the decision, there is no deadline for the hearing of its appeal.
Once an appeal is launched, procedural steps involved can often result in substantial delays in having the appeal heard. In fact, someone who disagrees with the city's decision can use legal procedures to delay a hearing on the appeal, thereby preventing the implementation of the city's decision for months and even years. This bill will prevent unreasonable delays in planning decision appeals.
It will require an appeal to be heard within 30 days after the appeal has been filed, although a judge would be free to grant time extensions if these are warranted. It will also require a judge to render a decision within 30 days of a hearing. This proposal is modelled after that of The Municipal Assessment Act, which also allows for appeal on a question of law, which sets out a time limit for a hearing subject to extensions granted by a judge. The provisions of this bill will ensure that those who are affected by a planning decision still have an opportunity to have the decision overturned on legal grounds but that this right of appeal is exercised within a reasonable period of time to allow all parties, including the city, to move ahead on this matter.
In conclusion, let me reiterate that this bill introduces significant reforms to municipal governance in the City of Winnipeg. Bill 36 recognizes that many activities and decisions affecting Winnipeggers can best be accomplished on a local level and delegate some responsibility to the city. It also recognizes that the mayor and City Council require more freedom in determining the best way to carry out their mandates and provides that needed flexibility. The bill reflects City Council's choices concerning the political and the administrative procedural structure for the city, and it gives the mayor and the councillors the time and the tools to develop and implement their vision for Winnipeg.
Finally, this bill will help to streamline city government and make it more effective in serving the residents of Winnipeg. I believe, Madam Speaker, that these amendments will serve the best interests of Winnipeg. I recommend the bill to the members of this Legislature for their consideration and adaptation. Thank you.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* (1610)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), that Bill 37, The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les machines et le matériel agricoles et modifications corrélatives), now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker and colleagues, the purpose of The Farm Machinery and Equipment Act is, of course, to provide Manitoba producers with warranty and repossession protection on farm machinery and equipment purchased in the province. It provides legally the guidelines on the length of warranty, replacement parts and services, replacement rentals, repossession procedures, sales contracts, and financing arrangements. The farm implement industry has changed substantially since the act was originally introduced in 1971. As a result, we have been working with the Manitoba agriculture industry to update the act as well as to harmonize various sections of the act with Saskatchewan and Alberta legislation.
The Farm Machinery Board has received numerous suggested changes from producers, dealers and vendors in the past 5 to 10 years. Many of the changes to the act are of a housekeeping nature, and the restructuring reflects the modern legal drafting principles that are now required. This is achieved most effectively by repealing and replacing the existing act as advised by Legislative Counsel.
Major proposed changes are highlighted as follows: the warranty provisions for new farm machinery or farm equipment will be one year for all machinery and equipment. Currently, combines and tractors have a two-year warranty. Producers are not given the option of the second-year warranty, but are assessed a surcharge ranging from 1.5 percent to 2 percent for the second-year warranty. This change will harmonize the act with other jurisdictions and ease the problems of dealers who are located near the Manitoba border. A provision in the act will allow the dealer or vendor to offer an extended warranty to producers. That is very often the case.
Lease and lease purchases are indicated in the act to reflect the current reality in the farm implement industry. The definition of dealer is redefined to include the lease provisions and to include only those retail businesses who engage in the three areas of selling or leasing farm machinery or equipment, selling repair parts, and operating a repair shop. In the current act, any business that is engaged in an area such as selling a repair part, for example, a belt or a bearing, is considered a dealer and must be licensed. That just has proven too cumbersome in this day and age. The proposed definition of dealer will enable the licensing of what the industry considers to be bona fide dealers. The annual bonding requirements will be eliminated for dealers and vendors, but the department will continue to operate the farm machinery and equipment fund.
Under the proposal, dealers and vendors will be required to pay a levy to the fund when and if the fund falls below $400,000. The fund's purpose is to pay claims to purchasers for money owed to them by dealers or vendors in the event of business disruption. The provision that requires dealers to sell farm machinery or equipment or repair parts at the same price that is set out in the price list that is filed with the board will be eliminated. A new provision will enable a board to request the price list from vendors, but will not require the dealers to sell their products at that price. The market, quite frankly, should set the price.
