LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, June 23, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the
Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House, copies for members opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief report for the House on this year's summer meeting of
the Western Governors' Association, which I attended earlier this week in
Since
1990, the western governors have invited the western Premiers to participate in
their summer conferences each year. Since 1991, they have extended a similar
invitation to the governors of the Mexican
All
four western provinces and the Government of
Even
before
Most
of our discussions in
Members
may be interested to know that key members of the President's Advisory Council
on Sustainable Development, which Mr. Clinton announced last week, are well
acquainted with
The
theme of the
The
conference agreed to pursue other shared priorities in the coming year as well,
including improved north‑south transportation and information exchanges
on education and health care. I should
note that
As
might be expected, the issues of NAFTA and the proposed North American
Commission on the Environment, NACE, were also discussed in considerable
detail. Much of the discussion centred
on the
* (1335)
Our
discussions in
The
Premiers of the eastern provinces are pursuing similar consultations with the
New England governors, and the Premiers of
Here
in western
Only
a few years ago sustainable development was not well understood below the 49th
Parallel. This week it was the dominant
theme of the Western Governors' conference. Cross‑border dialogue helped
make that happen, and it demonstrates why it is so important to continue that
dialogue and to broaden it in the years to come.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in
responding to the Premier's statement today, we would like to thank him for the
statement in the Chamber.
Mr.
Speaker, it must be interesting to have the new governor of
An Honourable Member: A silver foot in his mouth.
Mr. Doer: Okay, well, the Premier may have some
embellished term for it.
She
must be a very interesting person to meet with and discuss trade issues.
On
the issue of trade, we have rather conflicting messages from the Premier on the
whole issue of trade arising out of the Western Governors' meeting.
We
understand the western governors were very critical of Ross Perot's statements
about the loss of jobs in the
At
the same time, we thought it was the position of
We
also note, Mr. Speaker, the great claims of the Premier dealing with
sustainable development. I think it is
important to have positions that we take on the international stage that are
consistent with the positions we take in our own home province, and many people
are very concerned about the sustainable development policy of this government
and its lack of a federal‑provincial environmental impact study in
dealing with the sustainability of the
The
Premier (Mr. Filmon) again notes with great fanfare, the position dealing with
the habitat and wildlife. We would
encourage him to continue working in that regard, but we would note that the
new parks act which was brought in by this government does not include the 12
percent promise that was made by the Premier in terms of endangered
spaces. The 12 percent promise that the
Premier made in August of 1990 is not in his own parks act and, again, we would
like to see where the government is going on a promise that is almost three
years old, back in your own home province, as opposed to on the international
stage.
* (1340)
We
note with interest, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier in Fargo at his first meeting
in 1990 talked about trade with United States and
Mr.
Speaker, it is timely that the Premier is talking about trade with the steel
decision now under the Canada‑U.S. trade agreement, with the hog decision
a couple of weeks ago. It is very timely
that the Premier is talking about trade.
We note that at his first Western Governors' conference, the Premier
stated,
Many
of us think that
Thank
you very, very much.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Premier for this statement today.
Of
course, it is wonderful to see the Premier down cavorting with others from
other countries. We are glad to hear
about these discussions on many different issues, but I am moved to say that it
would be very nice if the same priority and the same types of discussions and
the same types of hopes could be expressed about our co‑operation within
this country before we spend all this time and effort prioritizing discussions
in trade with other nations.
Why
are we still in this country concentrating on our trade with other nations
before we tackle trade within this country? We are Canadians first in this
House. I would like to hear the Premier
stand up and tell us about progress on western economic co‑operation
within this country and progress on Canadian economic co‑operation,
Canadian integration. That is where our
future is in this country if we want to be a country in the years to come.
The
Premier goes on to say, and I must take great exception if he is down speaking
to these people telling them about his continuing leadership and advancing the
principles of sustainable development‑‑honestly, Mr. Speaker. He talks about, a few years ago that concept
was not understood below the 49th Parallel. Well, maybe since then they have
learned it, but they sure have not learned it up here. The fact is that in this province this
government has proven time and time again that it has no idea what sustainable
development really means.
Another
example in this statement, the wildlife protection, Mr. Speaker. Well, this government gutted The Wildlife Act
last session in this House. This
session, they are proposing gutting the parks act. So there is very little, if any, credibility
in those statements. I am moved to have
some sympathy for those in other nations if they are looking to this government
for leadership in those areas.
Mr.
Speaker, finally, the Premier notes that in the eastern provinces, the same
types of discussions are happening across borders. Of course, those are worthy discussions, but
I draw the Premier's attention and all members of this House's attention again
to our primary purpose and our primary objective in this country, which should
be to get together within this country first.
Thank
you.
* (1345)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 1993‑94
Departmental Expenditure Estimates of the Department of Labour, as well as the
Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 1993‑94 of the
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 52‑‑The
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 52, The
Manitoba Foundation Act (Loi sur la Fondation du Manitoba), be introduced and
that the same be now received and read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table the message of the Lieutenant‑Governor.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 53‑The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I move, seconded by the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 53, The Justice for
Victims of Crime Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits des
victimes d'actes criminels), be introduced and that the same be now received
and read a first time.
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table that message, also.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also
this afternoon, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
North American Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the First Minister.
The
Premier is quoted as saying that three provinces in
Did
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker,
I
elaborated on the fact that two of the six key conditions, of course, were
environmental standards and labour force standards, both of which are the topics
of the continuing negotiations on sidebar agreements vis‑a‑vis the
I
also informed the western governors that, of course, in
Triple-Transformation Clause
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, did the
Premier raise the issue of the triple‑transformation clause that is now
proposed in NAFTA that will have an impact potentially on jobs in the apparel
and clothing industry in
Did
the Premier raise that issue with the western governors, and did he get any
support from the western governors?‑‑because I noted the governors
seemed to take a different approach at their meeting. They seemed to take an approach to attack
those people who were opposed to NAFTA, like Ross Perot, rather than raising
some of the legitimate concerns that Mr. Perot has raised, and others in this
province have raised, about jobs and future opportunities in this province
under the NAFTA proposals.
* (1350)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member raises the
question because he absolutely misrepresented what the governors said about
Ross Perot. They did indeed criticize
his statements about the loss of jobs to
Their
criticisms were with respect to the very, very severe lack of information and
knowledge he had on the topic. They
talked about the potential for many things that are important to western
provinces and western states, such as the potential for sale of our grain
products and many other agricultural products to
They
were interested, for instance, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that under the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement,
Obviously,
they were very interested in that. In
fact, much of the discussion vis‑a‑vis
U.S.-Canada Trade
Tribunal Steel Decision
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We will await the
deficit of trade numbers because the Premier to only outline one set of
numbers, the increase in trade, without dealing with the whole issue of imports
into
It
has gone from about $480 million to over a billion dollars. We have not seen the latest numbers. The government may have seen them. We are hoping that with the dollar going
down, this situation will be somewhat improved, but I think the Premier should
give us both sets of numbers when he talks about trade because I think
Manitobans deserve the full picture, not half a picture.
Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has lost an important decision on hogs with the
U.S.‑Canada Trade Tribunal. It has
since received another setback dealing with steel. This is a $50‑million issue in
I
would like to ask the Premier: What is
his analysis of the impact on
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, of course, the member
opposite conveniently does not say it, but the fact of the matter is
Secondly,
the fact of the matter is in the absence of a dispute resolution mechanism, the
With
respect to the potential impact of the steel decision on
In
* (1355)
Family
Ms. Becky Barrett (
In
light of facts made public today, only three months later, that the backlog has
doubled to six months due to the loss of seven Friday sittings this summer and
the shortage of four Provincial Court judges, does the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
stand by his government's decision that
Hon. Clayton Manness (Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Most definitely, given the zero
tolerance position of this government, there certainly are many more cases
coming to the Family Court, and, certainly, there is some additional strain on
the human resources there to adjudicate, but I would indicate to the member
that
I
would also indicate we are still living up to the initial goal of disposing
court cases within three months and operating well within the Askov guidelines.
So,
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge there is an increasing number, yet within the
guidelines and within the parameters of the decisions made to try and provide
greater resources, we are doing so.
Family Violence
Court Backlog
Ms. Becky Barrett (
What
is the government prepared to do, other than change the definition of
timeliness from three months to six months, to have the domestic
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the
member opposite‑‑and I appreciate her concern. It is a concern we all have with respect to
this issue.
When
we set up the special court to deal with these issues on a prompt and a timely
basis, among many things, this did change the number of cases that were brought
forward, changed the pattern of prosecutions to encourage more of these cases
to be prosecuted, in fact.
As
a result, on a temporary basis, on a short‑term basis, this court has
been the victim of its own success, so to speak. The volume has increased 70
percent. The volume of cases that are
being dealt with has been increased 70 percent in a very, very short space of
time.
To
give the specific numbers to the member for
That,
Mr. Speaker, is really the issue at play here, the fact that far more of these
cases are being dealt with, are being prosecuted, and it is indeed in keeping
with our zero tolerance policy to be having this much greater opportunity to
deal effectively with family violence cases.
The
main point is that due to that zero tolerance policy, the public has become
more aware of domestic violence as a crime to be taken seriously, and this,
coupled with more diligent prosecutorial policy being adhered to by Crown
attorneys, results in this increase in these cases being pursued by the
specialized
We
are, in fact, adding the additional Crown attorney as of early July, as has
been mentioned, and we are, in fact, applying 12 additional sitting days to the
court schedule during June, July and August in order to achieve this, Mr.
Speaker.
* (1400)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are not in disagreement about
the fact that the backlog, the number of cases, has increased. That is precisely the point.
Given
the fact that there is an increased understanding and awareness on the part of
Crown attorneys and on the part of women and children in
In
its seeming inability or unwillingness to adequately address these issues, what
is this government prepared to do today to ensure the safety of these women and
children?
Mr. Filmon: The point the member misses is not that there
is an increase in backlog, but that there has been a huge increase in the
number of cases dealt with as a result of setting up this
The
second issue is, in order to continue to do more to address the number of cases
coming forward, an additional Crown attorney has been assigned to this
particular issue as of the 5th of July, and over the months of June, July and
August, this month, next month and the one beyond, we will have 12 additional
sitting days, again, in an effort to deal with that.
I
could go into the issues of the unavailability of judges over the summer months
and things of that nature that are more pertinent to the issue than the
government's efforts to try and solve this.
The government has put the resources and the efforts in to try and solve
this, I can assure the member opposite.
MLA Salaries and Benefits
Legislation
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Today and yesterday, Mr.
Speaker, the Senate has come in for another round of criticism based on their
decision to vote themselves an increase in salaries and benefits.
Some
months ago, Mr. Speaker‑‑(interjection) Honourable members should
relax.
Some
months ago, this government indicated it would be bringing forward legislation
to deal with members of this House and their salaries and benefits and pensions
in a way that would give the process some credibility, because the public was
demanding that elected officials not set their own salaries and benefits, and
with good logic.
My
question for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is:
When will the government be bringing forward legislation to put some credibility
back into this process, given that in past sessions of this Legislature, the
members of this House have all suffered in the public eye when things of this
nature have gone through in the last dying days of a session.
When
are we going to see some legislation, some leadership to bring credibility back
to this process?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): The member talks about
leadership. What is certain, Mr.
Speaker, is there is no leadership there with respect to this issue.
An Honourable Member: Why are you so touchy?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am not touchy at all. I am saying the government obviously has to
bring forward the legislation after the consultative process has taken place,
not only within LAMC but more importantly amongst the draftspeople who are
trying to put together a bill right now.
I
would say to the member, that bill will be tabled soon. It will be done so, though, only after it is
drafted. It is in its final stages of
being drafted.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my question again is for the
Premier (Mr. Filmon).
In
this process which the minister talks about‑‑and I do hope that
"soon" does not mean the last days of this session because the real
debate should occur in this House and not behind closed doors, Mr. Speaker.
My
question for the minister is: Will he
ensure today, can he tell members today that there will be a body put into
place which will not leave the setting of salaries, pensions and benefits in
the hands of the elected officials of this House?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am quite at a disadvantage
here. I do not know whether the member
asked the question on behalf of his own personal interests or indeed his own
party. As a matter of fact, his
benchmate the member for
I
do not know what the Leader of the Liberal Party is trying to do here, but he
is walking on pretty thin ice because there is a consensus on how we handle
these matters. We are all aware of the
sensitivity around them. We all realize
we are working towards legislation to try and deal with that, and that
legislation will be coming soon.
Now,
if the member is saying he is asking this question purely in his own interest,
then I wish he would state as much, Mr. Speaker, because I cannot believe the
whole Liberal Party would be in support of that type of question.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this government drafts
legislation. My question for this minister is:
When will this government be coming forward with legislation, and will
that legislation put into place a neutral body which sets the salaries,
pensions and benefits of members of this House to put some credibility back
into the system in this province?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, it may be a legitimate question,
but all the member had to do was ask his benchmate and he will get the answer,
because he was part of the consultation, and he knows darn well what
consensually all of us are prepared to put as the principles within that bill.
He
does not need to politicize this whole issue and ask me. All he has to do is
ask his friend and his colleague and his benchmate, because he knows full well.
Points of Order
Mr. Edwards: I have a point a order, Mr. Speaker. The minister raises issues which are devoid
of legitimacy given that he is the minister in charge. This is the government. They should show leadership‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James does not
have a Point of Order. You were
attempting to put another question under the guise of a Point of Order. The honourable member does not have a Point
of Order.
* *
*
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a new point of order,
Mr. Speaker, I know our rules are clear in terms of legislation that has been
introduced on the Order Paper, that it is not in order to ask specific
questions related to that matter.
I
would like to ask for a ruling in this particular case. The Liberal Leader, if
he is not aware of discussions that have taken place between all three parties,
should be aware there is unanimous agreement in this House for the need for an
independent commission.
I
really ask whether the question is even in order. Perhaps he should ask the question to his
House leader who has been part of those discussions.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the Point of Order that has been raised by
the member for Thompson, the honourable member does not have a Point of Order.
Now
I see the honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): On a new Point of Order, in fact, we have a very
legitimate question that is being put forward by the Leader of the Liberal Party. In a sense, Mr. Speaker, all we are
attempting to do is to get a commitment from this government as to when this
government‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the Point of Order raised by the
honourable member for
* (1410)
Substance Abuse
Northern Treatment Centre
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, today, we
have a group of aboriginal youth in
I
would like to table in the House today a letter written by the Minister of
Health regarding the Cross Lake Treatment Centre proposal in which he refuses
to recognize his responsibility in addressing the lack of treatment facilities
for solvent abuse in northern
Mr.
Speaker, the Cross Lake Treatment Centre proposal is all about providing this
community support system. I would like
to ask the minister to explain to this House and to the people of northern
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend has been well aware of my response to these questions in the
past. My honourable friend is also well
aware that for a number of years now, aboriginal communities in northern
That
is a federal responsibility which, as I have explained to the House in previous
answers, is currently under investigation by a committee struck by the federal
government with recommendations, or at least a report, imminent.