The trial period for new farm machinery or equipment has been changed from 10 days usage from the first day of use to 50 hours of use for machinery or equipment that has an hour meter, or 10 consecutive days starting on the first day of use for machinery or equipment without an hour meter. This clarifies the trial period, as there has been confusion over what constitutes a day of usage. The repair part warranty would be changed from one year from date of purchase to a period from the date of purchase not to exceed 12 months. That period will be set in the regulations. Currently, all other provinces give a 90-day warranty from first day of use on repair parts. The interested parties will be consulted before the actual warranty period will be determined and set out in regulations.
An application fee is being proposed to lien holders who make an application for leave to repossess. The fee will be set out in the regulations. The board does incur expenses in its attempt to mediate a settlement between the lien holder and purchaser. A new proposal is for the board to have the flexibility to grant a continuing leave. The board may grant an order of leave to repossess to continue until the purchaser has paid all amounts due to the lien holder. This provision will assist the board in dealing with purchasers who are taking advantage of the process by repeatedly delaying payments until after the board grants an order to repossess.
The amount that the vendor is required to pay the dealer for unused parts, where a dealership agreement is terminated, has been changed from 85 percent of the current net price to 90 percent when the agreement expires or is terminated by the dealer and 100 percent when the agreement is terminated by the vendor. This brings more fairness to the issue.
These proposed changes to the act were reviewed and commented on by KAP, our farm organization, the Canada West Equipment Dealers Association and the Manitoba Wholesale Implement Association. I do not represent, Madam Speaker, that all of the proposed changes meet all of the hopes and aspirations of the people involved in the sale and use of farm machinery in the province of Manitoba, but I do recommend the amendments to the committee as being appropriate for the year 1998, as we continue to provide for the kind of climate and services that our modern agriculture industry requires. I recommend it to the House.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman), that Bill 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les baux viagers et modifications corrélatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I am delighted today to stand up and put a few remarks on the record which give some explanation as to The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act. First of all, I guess, I would like to pay a modest tribute to the members of our staff, the government researchers who have worked very assiduously over the course of this past year to really take apart a first draft or cut that we had this time last year and put this in a coherent, cogent and really effective form of legislation.
Specifically, Madam Speaker, life-lease projects are a cross between residential tenancies and condominia. They apply to individuals over 55 years of age. There are a number of these projects that do exist now in Manitoba, and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) looks a little askance at that, but I assure him that this is, in fact, veritably the truth.
Madam Speaker, the field at the present time is unregulated. There are a number of concepts that we have brought forward in this legislation which I think will bring some regularity, some formation and focus to the market. There has been extensive consultation. There was a draft discussion paper that was circulated to stakeholders in the industry, to people who had specific knowledge in the industry. We received their comments back and, in fact, incorporated some of their suggestions, the majority of their suggestions and improvements, into the legislation.
* (1620)
The major concepts that this legislation covers are, firstly, we have set out the criteria and the specifics that landlords or developers must furnish by way of information to consumers. This is a consumer-friendly piece of legislation. One of its principal objects is to inform the specific applicants who might be interested in putting their hard-earned money into a life-lease project, and we feel that if they do this knowingly they then have received all the protection that the law can offer.
Secondly, we have drafted some legislation which protects tenants' funds, the occupants' or the residents' funds. Nextly, Madam Speaker, there are a number of miscellaneous provisions which we have incorporated as well to reinforce and support this legislation.
Now, firstly, as I mentioned, the life lease is a cross between a condominia concept and a residential tenancy. In layman's language, the way this works is that the individual resident would put forward a prelease payment, which is like a token or earnest money, which is of a modest sum--it could be a couple of hundred dollars, $500--and that then entitles the applicant or person to further consideration on the project--these are multiple housing units--and at that point in time, the particular person, the applicant, is entitled to further information.
The earnest money or the prelease payment is to be held in trust by a trustee or stakeholder and not to be disbursed until such time as it is evident from the developer's records that the project, the housing project, is to proceed and go ahead. If in fact there should be some adverse reaction to the proposed housing project, then the money is to be returned to the applicant. Some of the individual organizations in our community that are involved with this type of project are the Kiwanis, the Knights of Columbus, the various church groups and service groups in our community.
So these are all well-meaning, well-intentioned organizations, and the projects are for the benefit and well-being of our citizens. They provide an opportunity for some sort of communal living. These buildings would furnish recreation facilities, security systems, and are generally in the form of apartment blocks. The first step, then, as I have said, is that the applicant would provide a prelease payment, which is like earnest money which triggers the whole operation.