My
honourable friend surely must recognize the lead role of the federal government
in this issue.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, the Alcoholism Foundation of
The
Premier (Mr. Filmon) is on record saying his government would co‑operate
with other levels of government in any program to address issues of poverty.
My
question to the Minister of Health is why his government has in this case
refused requests to take this matter to the federal government to work out
solutions to the problem of solvent abuse.
Mr. Orchard: Obviously, again, my honourable friend was
not listening to previous responses I have made on this issue. This province was very much front and centre
in the support to St. Norbert Foundation for their establishment of Lemay
House, the first adolescent women treatment centre in the province of
That
is a response by this government to need.
That need existed well before we came to government, but it was this
government that took those actions and made those adolescent women treatment
facilities. Our partnership with St.
Norbert Foundation has made them available for young adolescent women.
That
also provides a complementary service to the adolescent male program that is
currently available at St. Norbert Foundation.
Mr. Hickes: This government waited three years before it
did anything on the antisniff bill our party brought in, and now the minister
is saying in his letter he wants to wait until the federal government does a
national review of the problem.
Mr.
Speaker, this is a problem here in
Mr. Orchard: I will make a deal with my honourable friend
right here and now, with my House leader (Mr. Manness) in co‑operation.
Let
us call the antisniff legislation that is introduced by this government, that
will work. Let us pass it this
afternoon, get it to committee and put it into law right now to take the action
my honourable friend wants.
Will
he make that commitment on behalf of the NDP right now?
Workforce Reduction
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): We all hope, Mr. Speaker, that at some point
in time, we are going to be seeing a recovery in
But,
yesterday, we saw another blow to the recovery of jobs with the announcement by
Manitoba Hydro that close to 480 positions are being eliminated. A hundred people will receive layoffs,
approximately. Another 70 people will
have their positions terminated.
I
would like to ask the Minister responsible for Hydro, since I assume today he
will be answering questions on this particular matter, whether any review took
place of the fact that this severe cutback in terms of the number of jobs is
taking place at a time when Manitoba Hydro is projecting a profit in the next
year of $70 million, is receiving over a hundred million dollars extra in
revenue in the current year because of the Limestone sale, is in a very good
financial situation.
Why
are they cutting back in terms of employment at this very critical time in
terms of the
Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for The
Because
they are projecting to have some additional revenues, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think justifies continuing on with expenses that may be to the detriment of the
long‑term interests of the corporation.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, since these questions arose in a
general sense during our report at the committee on Hydro, but there was no
specific mention three months ago of any layoffs, I would like to ask how the
minister justifies the fact that Manitoba Hydro, at the same time it is
eliminating 400 positions, is going to be increasing its reserves to $370
million, according to the plan brought in by this minister in the Manitoba
Hydro committee.
How
can he justify cutting jobs at a time when they are going to be increasing cash
reserves?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, again, I have to reiterate for
the member of the Legislature, Manitoba Hydro is operated by a board of
directors and management who are hired.
The
fact that there is a lower demand for energy nationally, activities such as
that have caused Manitoba Hydro to review their operations, and it is a
decision which has flowed from that.
The
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) suggested I should intervene with the
decision of Manitoba Hydro, as he and his government would do, Mr.
Speaker. That is not our intention.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the buck stops with this
government. The minister had no qualms about interfering when the Conawapa deal
was killed.
I
would like to ask the minister then, if he will not take direct responsibility,
will the Minister responsible for Hydro call back the Public Utilities
committee and call Manitoba Hydro before the committee to answer some very
serious questions that are being raised about why they are cutting back 480
jobs at such a fragile time in terms of the economic recovery in this province?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the member had every opportunity
during the committee review of Manitoba Hydro to ask any number of
questions. In fact, we sat two different
times‑‑
An Honourable Member: Three.
Mr. Downey: Three different times‑‑I thank
the member‑‑at which time he did not raise the question. He is making my case. He had ample opportunity to ask those
questions and did not do so.
I
think, comparatively to what we are seeing happen in
Child and Family Services
Case Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Some
time in late June of last year, a mother took her baby to a Child and Family
Services agency and begged the family agency to take that child into care. That child was later badly beaten. The minister's staff apparently conducted a
review.
Will
the minister tell the House today exactly what happened in this case? Why was this baby not taken into care when
the mother begged the agency to do just that?
* (1420)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): The member is aware that
I am under some substantial restrictions from discussing specific cases. I would say that over the last number of
years, we have had concerns about the manner in which child welfare is
delivered and, as a result, have brought about a number of enhancements that
have improved the ability of the agencies to do their work.
We
are currently involved in a native child welfare task force. We are involved with a number of the agencies
on a Quality Assurance Program to improve some of the perceptions of
shortcomings within those agencies.
As
a result of that, we are expecting a report to be tabled sometime this fall to
discuss in more detail some of the systemic issues which we believe the federal
government, the First Nations and ourselves need to address in relationship to
those agencies.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary question to
the minister, can the minister tell this House what his review told him about
this case?
Why
did this baby fall through the cracks, when it is very clear, according to the
minister, that they put in all these safeguards, that they put in all these new
protections? Why was this baby failed?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that
decisions are made within agencies, and judgments are made based on cases.
We
have acknowledged that we have seen some deficiencies within agencies, and we
are taking some substantial steps to correct that, one of which is our Quality
Assurance Program, whereby we have put resources of the department at the
disposal of agencies to upgrade some of the procedures and qualifications for
staffing, as well as the other enhancements we discussed not that long ago in
Estimates.
Mrs. Carstairs: My question is very simple. A review was conducted. What did the review tell this minister
happened in this case?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, the member is aware that I am
prohibited to discuss the details of specific cases.
I
would say we have acknowledged the concerns that have been raised in respect to
a number of the agencies. We have a
process in place at the present time. We
have a Quality Assurance Program in place, and we have a task force that is
currently looking at a number of the issues to do with the agencies. That task force will be reporting sometime
this fall.
Arni Thorsteinson
Government Funding Repayment
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, over the past month and a half,
Manitobans have been shocked at the operation of prominent Conservative
fundraisers being appointed to the Senate, and in a couple of cases, having
dealings with the provincial government.
Has
the Minister of Housing received full payment for the over $6 million owed to
the Department of Housing by Arni Thorsteinson, chair of the Manitoba PC club?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, as the
member full well knows, this subject was insured by Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation.
Mr.
Speaker, they have the liability. They
are dealing with the issue, and matters are in process in order to accomplish
that objective.
Bill 47
Security Deposits
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Since
Mr. Thorsteinson was allowed to keep over $50,000 per month for almost two years
while not paying mortgage payments to the province, how much money in security
deposits, tenants' money, is this minister, as a result of Bill 47, handing
over to landlords to do as they please?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am not authorizing anybody to hand money over to anybody else.
In
this bill, we have more protection built in than was ever in place under the
New Democratic government. We have more
protection in place currently and will have more again, once this bill passes,
than was in place under that government when that member, in 1985, made
recommendations to the NDP to bring in provisions they did not bring in in '86,
'87, '88‑‑waited for us to bring them in in 1990. We are now improving upon them in 1993.
I
think he is a hypocrite to raise the question.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In the honourable Madam Minister's response,
she used some unparliamentary language.
I
would ask the honourable member to withdraw.
Mrs. McIntosh: I do not wish to use unparliamentary
language, and I withdraw the unparliamentary word.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Madam
Minister.
Consultations
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs if she expects Manitobans to believe it is just
coincidence that this Bill 47 is being introduced now, under pressure from
landlords, or did she consult with tenants‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In the honourable member's preamble to the
question, the honourable member is asking an opinion of the honourable
minister, so I would ask the honourable member to rephrase his question.
Rephrase
your question, please.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs: Did she consult
with tenants' groups, and if so, today, could she name the tenant's group and
tell us what their view was on withdrawing all the protection for tenants around
security deposits, or did she just listen to her Tory landlord friends?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I believe the member is also being unparliamentary and is imputing
motives.
I
would indicate to him I am doing exactly what I indicated I would do when this
act, which was a massive restructuring, was brought into place. (interjection)
If the members opposite would be quiet, I would be pleased to answer the
question. I cannot answer when I cannot
hear.
When
this act came into place, we indicated we would review all the aspects of it,
as it was put in place. With that in
mind, I instructed the members of staff at my branch to talk to tenants,
landlords, property managers, everybody who came before them in that first six
months. They talked to literally
thousands of tenants.
Specifically,
the member knows as well, of course, because the Winnipeg Housing Coalition, of
which he is a member, is one group we did talk to. They have indicated they were pleased to be
consulted. I have that in writing.
Accident Investigation
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
The
tragic fall of a young child from
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, we are all
shocked at the tragic happening of yesterday.
Upon
learning of the incident and upon learning it was a
Maintenance Procedures
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, will the
government put in place and explain to the tenants procedures for quicker
action on behalf of the tenants who have maintenance problems?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I did not catch the very end.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas,
kindly repeat your question, please.
Mr. Hickes: I was asking the minister if he would put in
proper maintenance procedures to get quicker action on behalf of tenants.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, presumably, that is the purpose
of the investigation, to determine what happened and why. Once we have that information, then we will
be able to determine what needs to be done.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Housing
personally investigate this tragic accident and put in place the safety
measures‑‑personally?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Housing
employs a great many experts in a number of fields. We have specific divisions within the Manitoba
Housing Authority that deal with tenant problems.
Once
the professional people who have had an opportunity to review the matter bring
that to my attention, then we will make the appropriate changes if any are
necessary.
Gretchen Family
Romanian Adoption
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the province
has stated they are willing to be flexible in the matter of the Gretchen child.
We
discussed the matter in Estimates yesterday, and I am wondering if the minister
can provide this House with an update as to the status of the Gretchen matter
from the departmental standpoint.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I believe
there is a meeting with the sponsors, and I believe a physician is accompanying
them to explain their prospective management of the medical needs.
I
think that meeting either took place this morning or is going to take place
today. I have not, as of yet, received
any further information from that meeting.
* (1430)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I believe the family doctor, Dr.
Leibert, will be providing the department with his estimates as to the probable
or possible costs associated with potential medical care for the girl, if she
is as sick as may be the case. I understand these costs will be considerably
below what the minister has asked for in a bond.
Can
the minister advise how flexible he anticipates he will be in terms of setting
that particular level?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, since my honourable friend has
indicated we discussed this issue yesterday, my honourable friend will know
that he made an inaccurate statement in his preamble, and I know my honourable
friend's agenda is to do that.
I
did not set the medical requirement assessment.
That was done by expert physicians consulting with specialists in
That
is being reviewed, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements made by another
physician. That is exactly the intent of
the meeting.
If
my honourable friend's statements in terms of lower costs are appropriate, very
good, but my honourable friend surely must await the opinion of experts who
know the cost of medical care and provide that kind of advice to the ministry.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Family
Services have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise before the House today to extend congratulations to the city
of
The
The
legacy these games will provide will be plentiful. I have already mentioned the development of
Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Brandon East
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to join with my colleague the minister and MLA for Minnedosa in
congratulating the great city of
An Honourable Member: Good job, Len.
Mr. Leonard Evans: That is right. I participated in this‑‑and those
dozens of people who worked very, very hard.
I would also mention Vic Brown, the recreation director of the City of
It
will be a challenge, as the member for Minnedosa, the minister stated. It will be a challenge for the community.
Apparently 6,000 volunteers will be needed.
I know it was a great challenge when the city was awarded the Canada
Winter Games back in 1979. It was a
great challenge and people met the challenge in that area.
There
are going to be 4,000 athletes and officials attending. It is going to be a very, very busy time, but
I know the city can handle the challenge, Mr. Speaker.
I
mentioned the 1979 Winter Games. The
1991 World Youth Baseball event was a tremendous success and also the 1992
Women's National Curling Championship.
So
I know all members will join us in wishing the community every success. Indeed,
Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to
join comments of the members from the other two parties in congratulating the
Westman region and, in particular, the city of
I
think of the world Little League baseball championships some time ago. I think of the curling championships which
this community has hosted very successfully in the past. I think that they have indeed proven
themselves and, obviously, that saw them through when they were participating
in competing for these games. They have
shown time and time again that despite the size of those communities, they can
sponsor and can host events well beyond what their numbers would perhaps
suggest. They have done it with
character. They have done it bringing
pride to all Manitobans, that these events can be hosted in this fashion.
I
am certain that not only will the
Congratulations
to the team that sought these games, on their success. Thank you for, I think, all Manitobans for
making the effort and for, in fact, successfully getting these games to this
province.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether or not there is a willingness for the House to waive private members'
hour so that we can continue to debate bills.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
No. Leave is denied.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call adjourned debate
Bill 29.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 29‑The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 29, The Minors Intoxicating Substances
Control Act; Loi sur le controle des substances intoxicantes et les mineurs,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave. (agreed)
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* *
*
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Second Readings, Bill 47, please.
SECOND
Bill 47‑The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: Bill 47, The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act (2) Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage
d'habitation.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): I
move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson),
that Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la
Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation, be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: I am very pleased today, Mr. Speaker, to
introduce for second reading Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
(2). I hope that my critics are
listening via television.
The
Residential Tenancies‑‑(interjection) In the official
opposition. The second party I see
listening diligently here in the House.
The
Residential Tenancies Act has been in effect for about 10 months, and I am
happy to report that overall this very large and complex act is working
well. In particular the various decision‑making
powers of the director and the Residential Tenancies Commission, which have
become known in slang terms as the "housing court", have proven to be
a tremendous success.
Through
these provisions, landlord and tenant disputes regarding security deposits,
possession and various claims for compensation, which would previously have
been heard in Small Claims Court or the Court of Queen's Bench, are now
determined by the director of Residential Tenancies. Decisions of that director can be appealed to
the Residential Tenancies Commission, which consists of a panel representing
tenants, landlords and a neutral chair.
The commission can uphold or change the director's decision on appeal.
The
provisions commonly referred to in the housing court are effective. For example, of the 6,000 cases, and I really
hope that the critics from the official opposition are listening somewhere,
excluding rent regulation matters determined by the director from September to
May, only 330 of those have been appealed to the commission.
Mr.
Speaker, the provisions are also effective in terms of being informal and low
cost to both tenants and landlords. They
are not intimidating, they are not costly.
Landlords and tenants who first choose to appear before the court using
lawyers no longer use them. They come on
their own, reflecting the user‑friendly style of the procedures.
As
I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the legislation in this regard is working extremely
well. However, landlords, tenants and
the Residential Tenancies Branch have identified several improvements that will
make the act work even better. The most
important of these provisions is one that has been raised twice in Question
Period, and that is the protection of security deposits and the procedures
landlords are required to follow in returning or claiming security deposits.
Of
course, unfortunately, in Question Period there is not enough time to go into
the detail that we will go into here and in committee as to why the
improvements we are making are in the best interests of the entire marketplace
despite the statements to the contrary of the one member of the opposition, not
my critic, but the one who had a vested interest in the 1985 recommendation
which was never accepted or put in place by the NDP.
Mr.
Speaker, the act requires landlords to protect security deposits received since
September 1, 1992, through one of three ways.