The next step, after it is determined that the project will proceed, the individual applicants are then called upon for an entrance fee, and an entrance fee is, in fact, significant money. That could be anywhere from $30,000, $40,000 to something like $70,000, $80,000. Now the difficulty, of course, with putting up this sort of funds is that the resident or applicant receives nothing specific in the way of a fee-simple title which one does for a stand-alone residence or even in the form of a condominium title. In fact, this is only a conceptual type of ownership. A resident or application is entitled to the right to occupy a particular air space and pay rent.
At the present time, with many of the projects that have been built and are occupied in the province of Manitoba, there is no title or any specificity to protect those individuals who have paid significant sums of money in their entrance fee. Consequently, Madam Speaker, what we have done is that, following along the line of information that the landlord or developer must extend to the applicants, we have said that we will protect these entrance fees or tenants' funds. We will do that, firstly, by saying and setting out that there must be specific information at this stage of the life of the communal project which must be disclosed to the tenant.
The design feature of the particular apartment and the amenities of the building should be displayed or disclosed to the individual applicant. The amount that will be demanded of the applicant for rent must be shared with him at that point in time.
Another item that is of significant concern and falls in the realm of consumer protection is that all the included items must be set out at the time of the payment of the entrance fee. More specifically, that would be whether parking is to be included or whether there are laundry facilities or recreational facilities--are these included in the rent? So these are some of the significant things that must be disclosed at this point in time. The amount of the entrance fee must, of course, be specifically stated.
Another issue that must be set out at this point in time at the payment of the entrance fee, Madam Speaker, is whether there is a limit of funds or specific amount of funds for future repairs for the communal project, whether there is a refund fund. Because one of the attributes of this life-lease project is that there are two ways in which one can reobtain the entrance fee when one has no further use or desire to occupy the space that is allocated to the individual applicant.
One scheme is that there is a refund fund which is a portion of the entrance fee taken from every applicant and is held by a trustee. Upon somebody indicating that they wish to depart the communal residential property, they can apply for and have the appropriate amount of money paid out of the refund fund to that applicant. In that case they receive back their entrance fee, and they are free to go. You know, if there should be a situation where the resident has died or they have decided to seek alternative residential occupancy, then their deposit is returned to them. Their entrance fee is returned to them.
The other alternative, of course, is that they can sell their right of occupancy to another individual who would take the right of occupancy subject to the same limits and conditions, rights and regulations that the first person, the assignor, had. In this particular case there would then be no refund fund and the source of funds would be replaced from the incoming assignee. So those are the two envisaged, the two alternatives, as to how one would reobtain one's refund fund.
Now, Madam Speaker, one of the other items, of course, which is to be considered and set out and disclosed at the time of the entrance fee being paid is a statement of revenues and expenses and a statement of the budget for the communal living enterprise if in fact the repair fund is to be predicated and based on a percentage of operating expenses so that there would be the full concept of full disclosure. One of the methods of protection, which is now moving away from disclosure of information and moving to the next concept of protection of the tenants' funds, which has been incorporated into this legislation, is that this legislation envisages that there will be a maximum limit set for the prelease payment. The prelease payment, as I indicated, was the earnest money that is paid at the outset of one of these projects so that the individual tenants are not set in jeopardy by a loss of a very significant amount of money.
* (1630)
As I indicated earlier, the sponsoring groups or the developer must hold these payments in trust until it is certain that the project will proceed. Tenants will be entitled to a refund if the project does not proceed, and that is a refund of their prelease funds if there are not enough units sold. So they are back restored to the original position in which they were found, and there are time limits that are to be prescribed by the developer or landlord for this particular step as well, Madam Speaker.
Now, most importantly, the next step is that the entrance fee, which is the earnest money, which an individual tenant or applicant steps forward will be held by a trustee. Once the construction costs are determined whether there are fixed price contracts or there is bonding of the contractor and sufficient funds are determined to be on hand, either through mortgage funds or other, then the pool of funds, or the earnest money, is then turned over to the developer from the trustee and applied to the creation of a project.
Now, Madam Speaker, there are a number of other significant issues on this, and I do not want to perhaps tax my welcome in the Chamber at this point in time, so I will conclude my remarks by saying that there is impact from the Residential Tenancies Branch on this type of housing. However, for the nonprofit life-lease projects, they will not be regulated by the Residential Tenancies or rent control. Landlords who normally would be entitled to occupancy of a particular living unit under The Residential Tenancies Act will not be able to effect these rights under the life-lease projects. If the landlord wishes to demolish a life-lease project at some future point in time, he must obtain the permission and consent of the director of Residential Tenancies.