Currently these are the three ways:
they must place security deposits in a trust account used exclusively
for security deposits; they must provide the director of Residential Tenancies
with a bond or other financial instrument acceptable to the director; or they
must send the deposits to the director. That is what is in place
currently. That does, indeed, offer far
better protection than was ever available prior to 1988.
* (1440)
Mr.
Speaker, while trust accounts seem to be a good method of protection, and they
are fine, their effectiveness depends on frequent auditing in an attempt to
ensure that the deposits paid by tenants are in fact being held in the trust
account. Even if there is no assurance
the funds will not be removed from the account between inspections, there is no
assurance that will happen. If you
consider the thousands of landlords and deposits in
The
cost to government has been greatly increased, and I will indicate to you in
fact, Mr. Speaker, that the increase is in the order of 300 percent. I know that is of no concern to the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), it may be to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux),
that when you increase the cost to government in that size to reclaim a
possibility of about $1,000 a year, which is all the problem is, that to say
you are taking a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito is an understatement; you are
taking a cannon to kill a mosquito.
That
large cost that would be required in an attempt to enforce the trust accounts
and to audit has to be weighed against the benefits in terms of security
deposit losses prevented. According to the records of the Residential Tenancies
Branch, Mr. Speaker, security deposit losses have historically been very
low. We are talking about less than
$2,000 annually.
Mr.
Speaker, the changes proposed to Bill 47 would require landlords to either hold
security deposits or send them to the director.
If they choose to hold the deposits, and I know the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway) is interested in this, and if they fail to return a deposit as
required under the act, they would be subject to the usual recovery procedures
such as a redirection of rent revenue, garnishment of income, you could put a
lien against property. All of those are
very strong, strong disincentives to doing anything other than what should be
done with security deposit money.
Indeed, that has proven to be true.
Indeed
even without those provisions, when under the NDP there was no provision of
that sort, landlords were returning the money with the exception of $1,000 to
$2,000 per year in total across the entire marketplace. Those provisions will not change. We are saying the landlord can hold the money
or send it to the director. If he holds
the money, he is subject to those disincentives and those punitive measures
should he fail to return the money to his tenants.
Mr.
Speaker, in those rare cases where a landlord does fail to return a deposit to
a tenant, where the landlord has not provided a bond or other financial
instrument, and where there are no reasonable and appropriate procedures
available to recover the deposit, the tenant would have the deposit returned
from a security deposit compensation fund created through these
amendments. That is the best protection
ever offered to tenants in the history of
These
changes in the methods of protecting security deposits would, Mr. Speaker,
provide several benefits. They would
ensure that tenants are able to recover their deposits, and they will avoid the
high cost of auditing trust accounts. I
know my critic for the Liberal Party is familiar with these and has gone
through them and understands them, and I will try to explain them to the
official opposition party which seems to be having a little more difficulty.
The
procedures landlords are required to follow in returning or claiming security
deposits have substantially increased the workload of the Residential Tenancies
Branch. Since the act became effective
last September, the branch has opened 4,300 security deposit files compared to
the 1,300 opened during the same period of time in the previous year. This is an increase, as I pointed out
earlier, of 300 percent in workload in the last short period of time since that
act was proclaimed.
Since
the bulk of deposits come in in the fall, the workload they would be put under
at the branch would absolutely necessitate the hiring of several more staff,
increasing the cost and size of government considerably to the taxpayer, many
of those taxpayers being tenants who would have to pay increased taxes for us
to put out more money, far, far in excess of the $1,000 to $2,000 that goes
missing in any annual period, to tenants.
So it is spending inordinately in order to reclaim a very small amount.
The
large increase in the number of security deposit files, Mr. Speaker, is causing
two problems. It is creating a backlog
of files which cannot be cleared without additional staff and is resulting in
much staff time being spent on unnecessary determinations, determinations that
are wanted neither by tenants nor landlords.
In reducing the number of unnecessary determinations, the changes
proposed in Bill 47 will enable the branch to spend more time on those disputes
that require third party resolution and to determine such disputes more
quickly.
The
changes would not affect landlords' rights to claim against deposits or
tenants' rights to the return of their deposits. In other words, when we have people lined up
outside our door with broken wagons asking us to fix them, the answer we do not
want to have to give them is I know you have brought your wagon here for us to
fix it, but we cannot fix your wagon, because we are running all over town
searching out people who may have broken wagons they do not want us to
fix. That, to me, is not a very logical
way of doing things. I can understand
why the official opposition might want that kind of legislation, because it
does build an empire in government; it does enable staff to grow.
An Honourable Member: Your wagon is stuck in the mud.
Mrs. McIntosh: If I hear one more time‑‑I have
to interject here, Mr. Speaker. (interjection) Pardon me? I have to say something. I have not talked to Arni whatever‑his‑name‑is
who that member opposite keeps mentioning about this bill, because I cannot
pronounce the name. But that is beside
the point. What you keep raising is
false. I will not hear it. There is supposed to be honour among members,
and I would like to see some from that side.
As
previously mentioned, Mr. Speaker, Bill 47 would make housekeeping‑type
improvements to several aspects of the legislation. Some of these pertain to the dispute
resolution system, the regulation of rent and related charges, notices
landlords are required to give tenants and orders the director can make.
I
should indicate, Mr. Speaker, it is very important I think to note, given the
comments of members opposite who have a one‑track mind and cannot get
their mind off it, that most of these changes were brought to my attention by
administrative staff. These changes, in
terms of lessening the workload on the branch and decreasing the cost and size
of government, were brought to my attention by landlord and tenant staff people
who have been working in that branch for some 20‑odd years and have
gained a measure of experience, bringing to my attention the flaws and the
wrinkles that need ironing out in this particular bill.
With
respect to dispute resolution, Mr. Speaker, two main changes have been
made. The first is in regard to the
awarding of interest and costs where the director determines a tenant's or
landlord's claim for compensation for losses caused by the other's breach of
the tenancy agreement or the act. The
director would be able to award the landlord or the tenant up to 10 percent of
the award for legitimate costs incurred.
Maybe he had to take a day off work, something of that nature. That would be of the judgment.
* (1450)
In
addition, the director will be able to order interest to be paid on the amount
awarded from the time the loss arose until the payment of the amount
awarded. These changes regarding costs
and interests are consistent with Small Claims Court and Court of Queen's Bench
which we parallel in many ways.
Regarding
the regulation of rent and related charges, Mr. Speaker, several changes would
be made. One such change is that they
will no longer be required to have a separate rental agreement for a furnished
rental unit. This separate agreement
increases the administrative costs to the Residential Tenancies Branch without
providing any benefit that can be identified to us by landlords or tenants.
Secondly,
landlords would no longer be required to apply to the director for permission
to add a tenant‑requested service. Landlords would, however, continue to
be required to file for a rent adjustment in such cases.
The
third change, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to situations where services are
removed. Landlords would continue to be
required to file for a rent adjustment.
As well, tenants would now be able to determine their tenancy on
application to the director and where it is determined that the removed service
is fundamental to the tenancy.
Through
the bill the orders the director can make would be increased. For example, the director would be able to
order landlords to pay an administrative fee where rents are redirected.
We
are very pleased this complex legislation is working as well as it is, Mr.
Speaker. We are also pleased to be able
to suggest the improvements that have been brought to our attention by tenants,
by landlords, by property managers and by those men and women who work daily
with the act, those employees at the Residential Tenancies Branch.
The
improvements proposed for the protection and return of security deposits are
important, because they will ensure that tenants receive deposits are important
because they will ensure that tenants receive deposits they are entitled to in
a way that previously could not be ensured.
In
giving landlords and tenants more time to resolve security disputes on their
own, Mr. Speaker, in allowing more time for tenants and landlords to request a
determination, to send notices and a number of other forms, changes and notices
that the administration and director of the branch handle, we hope to
streamline procedures, reduce unnecessary paperwork and smooth out the wrinkles
that come when any new act is put in place.
We
have received indications from tenants, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number of
things in this act that they really are pleased to see. They are particularly pleased about the
security deposit compensation fund. I am
disappointed the members of the official opposition do not want that
compensation fund for tenants because it seems to be important to them.
We
are also allowing the tenants to terminate a tenancy when a landlord withdraws
or reduces a service‑‑something else that is very good for
tenants. Reducing the appeal time where
a landlord has violated an order to return a security deposit to a tenant, and
allowing tenants to be reimbursed for overcharges in rent through redirections
of rents should the landlord fail to pay, and to ensure that a rental unit that
is unfit for habitation‑‑(interjection) I am nearly completed my
remarks, about two more minutes.
An Honourable Member: Make it five.
Mrs. McIntosh: Five more minutes you want. You want me to increase my time of speaking,
truly. I have never heard the opposition
make that request of me before. It is
kind of interesting. I would be pleased
to stand up here and talk all day about the benefits of these changes because I
think that they are going to be a good improvement in the marketplace.
We
also have as a new opportunity for tenants the ability to ensure that a rental
unit that is unfit for habitation is not rerented until the relevant orders are
complied with. We also have new
provisions that ensure that a writ of possession is obtained before a tenant
can be evicted from the residential premises.
We allow tenants to be reimbursed for overcharges in rent through
redirection of rents should the landlord fail to pay. None of these were available in the previous
drafting of the act.
I
would indicate as well, because the matter has been raised twice in Question
Period and I think it is something that we would like to be talking about in
committee‑‑I certainly would like to be talking about it‑‑but
the question that needs to be answered has not been asked, as so often does
seem to happen.
The
director is allowed to order that all deposits held by a landlord who is
constantly contravening the act must be turned over to the director's
control. So while we say that landlords
will no longer be obliged to send their security deposits in to the director,
in cases where landlords have an extremely bad track record, that provision
will be there and that will be a decision of the director to make based upon
the record of the particular landlord.
Mr.
Speaker, in the seven or eight months since this act has been in place, we have
had the opportunity to dialogue with literally thousands of people involved in
the marketplace, the majority of those, of course, being tenants because there
are more tenants than landlords. We have
talked to a number of people in all of the different jurisdictions and
stakeholders affected by this act, and based upon the input and feedback they
have given us‑‑not necessarily through formal presentations
although we have had those, but also and primarily through the informal
feedback that comes in our daily working, we have brought in these changes in
response to three things: being
conscious of the cost and size of government and the impact upon the ratepayer;
being conscious of the streamlining of procedures for greater ease of
operation; and for the needs of both tenants and landlords to be protected and
to be freed from cumbersome procedures.
With
that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks and look forward to my opposition's
statements.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Bill 13‑The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation
Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, may I please have leave because when I introduced
Bill 13 (The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs
du
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism have leave to table the message of His Honour? (agreed) I
would like to thank the honourable minister.
The Page will pick it up.
* *
*
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Bill 38 followed by Bill 41.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Planning Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), Bill 38, The City of Winnipeg Amendment,
Municipal Amendment, Planning Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that the matter remain
standing? Leave?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today
to Bill 38, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act.
This particular bill has just been introduced in the last few weeks into
the House. (interjection) We have attended to it as quickly as possible. We have met with the minister.
I
want to deal with the comments that the Agriculture minister is making, because
what we have seen with this bill is the minister coming to us just last week,
just a few days ago in fact, telling us that this bill has certain deadlines to
it and must be passed in a matter of days because some people are going to be
affected in a development they are involved in.
We have attended to this as quickly as possible.
I
want to remind the House that the minister has been aware of the plight of
these young people for some months now.
He had every opportunity to separate their concerns and his concerns
into a separate bill and bring it through this House, and we could have passed
it in a matter of days. But instead what
he chose to do was bury their concerns into this bill which has a lot of
ramifications to it, and he has presented it to us as a case of where we have
to accommodate these people and pass the whole bill immediately. Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to do that. We are prepared to accommodate the minister
to the extent that I will make my remarks on the bill today. We may have another speaker today and perhaps
we can send it to committee within the next few days and take it from there.
* (1500)
Let
us deal with what this bill does. It
does a couple of things that we like. It
does a couple of things that we do not like, but one of the things that we‑‑(interjection)
Well, I will tell the member what we do like about this bill. We like the ability that this bill gives the
city to collect on the $4 million in unpaid parking fines that are currently
available to the city once we pass this legislation. I understand that there is about $90,000 in
parking fines available through the City of
It
seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this issue is not something that has just come
up. It has been around for some time,
and I a few years ago was in favour of the solution that would prevent a car
from being registered unless all parking fines and so on were taken care
of. The minister has explained why this
is a better idea, because on the surface of it, it does not seem to me that
going out and towing cars, seizing cars, was the proper way to do it, but his
explanation seemed reasonable enough. So
on that basis this is probably the most sensible way to proceed, and we are
prepared to support that.
Mr.
Speaker, there is a major area of this bill that we are not happy with and that
has to do with allowing the city to charge library fees. That is, in my opinion, a very regressive
step. The member for
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
We
are setting barriers here. We are
setting barriers on new Canadians. We
are setting barriers on people on social assistance. In fact, we are putting barriers on
education, because the library system in the core area of
Now,
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are some other areas of the bill that we will be
looking at for further clarification, and we will be looking for some changes
at committee. I would expect that we
will be wanting the committee to look at an amendment that would change the
portions dealing with the library fees, because it is not something that we
would support.
We
are also reasonably happy with the new provisions dealing with the airport
protection area. That is something that
members will recall that we supported back during the Rotary Pines fiasco of a
couple of years ago, so we are happy that the government has finally done
something to deal with airport protection.
That is something, of course‑‑I believe the Minister of
Highways at the time was supporting our position that something should be done,
something should be done to make certain that the airport remained viable.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, just before I conclude my comments on this bill, I believe the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has a few comments to make, and at that point
that may conclude certainly our comments for this day on this bill.
But
I did want to address comments made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) who may have stepped out for a moment. She wonders why we are concerned that the
bills that the government brings in appear to be bills that are authored by and
supported by certain groups and individuals.
It
is very simple. In almost each and every
initiative that this government makes it seems that there is one of the Tory
bagmen not far back there. There are at
least a half a dozen initiatives that this government is making right now that
directly benefit these Tory bagmen. So
we wonder sometimes who is really writing these bills? Are these bills being written by the
Legislative Counsel, or are they really coming through these bagmen who want
certain things?
I
remember the Tories talking about the bail‑out‑Bernie bill. All of us remember here how it went on and on
about the bail‑out‑Bernie bill.
Well, if this is not the bail‑out‑Arni bill, I do not know
what it is when it comes to the residential tenants act.
The
questions that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) asked today were quite
relevant. We are concerned that this
government allowed Mr. Thorsteinson $50,000 a month in rental payments for two
years before they stepped in. It is not
without reason that if the landlords collect rental deposits, and there is $25
million in rental deposits, that a big landlord in this province if they run
into financial problems may start using major league money here for other
operations.
What
they are doing is taking money out of‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would just like to remind the honourable
member that he is debating Bill 38, The City of
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, you know, I have many
other things to talk about in terms of this bill, but in the interests of
brevity and the recognition that I am going to have many more opportunities to
expand further on this topic of influence and help to friends by this
particular government, I will cease and desist at this moment and carry on at
the next opportunity.
Thank
you very much.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): No, your right is
gone. You blew it. You ran when your name was called.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Indeed, the honourable government House
leader does have a Point of Order. The
bill was indeed standing in your name and leave was denied. Therefore, you have forfeited your right to
speak on this bill.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Point of Order
Mr. Reid: I was unaware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the
bill was about to be called. I thought that
there would have been leave to allow the critic the opportunity, that I was
going to close debate on this. I do not
think that we were aware that leave was not going to be granted. I am not sure that my colleagues had granted
leave on this, but I believe that was the intent.
* *
*
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
It
does replace the tendering process with broader provisions covering other forms
of proffering goods and services, and I think that that for the most part is
good. It does permit the phasing in of
business tax decreases, and I think that in some cases that is very warranted,
because what has happened in past years has been that those tax decreases and
increases have affected small companies, small owners, particularly poorly. It also reinforces the city's ability to
operate solid waste and refuse services as a utility, and I think that that is
a positive thing.
One
of the issues that does concern me, however, is Section 23 which reinforces the
city's immunity from liability for sewer backups except when the city has been
negligent. I am concerned there because
negligence on the part of the homeowner is often very, very difficult to prove,
so it seems to in fact give the City of
I
am also concerned that there has not been enough airport protection in this
particular piece of legislation. I think
that there is some, and that is very positive, and for that reason, certainly,
we will support that section of the bill.
But it still seems extremely weak in terms of what could be done as far
as airport protection is concerned in the
The
amendments to The Summary Convictions Act, however, are very interesting
ones. I think that many of us have been
very concerned that citizens who had outstanding parking tickets‑‑and
many of them so‑called prominent members of our community‑‑were
in fact flouting their ability to break the law. If this ameliorates the situation and makes
it now possible for the City of
* (1510)
Like
so many things today, it remains to be seen whether it will live up to court
challenges as far as our charter is concerned, but I think that certainly it is
a step in the right direction to make it clear to citizens that only those who
are prepared to abide by laws in the
So
I look forward to this bill going to committee, and I look forward to
presentations being made by citizens of the
Thank
you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I would
require leave to address my remarks to this particular piece of
legislation. I am asking if there is
leave to address this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is indeed accurate. Is there leave to permit the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) to put a few remarks on the record on Bill 38?
(agreed)
Mr. Reid:
I wish to thank the members of the House for giving leave to allow me
the opportunity to add my comments on Bill 38. I will be the last speaker from
our caucus that will be adding our comments on second reading of this bill, and
we look forward to it going to committee to allow members of the public to add
their comments to the legislation as well.
I
note, looking at some of the comments that the minister had made when he
introduced it for second reading, he gave an explanation of the intent of the
legislation itself. We find that with
this legislation there are several things we can agree with in this
legislation, and there is at least one item in this legislation for which we
cannot agree. I will get to that in a
few moments to make members opposite aware of what my concerns are.
It
seems that during the course of the government's introduction of bills in this
Chamber, they invariably add poison‑pill sections in here, so there are
sections that you can, and most members would, accept for the betterment of our
society. Then there are sections that
you would not agree with, so the government waters it down in the sense that if
you want the good parts, you have to take the bad parts with it. That seems to be their position on various
pieces of legislation.
This
bill is no different in that concept, in that with this they have certain
aspects of it with respect to protection of the City of
There
are sections with respect to libraries that we cannot accept because of the
fact that it will have a detrimental impact on the people that we
represent. I note that with respect to
the airport operations, the City of
I
know in my own experience in flying into cities in eastern
This
legislation will provide that protection for the
I
just wish that in hindsight the government had taken the steps some two years
ago, when we were going through the Rotary Pines debate here in this
Legislature and in this province, when we had called for it. In fact, my colleague the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale) had introduced a private member's bill that would provide
airport protection for the
The
members of the government at that time could have chosen to support a private
member's bill, and indeed the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger) showed his support by the steps that he had taken in opposition to
what his colleague, the minister responsible that was involved with the Rotary
Pines project, the Minister of Housing, had taken. The minister of transport had a difficult
battle, I am sure, within his own cabinet in his own caucus trying to defend
the
We
were happy to see that the Minister of Highways and Transportation was showing
some principled position on that particular issue, and indeed it was
leadership. We thought it was a good
position for him to take. I am sure all
members in the House know the value of the airport to the province.
It
is unfortunate though that we did not have the opportunity to have UPS courier
service come to the city of
The
minister stated in his comments that by this legislation the City of
The
minister indicated in his comments that the City of
The
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), it shows, will also be allowed to
designate other airports for which airport vicinity protection could be
provided by local municipal governments.
As the province hopefully grows and expands, that may be a step that
would be necessary for the future, allowing the municipalities to define the
boundaries in the airport vicinity.
Another
aspect of this legislation and one that had caused us concern‑‑I
know I had several calls to my offices over the course of the last year and a
half with respect to unpaid parking tickets.
The City of
* (1520)
This
legislation will now give the municipalities, including the City of
The
question I have with this legislation at this point, and the minister did not
give an explanation on it, is: Will the
second notice with respect to the unpaid parking fines be sent to the
individuals by registered mail? There is
the possibility that if it is not, that the individuals then could have their
mail misplaced or misdirected or indeed lost and not even receive the second notice. So I draw that to the minister's attention as
well.
After
that point, upon receiving the second notice, the individuals would have to, if
they do not pay their parking ticket fines or they fail to pay or they take
some action to the contrary, the municipality may register in The Personal
Property Registry a lien against any vehicles that the owners own that are
registered to them in the amount of the unpaid parking fines. In that sense, if one particular vehicle has
fines registered against that particular vehicle, of course, other vehicles in
the possession or registered to that individual may also be seized. At least
that is my interpretation of the minister's comments.
After
a period of time and after having been given notice of the registration of a
lien, the vehicle can be seized by the municipality for the outstanding parking
fines that are due and payable. After
that point, the vehicles can I believe be sold to recover any monies that would
be due. Of course, first there are
exceptions to that, that the payment of wages would be required to be fulfilled
in The Personal Property Registry and The Garage Keepers Act. So anybody who has any monies due and owing
to them as a result of the ownership of this vehicle would receive first
payment and then any monies left over would go towards the parking fines.
Unfortunately
with this legislation, the vehicle owner with the outstanding parking fines, if
they have the ability to sell their vehicles prior to these fines being paid,
then the individual who purchased the vehicle will then become responsible for
any liens. So I hope that members of the
public will become aware that they have an obligation to check for any liens
that may be registered against the vehicles in question.
I
know that opportunity is available. I
took that opportunity myself once when I made a purchase of a used
vehicle. I went down to the vehicle
registry to find out, just to make sure there were no liens on the
vehicle. There were no liens, of course,
but it was the protection that I took as an individual, and it was a safeguard
for myself. I hope members of the public
realize that they will be required to take those steps now because with this
legislation, there may be more liens registered against more used vehicles in
this province.
With
this legislation also, the government has indicated, and I know municipalities
have stated a strong interest on their part, in particular, the communities of
With
this legislation, I know when the debate was taking place in this House with respect
to the Pines project, the Rotary Pines project, that the Transcona Legion
project which is now being called
If
this legislation goes forward, there is a section in it which is what I believe
to be the bad section of this legislation.
It will allow the City of
I
know in attending my own library there are a lot of families, a lot of young
children who go to the libraries. If
this legislation goes through and the City of
If
the municipalities are going to be charging fees for library usage, I think it
is a bad step. I think it should be
removed from this legislation and that section scrapped altogether. I believe my colleague the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway) when we move to committee on this bill will be proposing such an
amendment.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, going back to the Transcona Place seniors housing project, I
want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) for
giving approval from his department to allow the sod‑turning ceremony to
take place last June 12. We had been
inquiring of the minister's department for some time, and we were happy to see
finally that sod turning took place on June 12.
Now construction has commenced, and that will allow the seniors of my
community to remain in Transcona.
The
problem with this legislation allowing the municipalities, including
If
this legislation goes forward and the City of
I
ask the minister who introduced this legislation to withdraw that particular
section. If he does not withdraw that
particular section of the legislation, we will be prepared to introduce
amendments to that legislation to withdraw the library fee section and other
public use facilities. We hope that the
government would listen to that request and the amendment, if it becomes
necessary to introduce one from our side, the government would listen to that
and withdraw that section.
* (1530)
Overall,
the bill itself does present some positive steps for us in the province with
respect to the city of
With
that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity and thank members
for leave to allow me to conclude our comments on this bill.
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): I would like to put a few remarks on the
record in regards to Bill 38. We
certainly, as a caucus, are prepared to see this particular bill go to the committee
stage. My remarks will be brief, Madam
Deputy Speaker. I do not believe it
takes 40 minutes to say what needs to be said in regards to this bill.
This
bill deals with a number of housekeeping issues which the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst) certainly dealt with in his remarks, and I will not spend
time going through those.
I
would also like to thank the Minister of Urban Affairs for giving myself and my
colleague from the NDP a briefing on this particular bill.
One
of the major issues presented in this bill relates to the protection of use of
the airport, and we are certainly very pleased to see this in Bill 38. Again, whether in fact these amendments to
The City of Winnipeg Act actually go far enough, I think that remains to be
seen, but certainly this bill is dealing with some amendments which will allow
for vicinity protection. It is more clearly defined what the airport vicinity
is, and it also includes some areas beyond the city's boundary which I think is
important as well.
It
also indicates in these amendments that land use and development within the
airport boundary area must be compatible with airport operation. We support that. We think that is important, and we were
certainly pleased to see that hopefully the airport will continue on to
function as a 24‑hour operation and that in fact we may even see some
expansion of what occurs at the airport.
So we are pleased that we have seen this particular amendment in Bill
38.
One
of the other areas that this particular City of
The
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) and his staff and his government have
certainly chosen one particular way to deal with the payment of unpaid fines,
and they are looking at basically trying to place a lien on vehicles of
individuals who have not paid their fines.
We
certainly have no difficulty with the intent of what this amendment is
attempting to do. We are concerned
however whether in fact this bill will survive the scrutiny of any type of
court challenges that there might be, No. 1, which will remain to be seen‑‑we
may hear more about that at the committee stage; and secondly, whether in fact
there may not be some administrative glitches which will have to be worked out
should this particular piece of legislation, or when this legislation is put in
place.
I
know that there may be some time frame differences between when someone goes to
check to see if there is a lien against a vehicle and when they might actually
purchase the vehicle. If there was that
space of time, let us say four to five days as an example, potentially there
could have been liens placed on a vehicle after the person had checked, yet
before they had actually purchased the vehicle, and they may not know.
So
I am hoping that some of those administrative details may be able to be worked
out. Certainly the intent of allowing
cities to be able to collect unpaid fines is a worthy one, and whether in fact
this will work remains to be seen. But
we certainly support the intent of that piece in the legislation.
One
of the other areas that The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act deals with is something
that I suppose came to the attention of the cities and the municipalities when
there was a possible sale of land, and that was the error in the boundaries
between the City of
We
hope this legislation will move forth to committee and will be dealt with so
that in fact the individuals who were involved with the sale of land will be
able to conclude what they need to do and to also deal with the City of
The
other area I did want to speak to was the amendment in regard to allowing the
city to basically charge fees for various activities within the city. The examples that have been used are leisure
centres and libraries.
I
appreciate the comments of the New Democrats and the comments that I have
received from individuals who are concerned about the fact that there may be
library fees imposed. I believe,
however, that is an issue that individuals need to take up with their city councillors.
I
certainly do not have difficulty with the fact that the City of
I
personally may have some concerns about the charging of fees in certain
centres, particularly libraries, but that is separate and apart from, I
believe, this particular amendment.
In
The City of Winnipeg Act, it actually gives some authority to the City of
There
are actually a couple of other provisions in this act, such as replacing the
tendering process so that there are now broader provisions covering other forms
of goods and services. This was a request from the City of
As
well, this particular City of
I
think again it remains to be seen what type of issues may come from this
particular amendment, but suffice it to say that we are certainly pleased with
the provisions in The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act, particularly in
relationship to the airports and certainly with the ability of the city and the
province to correct the dispute in the area of the parcel of land in whether it
is in Ritchot or whether it is in the city of
We
are prepared to see this bill go on to committee and be discussed at that
point.
With
that, I will leave those few remarks on the record. Thank you very much, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
will not take long. I want to address
the issue of the library fees, which seem to have caused some concern with some
of the members opposite.
This
issue was raised by the City of
So,
between the time that the bill leaves the House and the time it arrives at
committee, I will consult again with the City of
adam Deputy Speaker, I will
undertake to do that between now and the time the bill arrives at committee,
and I thank members opposite for their co‑operation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 38, The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment,
Planning Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la Ville de Winnipeg, la Loi sur les municipalites, la Loi sur
l'amenagement du territoire et la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires). Agreed?
All
those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
The
motion is accordingly carried.
* (1540)
Bill 41‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 41 (The Provincial Parks and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): I would ask to call Bill
34, please, The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act.
Bill 34‑The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools
Governance) Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 34,
(The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises)),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): If I may just indulge
the House for a moment, I would ask if you could call Bill 29, please.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 29 has been called and was left standing
in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
The
House has already made the decision, I am informed, that there indeed was
agreement to leave Bill 29 standing in the name of the honourable member for
Point Douglas.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to speak
on the bill. I believe that the matter
was held standing in the name of Mr. Hickes earlier, the member for Point
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revisit Bill 29
to resume debate on second reading?
Agreed?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a great deal
of interest in this issue by all members of this House. During Question Period, I put the offer to
the New Democrats as to whether they wanted to pass this bill this afternoon to
get it to committee so that it would become law in the
With
that kind of commitment from the House leader of the NDP (Mr. Ashton) who is
just about to stand, we will give leave to pass this bill this afternoon, to
revisit it and pass this bill so it goes to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to revert to second reading of
Bill 29, because there is already on the record a previous decision of the
House?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
* *
*
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): I would ask if you could
please call Bill 30, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and
Consequential Amendments Act.
Bill 30‑The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental
Disability and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate on second reading of Bill 30 (The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant une deficience mentale et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on the proposed
motion of the honourable minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Yes, I would ask that if
you could please call in this order, please, Bill 39 followed by Bill 3,
followed Bill 5 and then all the remaining bills as they appear on the Order
Paper.
Bill 39‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
39, (The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour
provinciale), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) would
carry on their conversation outside the Chamber or in the loge.
Is
there leave to permit Bill 39 to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
However,
when this act was amended in 1988, part‑time judges were not included in
the appointment process. In 1991, the
Supreme Court of Canada ruled that there are Charter requirements that must be
met as far as part‑time judges are concerned. So consequently Bill 39, according to the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), is designed to meet those Charter
requirements and to close that loophole in The Provincial Court Act dealing
with the appointment of judges to the
According
to the Minister of Justice, and I am going solely by the Hansard by the
Honourable Minister of Justice on second reading on June 9, because the
Minister of Justice has not seen fit or has not provided me with a spreadsheet
detailing the changes to The Provincial Court Act.