There are a number of other very significant issues involving this legislation. I hope to be able to share these with colleagues opposite and, in fact, propose to invite them to meet with my staff to go over the fine details. I have just given a very brief overview of the legislation at this point in time. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. David Newman (Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), that Bill 42, The Norway House Cree Nation Northern Flood Master Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'Accord cadre de mise en oeuvre de la nation crie de Norway House relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, Bill 42 takes us closer to completing the process of settling all outstanding claims under the Northern Flood Agreement. The master implementation agreement between Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the Norway House Cree Nation was signed and came into effect December 31, 1997, to meet the outstanding obligations to the Norway House Cree under the Northern Flood Agreement 1977.
The financial implications of that agreement were that the Norway House Cree Nation received a total of $38.77 million in past expenditures from Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro, and loans forgiven from Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro totalling $5.77 million. The band will also receive cash and bonds of $78.9 million as follows: Manitoba, cash of $16 million; Canada, cash of $19.7 million; and, Manitoba Hydro, cash and bonds of $43.2 million--so a total expense to the different parties to the agreement for the benefit of Norway House Cree Nation totalling $123,440,000 in value.
In addition to that, there will be a transfer of land over time involving approximately 55,000 acres of provincial Crown land for designation as reserve land. In addition, there will be a provision of approximately 2,000 acres of land on a fee-simple basis with the title being held by a corporation under the trust. In addition, there will be an establishment of the Norway House resource management area and the formation of a resource management board to advise on natural resource use and allocation issues.
The agreement, in return, releases Manitoba and Manitobans and Hydro from Northern Flood Agreement claims for compensation from the Norway House First Nation and its members through the establishment of a claims resolution process whereby Norway House First Nation is responsible for dealing with its members in regard to any and all claims for compensation.
Madam Speaker, the bill before this House is needed to execute the Norway House Master Implementation Agreement reached in December between those parties. Under the agreement, Manitoba and Canada must recommend and enact legislation to ensure that the agreement is given effect. As a result of this settlement, any claim or matter concerning Norway House that previously would have been dealt with under that original Northern Flood Agreement will be handled as stated by the Norway House First Nation under the master implementation agreement.
The bill is based on that master agreement, and the federal government is expected to introduce complementary legislation sometime this year. This bill is substantially similar to other bills passed to implement agreements reached earlier for Nelson House, Split Lake and York Factory in a comprehensive settlement of the Northern Flood Agreement 1977. With its passage, four of the five agreements with individual northern flood bands will be in place. A tripartite process is provided for in the agreement to work out the land settlement and resource management mechanisms. The First Nation will be able to augment its land base and take other measures to lay the groundwork for a secure, healthy and sustainable future.
As Minister Responsible for Native Affairs, I am very pleased to participate in the process of settling the issues under the Northern Flood Agreement and assisting the Norway House Cree Nation with its implementation plans. This bill is an important measure in a process of building good, long-term relationships between Manitoba, Manitobans and its First Nations communities.
I commend this bill to the House and would urge unanimous support for it and early passage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* (1640)
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Just before moving to Bill 44, I would like to obtain the unanimous agreement of the House to vary the Estimates sequence established under subrule 71(9) and tabled in the House March 24, 1998, by setting aside the Estimates of the Department of Health to consider the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs in Room 255 commencing tomorrow morning. This change would apply until further notice. This is the result of discussions between myself and the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton).
Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to set aside the Estimates of the Department of Health and deal with the departments of Northern Affairs and Native Affairs until further notice, commencing Thursday, tomorrow a.m. Is there unanimous consent? [agreed]
Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), and seconded by the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), I move that Bill 44, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998 (Loi de 1998 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, every session, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) brings forward a statute law amendment bill which updates inconsequential and sometimes consequential, but noncontroversial ways, amends various parts of the body of law of the Province of Manitoba. I am very pleased today to have been asked by the Minister of Justice to stand in his stead and introduce this legislation.
As one who has had the honour to be Minister of Justice for the Province of Manitoba, I have also had the honour on a number of occasions in the past to introduce bills like this, and, over the years, I have learned that any of these bills that contain legislation that is substantive in nature have a more difficult time getting through and usually get amended to remove those more substantive parts.
In that regard, I have been assured by the Minister of Justice that the bill in the form it is presented today meets the kind of criteria honourable members on both sides have kind of set for it over the years, i.e., legislation that, how shall I put it, is somewhat inconsequential and yet consequential depending on the legislation being amended by The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1998.
So, with those few words, Madam Speaker, I would commend this bill to the thoughtful consideration and support of all honourable members. Thank you.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.