So
all of my comments on record today, and any other comments that my caucus
colleagues may feel compelled to put on the record regarding Bill 39, are done
so with the caveat that the government has not done what it has certainly by
practice done in the past, which is provide either a spreadsheet or some
consultation to the opposition so that we do know exactly what the legislation
before us is intended to accomplish.
With
that caveat, I will say that basically we are in support of this piece of
legislation. It would appear to be, on
the surface, a fairly small bill dealing with quite a small part of the
judiciary in the
But,
Madam Deputy Speaker, like many other bills that we debate in this House and
that have been passed by this province, by these governments in this province,
narrowly defined pieces of legislation can have broadly based impacts, and we
believe that this is such a bill. It
will set, as the minister stated, clear guidelines and limitations to ensure
the impartiality and independence of part‑time judges.
The
independence and impartiality of our judiciary is one of the basic tenets that
we as Canadians hold most dear in our judicial system. We have had discussions in this House and
outside this House on how exactly you maintain the independence and
impartiality of the judiciary. I am glad
to see that this particular piece of legislation broadens that independence and
impartiality by talking about part‑time judges.
There
are some requirements that the bill lays out for part‑time judges, that
the appointments must be based on a demonstrated need of the court. Because we do not have a spreadsheet and I
have not had an opportunity to talk to anyone in the Justice department about
this, I have a question that I will put on the record now, and perhaps the
minister or certainly in committee we can have a further discussion of
this. How is the demonstrated need of
the court demonstrated? What are the
indicators that tell the government that there needs to be additional part‑time
judges appointed? What is that checklist
of need?
Where
are these part‑time judges likely to be appointed, what parts of the
province? Are there particular areas of
the province that now have a dearth of part‑time judges or dearth of judges
in general? I would suggest perhaps that
rural and northern parts of the province might see the impact of Bill 39 more
extensively than perhaps the city of
* (1550)
It
says that future part‑time judges can only be recruited from judges who
have previously been appointed out of The Provincial Court Act. I would anticipate that this provision means
that you cannot appoint someone as a part‑time judge who is not
potentially eligible to be appointed a full‑time judge. If that is in fact the intention of this part
of the legislation, we wholeheartedly support that.
We
are in favour in not only judicial appointments but in all areas of work. We are in favour of part‑time work
being seen as important and as necessary as full‑time work, and that
people who provide services on a part‑time basis should be hired and
appointed using the same criteria as full‑time workers and should have
benefits that are prorated to those benefits available to full‑time
workers. We do not have that to the
greatest extent we feel necessary in other areas of work in this province. So we are glad to see that, I assume, part‑time
judges will have the benefits that accrue to full‑time judges on a
prorated basis or some other fair system of remuneration.
Again,
back to the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, I think it is
important that the judges who are appointed part time be judges who would have
been able to be appointed full time had they so requested. The appointments will be nonrenewable and
must not exceed a five‑year term.
I am assuming, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the impact of this part of the
legislation will be the understanding that the best system would be full‑time
judges, but that in some cases it would be necessary to appoint a part‑time
judge and that a judge can only serve in a part‑time capacity for five
years.
Also,
Madam Deputy Speaker, while this next area of the legislation may seem self‑evident,
I think it is important that it be clearly stated at this point that, again, to
ensure impartiality, the part‑time judge is prohibited from practising
law in the
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has just informed
the House of something that we have all been‑‑an event that we on,
at least, the official opposition benches have been waiting for for nine,
almost 10, years, and that is the fact that tomorrow is the final day of the
tenure‑‑there are other words I could use, but I would be
unparliamentary‑‑of the Prime Minister of the country. I normally do not like to engage in across‑the‑floor
discussions on record, certainly not with the Minister of Natural Resources,
but I must put on record the fact that while he says the Prime Minister's last
day will be a sad day for
Madam
Deputy Speaker, the people of
After
that brief message from my side of the House, that brief diversion, I would
like to again say that we support in principle‑‑and I know we are
dealing basically with the principle of this legislation‑‑the
outlines of Bill 39, The Provincial Court Amendment Act.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, because we do not have a spreadsheet I cannot be sure, but I am
assuming, as I stated earlier, that perhaps the major impact of these part‑time
judges will be felt outside the urban centres.
I base that on the fact that it is in many areas, many professions, more
difficult to get people to practise outside the urban centres in this province
than all of us in this House would like.
I
am assuming that the ability to appoint part‑time judges within the
parameters of this legislation perhaps will help provide additional services to
rural and northern parts of our province.
I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is one of the reasons behind
this piece of legislation and that the less heavily populated parts of our
province will see increased service as a result of the enactment of Bill 39.
We
have seen in many areas where services to people outside the major population
centres have been curtailed by this government.
Their much flaunted decentralization program has been largely a
miserable failure and has been an exercise in partisan party politics. If you take a look at the parts of the
province that have received the few decentralization jobs that have taken
place, you will see that they are concentrated in a major fashion in the parts
of the province that are supported and represented by members of the government
rather than necessarily in areas of the province that need them.
There
are many areas that we could talk about in the
The
infamous decision of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to eliminate the
Children's Dental Program from rural communities in this province is probably
the single most illustrative event and explains most clearly to the people of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would just like to say that I was talking to constituents in
my area just last week, and a woman who has never lived outside the city of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, that one single comment spoke volumes to me and showed that the
people of
Madam
Deputy Speaker, in closing on Bill 39 I would like to say that I hope in this
particular instance the government is not following in the same footsteps as
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey),
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) and, most specifically, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in eliminating
services to people who live outside the major urban areas.
I
hope that Bill 39 will lead to an increased and an improved level of service, certainly
in the judiciary for those people in the
* (1600)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 3‑The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 3
(The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et
le gaz naturel et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 5‑The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 5 (The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli).
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am glad to put some comments on the record on Bill 5, The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act. This act is hopefully in
keeping with the intended nature and purpose of the act, which is to ensure
that communities in northern
With
this bill not having there be any consultation with respect to renewing of
leases of Crown land surrounding northern communities, there could be some
concern that in the effort to speed up procedures and not have things bogged in
bureaucrat process, there could be some problems. That is one of the things that we are
concerned about. We certainly want to
have more autonomy and more respect, I would say, for the councils in northern
We
would like also that there would be streamlining of government procedures, but
there are some concerns that when there are changes in leases, that communities
would still be notified. If there are
general permits on leases that are allowing one kind of development, and when
that lease is taken over, another lessee could change the use of that land‑‑and
concerned that those councils in northern
We
are pleased to see that the government is undertaking to rid any legislation of
sexist language. This bill has a number
of sections that are endeavouring to make the legislation more inclusive in
terms of gender. I think that also shows
more respect for councils which we know now could have members from both
genders involved in them. The same could
be said for a number of the lessees which would be referred to in the bill.
I
think generally we would just want to ensure that any legislation from the
government would, as the minister has indicated, merely be to make operations
in northern
I
think all of us want to see more and more local control when it comes to any
kind of decision making. We have
legislation in northern
I
think that we are going to be supporting the legislation. We want it to go to
committee. We want to see if there are
going to be members from communities in northern
I
do not know if the government has in mind, in fact, to have some of those
hearings in northern
With
that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would conclude my remarks, and we would be
prepared to have this bill go forward to committee so that we can hear from
members of the public. Thank you very
much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act.
All
those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The motion is accordingly carried.
Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 2
(The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en
voie de disparition), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 10‑The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 10
(The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), on the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 17‑The Crown Lands Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 17
(The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres
domaniales), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
* (1610)
Bill 20‑The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 20
(The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act; Loi validant un reglement
d'application de la Loi sur l'aide sociale), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the
honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 24‑The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 24
(The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les taxis et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 25‑The Public Schools Amendment Act (4)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 25
(The Public Schools Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 26‑The Expropriation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 26
(The Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 27‑The Environment Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 27
(The Environment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur
l'environnement), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 28‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 28
(The Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le
Conseil interculturel du
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 31‑The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 31
(The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'assurance‑maladie), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard), standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 32‑The Social Allowances Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 32
(The Social Allowances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), who has 19 minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Over
the months of this government's administration, we have seen them take various
steps that will eliminate supports and we have seen them cut back in a number
of programs that are very important to our young people in this province and
are particularly important to those people who are on low incomes.
We
see this government take steps that will make it more difficult for many of
these people to get off the poverty cycle that they are trapped in. It is really difficult to understand, Madam
Deputy Speaker, when you hear a government speak about the importance of
education.
I
have to say that I believe education is one of the keys to our society. We have the responsibility, as a government,
to give each and every resident the opportunity to get the best possible
education so that they can take their role in society. Not everybody will
achieve the same level of education, but we have to allow them those
opportunities and put the supports in place that will make it less difficult
for them to achieve their goals.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
The step that this government is taking is indeed a step
backward and a step that will hold people in the poverty cycle much, much
longer. I cannot quite understand when a
government talks about the value of education, why they would take this
position. To see the elimination of a
program, such as the Student Social Allowances Program, just shows that this
government is reneging on its responsibility to provide the opportunities to
everyone and, in particular, to the least fortunate in our society.
Mr.
Speaker, all people start out going to school, but many of them, through no
fault of their own and sometimes through choices they make, make a decision to
drop out of school at a very early age.
Then, after seeing that life out in the real world is not all that easy,
and they recognize the value of education, many make an effort to get back into
the school system, but there are many people who dropped out of school early
who do not have the finances to get back into school on their own.
The
Student Social Allowances Program gave many people the opportunity to get that
education, but this is a very callous move by the government to eliminate this
program. I would hope that they would
reconsider and would look at ways that they could bring back this program.
I
find it disappointing, Mr. Speaker, that this government says that they
eliminated the program because we are the only province that has such a
program. Well, it seems strange. I think we should be very proud of the fact
that we are leaders in our country, that we have opened the doors, given
opportunities to those people who want to better themselves, who want to take
their place in society, who want to get off the welfare roll, who want to take
a job, but because of unfortunate situations, they are not able to do
that. We have to give them those
supports.
For
the government to say, well, no other province has this program so we are going
to eliminate ours is indeed a very short‑sighted, narrow view and does
nothing to improve our credibility. It
does nothing to help our young people and our young adults to take their place.
I
think that government has to recognize, just as young people recognize that
along the way they did make a mistake by dropping out of school, but because
they want to get back into the system and carry their fair share of the load
that we should be there to support them, because, Mr. Speaker, this is going to
in the long run cost the government much more money.
We
are going to see people staying on social assistance for many, many years
rather than upgrading themselves and taking on a job, contributing their fair
share through income tax in this province, offering their skills. In the long run, by keeping them on welfare,
as this government seems to be wanting to do because that is the only place
they are willing to increase spending, rather than increasing their spending in
job creation and in educational opportunities for people who want to upgrade
their education, I think their focus is wrong.
That is the opinion of many people in rural
Some
of these members should get out into the rural community and listen to what the
impacts of this program are. We hear the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) saying, well, there are many other
assistance programs that are available to people out there. I have a constituent in my area who dropped
out of school, who is trying now to finish off her Grade 11 this year. She is
on the Student Social Allowances Program‑‑or was up to this
year. She has no other sources of
revenue. She has been told to go onto
municipal assistance. Well,
unfortunately she will qualify for municipal assistance, but she will not be
able to go to school because she has to be available for work.
People
are also told, and we heard this in Estimates, that students can go to night
school. Again, that indicates how this
government, this Minister of Education and other ministers have a lack of
understanding of rural
So
what are the opportunities for these people?
The only opportunity for them is to stay on welfare. There are no supports there. Also, Mr. Speaker, this government has taken
away many of the other supports. They
took away the high school student bursary program. They cut back on ACCESS. Very few people can get ACCESS supports right
now.
There
is a complete lack of understanding or a complete lack of will to allow those people
who have had the misfortune of dropping out of school early to take on‑‑government
feels they have no responsibility to help these people. It is indeed shameful that they would
consider that we would be eliminating a program just because other provinces do
not have such a program.
Mr.
Speaker, some of these members should get out into those communities where
there are no jobs. In many cases there
are no jobs because of action by this government. There are no jobs because this government has
broken their promises, and I think particularly of my constituency. There will be more poverty in the rural
community because of issues that this government supports, particularly in the
agricultural industry. They are
supporting policies of the federal government which will reduce farm incomes
and reduce services in the rural community.
We are going to end up with more people on social assistance. We are going to end up with more rural
families who cannot send their children to universities, or young people who
cannot.
* (1620)
The
minister, in one of his statements, said that these young people should go
home. Well, I think that again he has to
recognize that there are many young people who cannot go back home. They have ended up on social assistance at a
very early age. They have dropped out of
school because they could not get along with their families. They do not have the support of their
families.
And
the audacity to say that these people should go back home, either to an abusive
situation or other difficult situations, again shows the lack of understanding
of this government when it comes to recognizing the needs of young people and
when it comes to recognizing the value of education.
We
are heading towards a two‑tier system very quickly under this
government's administration where those who are wealthy will have every
opportunity to get an education. If they
drop out of school they will have the resources to get back in. If they want to go to university, they will
have the resources. But unfortunately in
our society, all people do not have that opportunity. This government, by removing the social
assistance program, has reduced that opportunity even more.
I
wish that they would give serious consideration‑‑
An Honourable Member: Okay, Rosann.
We will.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just as the minister across the way said that
they will give serious consideration to this, then I wish that they would give
serious consideration to other matters that rural Manitobans are raising to
them, but are raising it on a deaf ear.
Members of government across the way are not recognizing the concerns
that rural Manitobans are raising and there are many of those in my
constituency.
Mr.
Speaker, as I had indicated earlier, this government is supporting many issues
that are causing stress in rural communities, issues that will make it more
difficult for young people and young adults who are supporting a family, young
adults who are forced out of farming and must now get an education to look for
a different career, but the supports are not there to help them because this
government is pulling back on its supports.
There
are farm organizations and the Women's Institute have recognized that the
stress that the family, farm families and rural families are under because of
lack of action by this government. They
recognize the difficulties and poor services in rural communities. They have called on this government to
support putting in a stress line in rural
Mr.
Speaker, education is the key to opportunity in this province and it is time
that this government recognized that they have to put aside their rhetoric of
not being able to afford. They have to put aside that everybody must share the
pain because, by the actions of this government, those people at the lower end
of the income scale are the ones that are carrying a much greater portion of
the pain.
Action
that this government is taking is doing nothing to help those people get off
the poverty cycle so that they can contribute to the economy, and also lessen
the amount of burden that they are carrying.
The majority of these people want to work. They want jobs. They recognize that they need a better
education to improve their status, to be able to access many of these
jobs. But this government is not taking
action on that and I find that difficult to understand.
I
think that this government has to look at the other things that they are
doing. One of the concerns I have is the
removal of the Children's Dental plan.
This is one of the very serious mistakes that this government has made.
They
remove supports for families and then they take away a program. They have taken a program away that brought
some equality to rural Manitobans, but instead they say again that they take
this program away because rural Manitobans have an unfair advantage. What a foolish statement. We have long known that rural Manitobans do
not have any advantages. Our children
have less advantage in the education system, and because this government is
moving so slowly on Distance Education and first‑year university
education, they are widening that gap and putting rural Manitobans at a further
disadvantage. They are not offering
those opportunities.
Here
we have one program that is giving rural Manitobans a bit of an advantage. They are giving them the opportunity to have
healthy teeth, something that fits in with the Health Reform program, but they
pull that away, too.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe that this government has very much of an
understanding. They have no
understanding of rural
I
think that they have to recognize that a basic education is a right of all
people, and they have the responsibility to provide those opportunities for a
basic education. As a result of this, we
are going to see the amount of social assistance this government is paying
increasing.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order regarding
decorum in the House, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is
pretending to shoot an imaginary gun at our members. We find this quite offensive. He has done it on a number of occasions in
the past, and we would like you to ask him to desist and not do this
anymore. I think it is inappropriate and
offensive. This government has spoken
many times on the issue of nonviolence, and we think that it would be
consistent he should refrain from these actions.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the Point of Order raised, I did not see
what‑‑oh, okay, the honourable Minister of Natural Resources to
help clarify the Point of Order.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): On the same Point of
Order, I want to make it very plain that I was in no way doing what was being
described by the honourable member. Advancing age has caused some arthritic
problems in my elbow and from time to time I have to extend it rather
rapidly. That may connotate something to
honourable members opposite, but you, Sir, will have an understanding about
what happens to us as we get on in years.
I just want to put on the record that was in fact the case, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable minister
for his explanation. Therefore, I
believe the honourable member does not have a Point of Order.
* *
*
* (1630)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this is not a very long bill,
but just by introducing a very short bill, this government has taken away and left
hundreds of students who want to improve their education, students who were
enrolled in schools, students who have started to finish off their high school
diplomas. This government, by this
legislation, is leaving them high and dry. They are taking away all hope for
young people.
Now,
we look at the amount of violence that we have in our communities. Of course, what are these young people going
to turn to? They have no hope, and this
government is causing them to have less and less hope. There are no job opportunities. Those who
want to go back to school are having that opportunity taken away from
them. They are told to go back home and
get the supports of their families, when we know that many of these children do
not have homes to go to. They do not.
There
are many members across the way who apparently do not understand that there are
young people who do not have families to return to. Some of us are very lucky that we have the
supports of our family, but when we do not have the supports of family, we have
a responsibility as government, as a province, to help these people.
This
government has failed in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, they have failed in many respects when it comes to dealing
with people and particularly in the rural community. I am surprised that a caucus with as many
rural members as we have across the way would not have an understanding of the
difficulties that the rural communities are facing and pull away a program like
this that is used by many people, not only in the urban centres but all of the
rural centres as well.
Also,
Mr. Speaker, this government would not have recognized the value of the
Children's Dental Program in rural
Mr.
Speaker, the member across the way wants to know if we want to pay more
taxes. The point is that we have a
responsibility, and we have to share.
Many of those people, if they had the opportunity to get the education
and started to take jobs, would also be able to‑‑if more people
were working, they would be sharing the tax load. If we had more jobs, we would have more
people paying tax, and the load would be distributed. But this government does
not believe in getting more people to work.
They
would rather have them stay in poverty where they can have control over
people. That is really what they want,
and that is why they are pulling this legislation. The minister talks about sales tax. They have increased sales tax, because they
have spread it over a wider base, and this is having a more serious impact on
those people on lower incomes. But this
minister does not care. He would rather
have those people stay on the poverty cycle where they will not speak up for
them, and we will continue to speak up for those people who want to work, who
want to improve their education and pay their fair share in society. This government does not care. They would rather keep people on
welfare. They do not want to do anything
about jobs, and that is why we will oppose this legislation, Mr. Speaker,
because this government does not understand.
They do not understand poor people.
They do not understand the concerns of people.
In
other provinces, they are looking at helping their students. Just as with the Children's Dental Health
Program, they say
Thank
you very much.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak
on The Social Allowances Amendment Act which, as the member for
I
would like to begin by talking about the importance of education. Today I went to a graduation ceremony at
However,
we have a problem, and that is that this government is unwilling to back up all
those nice words and thoughts about the importance of education with their
action, because what they are doing is denying an education to a significant
group of people for whom there are many barriers to getting a good
education. We know that education is
valuable in broadening people's minds and making them see the world better and
better able to analyze the world and events that go on. The best way to do this, that we know of, is
through our educational system, although I would have to say that there are
many different ways of learning, and that we should not confine how we learn to
the formal education system.
Mr.
Speaker will be interested to hear that at one time I was a student chaplain in
a provincial jail, and they used to put us in the dormitory with about 40
inmates and lock the door behind us, and we would spend a couple of hours going
from bed to bed talking to inmates. One
day I went up to a couple of young fellows who were sitting reading a book, and
I said, what book are you reading? It
happened to be a book of philosophy by Jean Paul Sartre. I said, what page are you on? They said, we are on page 2. I said, well, how long have you been reading
it? They said, well, for a couple of
days. I said, oh, well, how are you
reading it? How are you studying this
book? They said, well, what we do is we
read one sentence and then we discuss it and see if we can understand it, and
when we agree on what it means, then we read the next sentence.
Now,
that, I believe, is an excellent way of learning, and it was peer
learning. They were learning from each
other. There was no teacher. Those people probably had very low
educational levels, but they were learning and studying and bettering
themselves in a jail, and I commend them for it. It was quite a wonderful thing to see.
So
you do not have to confine yourself to a formal educational institution in
order to study or in order to learn or in order to better yourself. However, when you go out into the work world
employers want to see a piece of paper.
They want to know what your educational attainment is, what your
qualifications are. Certainly in this
day and age, Grade 12 is really an absolute minimum for almost any kind of
employment that you can get except of course for low‑paying jobs in
service industries like fast‑food restaurants who do not really care what
your level of education is.
I
would say that really Grade 12 is not very adequate for getting any kind of job
that pays above minimum wage and that really we should be encouraging every
possible student who is capable to get post‑secondary education, whether
that is at Red River College or a business college or at university or any kind
of post‑secondary institution, that 100 percent of students who graduate
from high school, who are capable of getting post‑secondary education
should be there, should be getting that additional education for employment.
We
know, of course, that there is a very close correlation between levels of
education and income and that the more education people have, generally
speaking, the higher their income. So
eventually there is a payoff.
Now,
sometimes people go into debt to get an education, and usually people from
middle‑class families and upper‑class families are willing to do
that. They are willing to see their sons
and daughters or individuals themselves are willing to accumulate $10,000 or
$15,000 worth of debt, possibly more, in order to get an education, because
they realize that it is an investment and that when they graduate they will be
able to pay off that debt.
Now,
this is becoming increasingly difficult, and many students are unwilling to do
that because the jobs that used to be there almost automatically when you
graduated from university, which was the case when I graduated, just are not
there. In fact, I remember when I
graduated from
Still,
I think what I am saying still stands, and it is still reasonable that
education is the key to employment.
Now
why is this government repealing sections of The Social Allowances Act. Well, they have given, the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has given a number of reasons, because certainly we
went over and over this in Family Services Estimates.
One
of the rationales, which I thought was a very, very poor excuse for the
Minister of Family Services to give, was that Manitoba is the only province in
Canada that has a Student Social Allowances Program, and I think that is an
absolutely ridiculous reason to repeal a program. If you are the only province and it works and
it is a good program, you should be proud that you have it, and you should be
ashamed that you are taking it away.
They should be a leader. They
should be encouraging other provinces to institute something like the Student
Social Allowances Program.
Now,
we have been doing research on this and found out that it is not true, and one
of these days we are going to raise this in the House and point out which other
provinces actually do provide a similar kind of program and ask the minister to
retract his remarks.
* (1640)
The
other reasons the minister gives for cutting any kind of program are, of
course, fiscal reasons, that we cannot afford it, and therefore we have to drop
this program. Well, I think that reason
is also misleading. I mean, we
understand the budgetary limitations of this government, but this government
makes choices, and we think in this case they made the wrong choice. What they
failed to recognize, first of all, is that education is an investment, an
investment in young people's future. I
would say it is an investment that pays off in the present. I believe it is better to have students going
to school than to have these same young people sitting at home and on social
assistance, because we know that the jobs are not there.
They
are also going to have to pay out money in any case. In fact, I understand that it costs $30 a
month less to have students in the Student Social Allowances Program than to
have them on welfare. So how are they
saving money? If, as they allege, they
cannot afford this program and they want to save money, why are they doing
it? The only reason that is plausible is
that they are offloading some of this expense to the City of
I
wish that the minister would just be honest and admit that that is the reason,
that they are offloading this program or these students, not to the City of
Winnipeg to pay for their education but for the City of Winnipeg, because that
is where most of them are‑‑to sit on social allowance and let the
city pick up 20 percent of the cost.
Many
members opposite were city councillors in the city of
He
knows that the province shares and pays for 50 percent of welfare and that the
federal government shares the other 50 percent under the Canada Assistance
Plan, but that people on municipal assistance, the municipality pays 20
percent. So the government is saving
some money by offloading this expense to the City of
I
would like to talk about the importance of the Student Social Allowances
Program. We know that approximately a
thousand students‑‑I do not have the exact figures with me‑‑take
advantage of this program. Many of these
students are young people who have been out of school and have gone back to
school. I think that is very commendable
because it is very difficult to go back to school if you have been out of
school even for a year, or two or three years.
It is even harder to go back to school and to sit in classes with
students who are much younger than you are.
So
it takes a lot of a courage and a lot of initiative for these young people to
go back. I would suggest that they make
better students because they are better motivated. I am told by teachers that I have spoken to
that these students are better motivated and they want to finish their high
school more quickly, that they want to take as many courses as they can, as
quickly as they can and graduate from high school.
At
one school in the inner city,
What
is this government doing? It is
discouraging them from going back to school, because there are limitations when
you are on municipal assistance, and the government and the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) well know this.
He knows that when you are on municipal assistance, you are deemed
employable and you must do at least two things.
You must be looking for work, and you must available for work.
If
you are in school all day, you are not available for work. You cannot possibly be going to school full
time and be available for work. So there
are stipulations that say you can only take two courses at a time if you are on
municipal social assistance in the city of
The
City of
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Where are you going to
get the money from, Doug? Who are you
going to take it from?
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Northern Affairs asks, where
am I going to get the money? Well, if
this government would stop giving handouts to their corporate friends, there
would be money for the Student Social Allowances Program. I would also say that this is one of the
least expensive programs. We are only
talking about a thousand students here.
We are not talking about a huge budgetary expense.
An Honourable Member: Stop training cashiers for golf courses.
Mr. Martindale: This government has money to train cashiers
for golf courses, but they do not have money for students to stay in
school. This government always talks
about choices. This government talks
about choices and having to make difficult choices. If there is a choice between training
cashiers for mostly profit golf courses and keeping students in school, they
should have chosen to keep the students in school and let the golf courses be responsible
for training their own cashiers.
An Honourable Member: What have you got against cashiers?
Mr. Martindale: I have absolutely nothing against cashiers,
but let their employers train them at their own expense and keep the students
in school.
Perhaps
this government could collect their mortgage payments from Arni
Thorsteinson. Then they would have some
money to spend on education.
An Honourable Member: Bail‑out‑Arni bill.
Mr. Martindale: Yes, we have a bill on the Order Paper
now. It is being known as the bail‑out‑Arni
bill.
An Honourable Member: Lucky Arni.
Mr. Martindale: Lucky Arni.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Blackjack, why do you
not spend your time reading sermons of grace and moral ethics instead of the
garbage that you give us in here?
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Health would like to talk
about ethics. I would challenge the
Minister of Health to get up and give his own speech on this bill and talk
about ethics.
Well,
I think the minister raises an important issue.
Ethics are important. It would be
interesting to know how this minister would define this issue in terms of an
ethical issue. What is right and what is
wrong? What is the moral good? I would be very interested in hearing the
minister's sermon on this topic.
I
believe that one of the saddest things about this bill is that it is consistent
with the cutbacks of this government, because the cutbacks of this government
are targeted at the poor and women and children and aboriginal people. Most of them live in NDP constituencies, so
this government thinks that they can do that with impunity and get away with
it.
An Honourable Member: That is imputing motives.
Mr. Martindale: I would not like to impute motives, however I
had someone phone me whose friend worked for a polling company. This person was
not willing to talk to me because she was afraid she would lose her job, but
she said that she was working for a polling company and one of the questions
they asked was: If the government has to
reduce their deficit, if they have to cut expenditures, which of the following
organizations could be cut? I believe that is a very cynical way for this
government to make budgetary decisions, to hire a polling company and not admit
it and ask people where they should cut.
I
do not think that has anything to do with what a proper role should be for
making budgetary decisions. I think
there are many, many other ways that you can weigh the pros and cons of
programs and weigh whether or not the government can afford a certain program
or service or not, but to do it on the basis of polling, which of course would
be done on the basis of constituency, I believe is an extremely cynical way of
drafting a budget. It is unfortunate the
government will not even admit it.
If
you look at the kinds of cuts, for example, Child and Family Services, where
are the majority of families who are involved with Child and Family
Services? Well, they happen to be in the
inner city of
But
this government does not really seem to understand or get the connection
between child care policy and employment, because the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), for example, has decreased the number of weeks
that a parent can be searching for work and have their children in child care
from eight weeks to two. When I asked
the minister in Estimates if he did any studies or any research on that, the
minister as usual was involved in his usual bafflegab, would not answer the
question.
* (1650)
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I can show you the Minister of Family
Services' answers, and his answers to that question were nothing but
bafflegab. He would not admit that his
staff had not done any research, had not done any studies on the number of
weeks that people look for work.
Our
research staff got in touch with Canada Employment and we got statistics. How long is the average person on
unemployment insurance in
How
many people in
I
can understand that, because this government does not believe in child care
anyway. Many of the ministers in cabinet
do not believe in it, and we know that because daycare centre directors are
meeting with the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) and the member for Pembina
(Mr. Orchard), and we hear what they say in these meetings. They phone us, and they tell us what these
cabinet ministers are saying in those meetings.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, on a Point of Order, I believe
it is incumbent on all members of the House to speak the truth, and it must be
more incumbent on members of the House who happen to be members of the clergy
to speak the truth. I would ask you to
bring the member to task.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the Point of Order raised, I can honestly
say that I did not hear the remarks the honourable minister is referring to at
this point in time, and I will review‑‑I will peruse Hansard and I
will come back to the House with a ruling.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have already advised the House that I will
peruse Hansard and come back with a ruling.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health seems to
be quite offended and thin‑skinned.
I am a little surprised at that, but I would be happy to paraphrase.
I
would be happy to paraphrase my remarks and instead say that this government
lacks in a serious commitment to child care, which is slightly different, I
admit that. The proof is in their
policies, in their cutbacks, in their capping the system and increasing the
fees from $1 a day to $2.40 a day. The
result of these policies are that numerous children are not going to be in
child care. I think that really reflects
a lack of commitment to child care on the part of this government, some of
whose ministers do not believe in child care at all, but they would never say
that on the record. They are willing to
admit it when they need with parents from their constituencies.
An Honourable Member: Put it on the record.
Mr. Martindale: What?
An Honourable Member: Put it on the record, 53 million. Come on.
Then I will read your speech.
Mr. Martindale: Fifty‑three million what?
An Honourable Member: That is what we spent.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the organizations that this
government has cut the budget to, most of whom are service organizations, are in
our constituencies and this government used the excuse that they were advocacy
organizations in spite of the fact many of them provide valuable services.
I
think if you look at those organizations, the ones that we spoke about in the House,
we certainly did not defend all 56. We
certainly talked about the 13 Indian and Metis Friendship Centres whose funding
was eliminated by this government, all of whom are providing services to their
people, to the Manitoba Child Care Association, the
I
think those were the main ones that we raised in Question Period and in
Estimates. If the government says, well,
look, we withdrew the funding to the Manitoba Association of School
Superintendents, do you agree with that, I would have to say that they probably
should be self‑financing. Nobody
here defended the school superintendents because their grant was
withdrawn. It was the organizations that
serve low‑income people, and they were providing a valuable service to
their community. Those were the
organizations that we objected to having their funding eliminated, and this
government chose to call them advocacy organizations.
If
this government had a plan and if this government could get the economy going
again, which apparently they cannot do, then their income tax revenue would be
up, but instead this government does the opposite. What they do is they cut every department but
they raise one, Family Services, one part of that budget, the welfare budget.
The
only increase of this government's budget was the welfare budget and they had
to. They were forced to budget millions
and millions of dollars more for welfare in spite of the fact that they could
have had students in school instead of on welfare, but because of this Bill 32,
The Social Allowances Amendment Act, they are going to be spending money on
welfare instead of on keeping students in school.
I
cannot think of anything that is more stupid than that. This is one of the
stupidest decisions of this government's entire budget for 1993 and 1994. In fact, the
Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) wants to say, we are not
denying them the right to go to school. This government is putting a severe
restriction on their right to go to school because the City of
I
was talking to a young man named Larry Walton last night. It is going to take
him eight years to finish high school.
He is going to be 26 years old by the time he finishes high school if he
can only take two courses a year. That
is the kind of restriction that this government is putting on young people.
This
government has a choice. Whether you pay
to have the student in school or you pay to have him on welfare, your
government would rather pay people to collect welfare and sit at home doing
nothing than pay them to go to school‑‑
An Honourable Member: What government helped you get your
education, Doug?
Mr. Martindale: The government of
But
this government had a choice. They could
spend money to keep students in school or spend money to have students sitting
at home, not students any more, but welfare recipients, and they would rather
pay them to stay home and collect welfare.
I cannot think of any choice that this government had to make in their
budget that was stupider‑‑
An Honourable Member: Did you pay your debt back to
Mr. Martindale: I had no debt when I graduated from
university. I had no student loans.
Well, here is an interesting story.
The members opposite will find this interesting. After I failed a year of university, my
parents cut me off, the
The
reality is many students cannot do that, and we are talking about a very
different country and a very different economy today where the jobs are not
there to put everybody through school.
Many of them are minimum wage.
Many of them pay terrible wages and‑‑
An Honourable Member: Yes, there are. There are jobs. Look in the want ads.
Mr. Martindale: Yes, this minister thinks that people can live
and pay the rent and their food and go to school at the same time, and it is
absolutely impossible for the majority to do that.
But
this government lives in a different reality.
They are in a different world.
They do not understand these things.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will have 14 minutes‑‑13
minutes remaining. Okay, 13 minutes
remaining.
Order,
please.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, House
business. With leave of the House, I
would like to call a Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs to meet Friday,
June 25, at 11 a.m. in Room 255 to consider Bill 38 and Bill 5.
Mr.
Speaker, remove that, strike that off the record and let us put Bill 5 with Law
Amendments, Thursday night, Standing Committee on Law Amendments that is
sitting Thursday night, tomorrow night.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 36‑Renewal of Core Area Initiative
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry),
WHEREAS
Phase II of the Core Area Initiative Program has wound down without new funding
commitments; and
WHEREAS
the first two phases of Core began the process of revitalizing
WHEREAS
the Core Area Initiative contributed to significant advances in training
residents of
WHEREAS
such training of individuals is the key to building a
WHEREAS
further work must be done to solidify the advances made in the first two phases
of the program; and
WHEREAS
among the inner cities of five comparably sized Canadian cities,
WHEREAS
55 percent of
WHEREAS
any improvement is contingent on continued emphasis on the social and economic
needs of the community; and
WHEREAS
programs which have received widest appreciation and support from residents are
those related to meeting their special needs for support services, education,
training, housing and neighbourhood improvements.
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of
Motion presented.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to sponsor this
resolution which deals with renewal of the Core Area Initiative. As I know that
we are all aware, in the 1960s and '70s in the city of
Although
it is over 10 years ago now, Mr. Speaker, on May 29, 1980, representatives of
These
particular projects, the specific intent of them was that they would revitalize
the inner city in Winnipeg, so that in fact we would see basically better
economic opportunities for the residents of the inner city, we would see some
improvements in regard to some of the structures within the inner city, and
that we would see some development of some social services and some support
programs which would lead to a better quality of life for residents within the
inner city.
That
was considered to be the Core Area Initiative Program begun in the 1980s and
was called Core Area I. Again, there was
agreement of the three levels of government that this program would proceed.
The
second phased Core Area was another negotiated program with the three levels of
government, and that process began after the first five years. Its job was again to continue on with the
similar goals that Core Area I had dealt with to look at revitalizing the inner
city.
What
this resolution is today, Mr. Speaker, is to basically encourage the government
of Manitoba‑‑and I know that there has been some discussions with
the federal government and the City of
Mr.
Speaker, as we look at the city of
When
you look at the high school dropout rate of children living in the inner city
and you compare that dropout rate to the dropout rate in the suburbs of the
city of
When
you look at the crime rate within District 1, within that part of the city,
certainly break‑and‑enters are the highest. You see a number of the crimes much higher in
that part of the city.
There
is no question, Mr. Speaker, that the inner city‑‑that we have seen
some positive changes over the last number of years, whether those changes have
been in the areas of Business Improvement Zones‑‑we have seen the
Exchange District; we have seen some improvements in that area. We have seen some programs and services that
have been developed over the last number of years to basically assist with
young people within the inner city, but since Core Area, the Phase II, has
completed, some of those programs and services have been dropped.
I
think it is very unfortunate that we have not seen a continuation of the three
levels of government feeling that they should be concerned about what goes on
in our inner cities across this country, and certainly in this case we are
talking about the city of
When
we look at the Core Area Program and some of the projects that were there, Mr.
Speaker, I think as I mention some of them, it will give you an idea and give
this Legislature an idea of the types of worthwhile projects that were
developed in some of the support services that were put in place. One of the programs, of course, was the SKY
program, Street Kids and Youth. It was a pilot project that allowed for
outreach and advocacy, counselling and employment‑related services for
the high‑risk youth in the downtown area.
Certainly,
when we look at that particular example, you cannot really go a week in this
city without reading through the paper and at least seeing one article or one
story about some of the youth problems in our city of
In
fact, it was this particular pilot project, SKY, that was there to specifically
look at what could be done with the youths who were hanging around the downtown
areas, who were oftentimes causing problems, what could be done with them to
give them some support, some advocacy, and this is done, of course, in co‑operation
with a number of organizations in
As
well, there are a number of summer recreation projects, Mr. Speaker, that were
funded with the assistance of Core Area dollars. These are very important as well, because in
the summertime, when schools are closed, what oftentimes families in the inner
city‑‑they do not have the resources. They are not out at the cottages at the
lake. They do not have those resources,
so they are basically in the city throughout the summer. There needs to be developed recreational and
support services for children. This is
where the Core Area Initiative Phases I and II were very helpful in this
respect.
* (1710)
I
think, when you talk to people who work within the inner city, whether they are
school teachers, principals of schools, whether they are individuals who work
through the Social Planning Council, work at the child‑care centres
downtown, work through the local churches in the downtown area, whether they
are leaders of the various ethnic organizations who oftentimes have some of
their community centres within the inner city, whenever you talk to a number of
these groups, you will find that they are supportive of the fact that we do
need a number of social services, a number of programs that are developed
specifically in the inner city.
Of
course, I think what has to be kept clear with something like the Core Area
Initiative and the fact that we should be renegotiating for a third Core Area
is that we want to look at projects that will be long term, that they can be
sustaining projects perhaps on their own, but there is no question that there
were criticisms of the Core Area I, there were criticisms of Core Area II. Of course, we need to look at modifications.
We need to look at some changes so that in fact we would be getting the best
value for our dollar.
But
I think it is very important that we need to look at a Core Area Initiative
because what is going to happen over the next five years with the downtown
area? We have the City of
The
question is, how do we encourage the Government of Canada to agree that in fact
a Core Area III is vitally important for a city such as Winnipeg, and how do we
convince the Government of Canada that in fact it would be a good investment of
their dollars to be involved in this type of a project? In this type of a Core Area III, we would want
to see an emphasis on job training and certainly retraining in these times of
economic difficulties, where we are seeing people being laid off from all types
of businesses and services. It is going
to be so critically important that we have specific retraining programs that
are available. It is very, very
important that we ensure that we have an excellent education system within the
inner city, within the core area, that in fact specifically meets the needs of
the students, of the children who are attending those schools.
Certainly
we know that our education system right now within the
That
is where programs in a Core Area III would be very worthwhile, that could be
organized, could be developed to assist the education system, to assist the
schools in developing some specific social services.
We
have also seen over the last year or so really a change in how the social
services are delivered through the
We
have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) today in the House who mentioned how
the domestic abuse cases had doubled over the last year or so. Now there are over 3,000 cases that have come
forward that are domestic abuse cases that have come to the courts' attention.
If
that is the case, and we have no reason to not believe those statistics, then
that means that the cases and the workload of social service agencies in
general, whether they are Child and Family Services, whether they are nonprofit
groups and organizations in the inner city or wherever in
There
is no question that those workloads have gone up, and yet we are seeing where
the Child and Family Services agencies, as an example, are pulling back. They are not working as many days. They are now reprioritizing the children that
they are dealing with. Now the older
children, age 16 and over, are not necessarily getting those support services.
So
if we are starting to see this type of pulling back of services which affects
all of the province‑‑but it certainly affects and impacts probably
even more on the inner city. If we are
starting to see that, it is going to be even more important that we have a
series, a continuum of social services that are available to ensure that we are
going to see some positive changes in the inner city.
We
want to see the dropout rates decreased.
We want to see children educated in the school system. We want to ensure that those kids that are
going to school are nourished and that there are programs for them. We want to be assured that the youth who are
finished high school have opportunities to go into a vocational program or have
opportunities for jobs. We want to
ensure that those families that are living in the inner city and where the
husband or the wife becomes unemployed, that there are opportunities there for
retraining.
These
are some of the programs and services where there could be an emphasis in a
Core Area III. It is a responsibility,
not just of the
Mr.
Speaker, as I sum up, I know that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) has
talked about some negotiations. I would
urge him again to continue to negotiate and to try to seek some assurances from
the federal government that in fact they are prepared to look at a Core Area
III Initiative. It is vitally important
to the citizens of the city of
It
is important that we encourage this government not just to say yes, we support
this program, and we will talk to the federal government, but we want to see
some real action on the part of this government in the area of Core Area III.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): First of all, it is a
pleasure always to speak in regard to the Core Area, both I and II. I carefully listened to the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and many of the things that she is mentioning on the
record right now. Many of the things
were discussed when we discussed this particular project and the first Core
Area back in 1980 or '81 at City Hall.
I
did speak in regard to the Core Area Initiative when there was a proposal in
'92, a resolution. I spoke on it in
February of '92. I will not go back to
that particular speech but maybe add some other items that give you some
foresight into why the original Core Area was established and why the Core Area
principally was very, very successful.
However,
I would like to maybe get the point across of why it has been difficult to
renegotiate a third Core Agreement. I
would like to stay away from, and I guess it is going to be difficult, because
I always talked about Core, Core, Core through my life at City Hall and my work
with the Core Area at that time not to call it the Core III.
Just
to give some particular information, and I do not disagree with the member's
resolution, however, there are parts of it I do not agree with. I think probably it has to be mentioned at
this time that one of the most key reasons why the Core Area Agreement was
successful was that it was a third‑party agreement with equal shares of
monies, regardless of what level of government.
So when they sat at the table and discussed programs, the programs were
dealt with equally, and this was probably the hardest thing to sell at City
Hall at that time.
* (1720)
People
at City Hall would say to you, well, why would you support a program when the federal
government is only giving a third, provincial is only giving a third and you
are giving a third, where the levels of government are not equally available in
funds?
That
is probably what made this particular agreement very, very unique, and probably
very unique, and I must say, when I met with 12 or 14 countries in
Also,
the original intent of the Core Area Program was a kick‑start type of
program, not to be an ongoing type of program.
What had happened over quite a large time was that, when the first one
came out, it was a kick‑start.
Then, when it finished, all of a sudden we had these groups at City Hall
making presentations saying, hey, we can no longer operate and the pressure was
put on probably more at the City Hall level than it was at the federal, where
they could not make their presence felt, and then also there was no opportunity
at the legislative level to make their wants, so they came to Executive Policy
Committee, they came to Finance Committee and expressed their concerns about,
what are they going to do now, they no longer have these monies to operate and
they have been doing it for five years.
When
II was arranged, it was suggested that a different type of program and a
different way of accumulating the monies come through. Also, the reminder, there were also different
assurances put in that maybe there was a fund set up to help these people at
the end of the Core Area Program.
Then,
when I was minister and I suggested to the federal government to wind down and
take a year to wind down, that was the reason why I suggested we extend it for
a further period, use up the monies and take our time to wind down that last
year so you would not experience what you did in the first Core Area Agreement.
A
little bit of history was put into the record by the member for
Crescentwood. However, she failed to
mention, and I guess she maybe just did not have enough time, because I know I
am going to run out of time. I think the
original intent and the people that were at the table was the Sterling Lyon
government. The
An Honourable Member: I did not mention Lloyd Axworthy.
Mr. Ducharme: The member across the way said she did not
mention Axworthy. I will mention
Axworthy. I mean, give credit where
credit is due. Mr. Axworthy also was one
of the prime people at that particular table and, along with the city
government, established the first Core Area Program.
Mr.
Speaker, also down the road maybe I will mention some of the people who were
responsible for The Forks and the other programs in the second Core Area
Agreement‑‑Mr. Epp and Mr. Mazankowski, who probably were the
people, not Mr. Axworthy, who got The Forks program going along with Mr. Norrie
at City Hall level. So I will give
credit where it is due. I had no problem
once I was able to sell it at City Hall along with my colleagues. A lot of us had our doubts about the original
Core Area Program.
When
we looked at the Core Area Program, we were a little concerned in regard to
once it got to City Hall, and once it got to the federal government, and once
it got to the provincial government, that people would take sections out of the
project funding when we allocated monies, that they would use those monies and
shake it around a bit. However, that is
the reason why you ended up with your P.A.s that were established, and then
also the City Hall had the final say in when you did move, and those
shareholders did move the money over.
We
must mention though at the time of‑‑and the member mentions
employment. She mentions different
events, different things that went on as a result of the Core Area. We can go on in regard to the‑‑people
can go through the stats report book that was established and finalized on
December 31, '91. You can go through,
and people can talk about the good programs.
They can talk about the entrepreneurial programs that were established
that included many, many businesses that started up.
There
was a grant to start up small businesses within the core area, repayable
funding. There was also a business
established that did not have to have any repayable funding. There was a large
investment in that program. I remember
attending the first graduation class of that particular program, and you could
see people from the many, many walks of life who wanted to, who saw finally in
there their opportunity to establish a small business, the same as I was given
that opportunity in 1959, or almost over 30 years ago at a very young age was
able to establish a small business.
For
me, it felt that these people finally had a chance, no matter what it was. You had people that would start baby products
out of their homes, people making cakes, fashion‑‑that was their
idea, that was their dream. Sure, a lot
of them were not successful, but it gave them an opportunity to establish the
small business that some of us had the good fortune to do with not a lot of
money at hand.
When
you saw the light in their eyes when they came up, boy, they were on their
own. They were now going to be the
business of tomorrow. It was really a
nice feeling to see these people from the core area come up and say that they
completed their first phase, and they were now going to start a business on
their own. Those are the parts that I
remember mostly of the Core. When she talks about employment and training, you
can go and you can talk about the employment training of the second Core. That was the training program that I know we
put through, people participated in the base.
We put through some 2,200 people, and I think the total program
altogether was in the vicinity of around $11 million or $12 million. The people that were involved were from many,
many aspects. Sure, there were stumbling
blocks. There were the aboriginal people
who took the police program. You would
see them come and graduate, and then also they would have a stumbling block at
City Hall that finally, I think, at least started to be resolved that you did
not have to be blonde and blue eyed to join the Winnipeg Police Department.
These are things that came out of that employment and training.
You
can go on and on with many, many things that were established as a result of
that. You saw the groups, when they came
forward, would each have their own valedictorian that would speak on behalf of
the class. I was told that, and
introduced to a lot of them, when they started the program, they did not have
the command of the English language, they had the command of their own
language. However, it gave them that
opportunity to come forward and participate with others who had similar
problems. They finally had an
opportunity. The banks took them on,
large companies took them on, small companies took them on. Many consultant
firms took them on, and they found it was a really good way to involve the
people in the Core Area Program.
I
can only briefly talk about the Core Area Program, and probably some people I
know on the other side of the House would remark about some of the flaws of
it. They would also knock you for some
of the things that you did introduce.
There were things that we could not get introduced. Probably not all the colleagues on this side
of the House would be in support of everything that you introduced in the Core,
but it was a great learning experience.
It was probably six years or 10 years, I would say, in ups and
downs. I know that when you sit down,
some of the things that were established back in 1980 or '81 are no longer in
the picture, no longer in the picture at all.
There
were many, many projects involved in housing.
The grant program that was introduced was a great stimulus in the core
area. It also had its disadvantages when
all of a sudden you released these monies overnight and then all of a sudden
people went out in the buying of houses in the core area and, whoop, up went
the market value of their houses. It
made it unfortunate for those people that were in the core, wanted to buy in
the core, they were ready to put their 5 percent down on the house, get their
government help in repairing the house and then, boom, the price of the house
went up $10,000 overnight.
* (1730)
So
those were some of those difficulties that you went into. I know the last one
that we introduced ate up the monies within six weeks. I think we accepted 200 or 300 people
involved in it, and we could have probably doubled that, but unfortunately it
was at the end of the Core Area Agreement and those monies were used up.
Another
program, the result of it is now being very, very talked about, is Habitat for
Humanity. Habitat is probably world
renowned. When I was Housing minister,
we talked to President Carter, when he was around working in
I
would like to go on and on and on, but I have a resolution that I would like to
introduce. I move, seconded by the
member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh),
THAT
Resolution 36 be amended by deleting all words following the first WHEREAS and
replacing them with the following:
The
Core Area Initiative Agreements I and II provided major support to vulnerable
families and communities during the last 10 years; and
WHEREAS
federal resources are vital in the renewal of the city of
WHEREAS
the needs of urban aboriginal people remains a priority of the
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister's amendment is in
order.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
speak to the resolution put forward by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)
and the amendment put forward by the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme).
Mr.
Speaker, it seems to me that what we have heard for the last 15 minutes from
the minister is a lot about past history and certainly not about the
future. In fact, this government, by
making the amendment that it is, is suggesting somehow that we should pass an
amendment that says that the government is doing a good job here, and that they
should be encouraged to strike a third Core Area Agreement.
The
fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this is the government of
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I
find it absolutely unbelievable that the minister could stand in his place just
before me and make a case that somehow this government was committed to Core
Area III. The fact of the matter is that
it is a joke for this government to believe, or to say that it believes, in the
continuation of the core area. I can
tell you what it does believe in; it believes in helping its federal cousins
win the next election. So what it has
done deliberately, I believe, is drag its feet along with its federal cousins. They have dragged their feet now for two
years, and what we may see is just immediately in advance of the election, we
may see something, maybe an announcement, a letter may be signed, but something
to give a bit of boost to the Tories re‑election campaign. That is all this is.
There
is no commitment on the part of Conservatives, here or in
* (1740)
The
member spent 15 minutes talking about what happened 10 years ago, and once
again, Mr. Acting Speaker, what we have seen is the situation has gotten worse
in the core. The problems are increasing
in the core. They are not diminishing at
all. While the previous programs, the
Core Area I and the Core Area II, did their small part in helping to alleviate
the problems of the core area, it was a very, very minor band‑aid
solution. The problems of the core area
are unfortunately so major that we could probably have core area initiatives
from now till the end of the century and still we would not make the dent in
the problems that we would wish to.
I
also want to make some comments about this government's approach to something
like the core area in that‑‑(interjection) The Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) is intervening at this point, but I think it is very clear that when
the Conservatives approach a program like this, they are very interested in
bricks and mortar over training programs.
There is a real edifice complex on the part of Conservative governments,
I find. They are very interested in
building monuments and monuments to themselves.
I
know that at the core area, there are nice monuments down there with the
Minister of Housing's (Mr. Ernst) name on them, the former mayor's name on
them. The Conservatives particularly
like, I find, to be seen cutting ribbons.
They are a great bunch of ribbon cutters. There is nothing a Conservative likes more
than to have his picture taken or her picture taken in the local newspaper with
a pair of scissors, clipping a ribbon, or turning a little bit of sod, and
pretending in their own mind that they have really accomplished something‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose): Order, please.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): I wonder, Mr. Acting
Speaker, if the member would subject himself to a question at this time.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that I have very
limited time as it is, and my presentation normally takes far more than 15
minutes, so I think we could wait until after.
Having
said that the Conservatives spend inordinate amounts of time dealing with
bricks‑and‑mortar kind of issues and monuments to themselves, we on
this side of the House tend to be more concerned with dealing with social
problems and the training parts of the program.
I
noticed also the political considerations that went into the Core Area I and
Core Area II. I noted that the first
Core Area, the boundaries ended up way out in
So
I wondered at the time, you know, what way out in Fort Rouge had to do with
core area, and then I often wondered, too, what parts of St. Boniface had to do
with the core area. What we saw was, we
saw a program here being diluted, because the whole idea, I thought, behind the
Core Area Initiative was concentrate the money in the area where it was most
needed, into the area of the core, not to satisfy the political aspirations and
the political desires of either Lloyd Axworthy or the Conservatives, and making
themselves feel good by drawing the boundaries out into areas that were
certainly not core area. I mean, that
was a major part‑‑(interjection) Well, the minister is talking
about Eugene Kostyra.
He,
himself, brought into the equation here the advantages of having a tripartite
agreement, that having three levels of government sit down and negotiate an
agreement was somehow going to provide the best framework. But what you see when you set up a system
like that is sort of almost like a committee.
You know, it was designed to make a camel, and it ended up making a
horse, because the federal political operatives decided that they wanted their
boundaries taken into consideration, and the provincial people decided they
wanted their boundaries taken into consideration, and the same with the
city. So what you had was this strange
configuration of what you called the core area.
I suppose that is an observation on one of the down sides.
The
lone member of the Liberal Party, the vastly diminishing, quickly diminishing
Liberal Party here, fails to remember when his stripe of government, the
Liberal Party, was in power federally and how Lloyd Axworthy had the boundaries
running halfway to the
What
I see here is basic just lip service on behalf of this government. For this government to stand up and say, and
basically reminisce‑‑it was a reminiscence. It was the member who previously spoke
standing up talking about his time on City Hall, how I built the city. He does not deal with how he was part of the
problem at City Hall, of how the urban sprawl developed under his tutelage down
there at City Hall. All the major
problems of the city expanded and increased while he was personally in charge
down there at City Hall. He and his
cohorts, the member for Charleswood (Ms. Ernst), the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce were the ones running the city into the problems that it
currently has for that whole 10 years.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Now
they come here before the Legislature, and they say, that is not my problem
anymore. It is somebody else's
problem. I did not do it. Honest, it was not me that did it.
Then,
they talk about, reminisce about their time at City Hall, those grand old days,
the good old days of City Hall.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, those may be grand old days for the member for Riel (Mr.
Ducharme), but they are not grand old days for the people in the core area, the
real core area. Those people in the real
core area are still suffering, still have problems that have to be addressed,
and this government is not addressing those problems. It is simply waiting for the federal
government to get launched into its re‑election campaign, and then for
window dressing, we will see some sort of an announcement being made.
So
I say that this is a no‑action government‑‑(interjection) I
am sorry. The member for
An Honourable Member: What are the boundaries?
Mr. Maloway: Well, the member is asking me to redraw the
boundaries. The fact of the matter is
that the federal Tories and the provincial Tories are going to decide where the
boundaries are, and the Conservatives at City Hall are going to decide where
they are, so, for all I know, they may go out to the
But
does it address the fundamental problem?
Does it address the problem of the needs of the real core area? No, it does not do that. What we saw was just a delusion of the monies
so that the impact of the monies then was not really felt.
* (1750)
I
remember driving around through the second Core and looking at some of the
areas that money was put into. I saw a
dentist's office and florist's office and whatnot being redeveloped and whatnot
by, once again, more financial assistance to private enterprise, all the stuff
that the former member for Rossmere would rail about here over the last couple
of years, about why we are giving more taxpayers' money to successful
businesses. So I do not have any problem
with us putting taxpayers' money into people who need it, into people where it
is going to do something for them. Stay
away from bricks and mortar, and building monuments and edifices to Tories so
that they can be remembered, and deal with the issues with real people.
I
was going to bring this issue up at the time when I saw all these grants being
put into areas that I thought were not necessarily appropriate. (interjection)
Well, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) asked me to put them on the record
now, and I could only go from memory here.
I had a pretty good list at the time.
I still remember driving around, touring what was supposed to be the
core area. I found myself out in St.
Boniface, and I found myself out in the west end. I found myself everywhere but the core,
looking at where all this money was going.
It was going into Lloyd Axworthy's area.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not expect a whole lot from this government. The minister also talked about the kick‑start
effect of this program, and the idea, I believe, behind it was to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): I am
pleased to rise and speak on this issue as one who has, as most of the members
in this House do, a great appreciation for the inner core of our city‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mrs. McIntosh: Pardon me?
Oh, yes, the member for
One
has only to look at The Forks and its continued development. It becomes a drawing card more and more as
each season passes. The marketplace, the
beautiful riverbank walkway with the stonework and the statues that are now
being placed there, the fact you can go down, as many do, and rent a boat and
go for a ride down the river, all of those things make use of that very special
place, the meeting place.
I
love the expression, Mr. Speaker, because it was that and it is becoming that
again. That is because of the interest
and the work of the three levels of government that care about that part of our
city.
We
have seen co‑operation in a number of areas that enhance the inner core
of our city. We have seen it in
housing. We have seen it in the desire
of people to spread the word about the middle part of our city. We know it is important that we do all we can
to make life better for the people who live in the inner core of our city.
We
have seen initiatives put in place to attempt to attract people to do business
there, to live there, to prosper there, to revitalize that part of the city and
to maintain the atmosphere and the ambiance that is part of old Winnipeg.
I
can remember, as a child, going down to the corner of Portage and Main‑‑my
grandfather worked in the big building behind the Bank of Montreal; we always
just called it the big building with the marble‑‑walking down the
sidewalk drawing my hands along the side of that building which still exists
and is part of that whole inner part of the city that is beautiful and has been
preserved and is now attracting people from other places who are impressed by
its beauty.
The
Johnston Terminal is a really good example of the kind of renovation that can
be done. For those of us who were
privileged to attend recently‑‑I think the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer) attended with me at a very special event in the Johnston Terminal a few
weeks ago, and we were most impressed with the pools, the little pool of water
outside the walkways, the restoration of the building inside. That project is really a good one. They have the hall of fame.
That
whole area is alive in the summer with festivals‑‑the Children's
Festival. You have the Fiesta Italia
down there. You have something going on
at all times. Now that the patios are
open in the summer, you have people sitting outdoors, and they are looking at
the history of Winnipeg, everything from the waterways where the native people,
the aboriginals, first came straight through to the lines along the wall that
indicate the flood levels, and the digging that is going on there in terms of
the archeology.
I
love that area and it was strange, because I think it is the way it happens
with a lot of people, Mr. Speaker. I had
not had a particular interest in The Forks.
My life was not drawn to go to that area of town, but the first time I
went, I was impressed and waited a long time to go again. Now it is a place that is frequently visited,
because there is a tremendous amount going on and because it is also continuing
in development.
That
riverway in the wintertime, we have skated it, my husband and I, from one
bridge to the other. We have walked it
on the ice, we have walked in the summer and we have gone down it by
canoe. All of those things, when we do
them, we find that we are in companionship with other people who have chosen to
do the same type of thing.
That
area before was not seen to be anything but a piece of property that had
buildings on it and industry. There is
nothing wrong with industry, I am a firm supporter of industry, but now it has
truly become a meeting place.
The
Children's Museum there is another drawing card. That type of revitalization and that type of
ability to maintain and restore the old buildings is the type of thing I think
those who care about the downtown part of
Those
types of things, Mr. Speaker, are ones I think all members in this House care
about. We do not want to see our inner
core deteriorate. We know that in order
for the inner core, the heart of the city, to be strong and viable, it takes
the support, the interest and the caring of three levels of government. It takes, first of all, the initiative of
individuals, because where individuals do not care‑‑I am talking
about individual citizens, Mrs. Jones, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brown, whoever they are,
who need to take care of the little area wherein they are. That means instilling pride in them.
We
keep talking about
Those
indications that there is pride and there is the desire by individual citizens
to opt into that pride and to grow with it are the fundamental things that need
to happen before anything else can happen.
I am delighted to know there are more and more people attending the
downtown portion of our city and beginning to develop that pride, to start to
look at the things that are there and to believe they have worth and that they
should mean something.
You
have seen communities spring to life because the citizens feel that way about
their place. I know, Mr. Speaker, with
the current minister, his having been not just a city councillor but a deputy
mayor‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable minister will have six minutes remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Thursday).