Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Newman), Bill 42 (The Norway House Cree Nation Northern Flood Master Implementation Agreement Act; Loi sur l'Accord cadre de mise en oeuvre de la nation crie de Norway House relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that I will be speaking, as will the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), and then we will be prepared to pass this bill through to committee. It is, I think, important to put on the record that throughout this process, we have supported the right of communities to determine their own destiny, and Norway House has made a very historic decision. It has been a decision that has been debated very much in the community.
We support that, and I want to put on the record that that is something that we also did in terms of Cross Lake. I hope that things will move further, Madam Speaker, because I was very concerned a few weeks ago with the lack of I believe respect shown by the government for the fact that the people of Cross Lake made their own decision. I just want to put on the record that when we had the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province suggesting that somehow a lawyer who worked for Cross Lake in that particular case was responsible for events that had transpired, or the member for The Pas, I think, he did a disservice to the people of Cross Lake. I stated that in debate on a matter of privilege.
I find it interesting that earlier today the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Newman) talked about not being paternalistic with the City of Winnipeg. I would suggest that the minister should also apply that to northern communities, and I believe it was paternalistic for the minister and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) at that point in time to attempt to speak for the people of Cross Lake. Whatever decision the people of Cross Lake take, we will support in the same way that we are supporting the decision of the people of Norway House. That is not only the democratic process, I think it is, more importantly, the bottom line when we talk about self-government.
We are not living in the 1890s in the days of the Indian agents. We are living in the 1990s, in the era, I believe, a new era for northern communities of self-government, and it is no use just repeating the words. You have to respect the reality of what self-government means, and that means the ability of First Nations, the inherent right of First Nations to be able to determine their own destiny. I say to the government, once again, lawyers and members of the Legislature and others are not the determining factor.
I know the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has been very supportive of the communities in his constituency, but all those decisions are decisions initiated by the community. The government must learn that part of self-government comes from respect. If they do not agree with the decisions that are followed by communities like Cross Lake, they should respect those decisions nonetheless and understand that if they want to have full and complete and fair negotiations, the way to achieve that is when you have respect for the people who you are negotiating with.
I say that, and I want to put on the record, as well, that I also believe that one of the outstanding issues with the Northern Flood Agreement will continue to be the issue of the modern-day treaty. This is something that was acknowledged in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. It has been an issue in each and every community that has negotiated the Northern Flood Agreement.
I say this because I believe the minister would understand this, being more directly involved with the negotiations. But we see repeatedly that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) continues not to understand the fact that one of the things essentially that has happened in many northern communities is whether they agree or not with the fact that the modern-day treaty is not a part of the settlement, it does not mean, even though the negotiations have resulted in this particular format, that it is something that is accepted by northern communities affected by flooding. Each and every one of the communities, and I can speak with some authority on this because I represent three Northern Flood communities, each one of those communities has stated very clearly that they feel, notwithstanding the agreement, their position continues to be that it be a modern-day treaty.
I say to the minister and I say to the First Minister they should understand this. They should understand that this only ends for the people of the flood communities one chapter. I say to them, the members opposite, that they should understand this, because many people in the communities, I would say, are less than enthusiastic about the settlements because of this direct omission by the government. That is not to say that they have not agreed, but it is like any negotiating process. I say this to the minister: you often have to agree to elements in a negotiating process that you do not necessarily agree to in the fullest sense of the word, but you are involved with a very difficult decision; in this case, communities were faced with many more years of having outstanding issues. I say to the minister that is why many of those communities have signed, including Norway House. It is not that they believe that this is the end of the story.
I say this because one of the issues with the Northern Flood Agreement continues to be the fact that even today we are not sure of all the impacts of the northern flood situation that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. We are not sure of all the impacts. I point to my own constituency, to Nelson House, where the fact that the flooding led to increased levels of heavy metals, contaminations of the Burntwood River. That was not determined to be a result of flooding until several years after the flooding took place.
* (1450)
I remember the Burntwood River, growing up in Thompson when it was a pristine river, when it was one of the best rivers in northern Manitoba. I have seen the impact of the flooding, the increased water flow. I have seen first hand the impact it has had on the river itself, the many areas of the bank which were flooded. I have seen the impact it has had on fishing. I have seen the impact it has had on the recreational use and also the traditional use of the Burntwood River, both by residents of Thompson and residents of Nelson House. I say to the minister that is still very much a concern in each and every flood community, including Norway House and including Cross Lake. Communities, in the case of Norway House which is in the final stage of settlement and Cross Lake which is in the position now of potential resumption of negotiations, something that we certainly welcome in this House.
With those few words, I want to indicate again we respect the decision made by the people of Norway House.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
We recognize in this House, as we debate this today, the fact that this is part of the process of resolving the horrific impacts of flooding that impacted on a community, in this case Norway House, which is probably maybe one of the most developed aboriginal communities in northern Manitoba. It continues to have a very vibrant business sector and employment sector, certainly relative to many other communities. I would still point out though that it faces unemployment. It faces needs in terms of health care and education. It faces needs particularly when it comes to road access, something that was very appropriate to raise today given the focus we put on northern transportation.
I say the good faith, if it is to be followed through on the Northern Flood Agreement, should extend to government decisions that are not part of the agreement. I say to the government it is time to make a real commitment to improving the road access to Cross Lake and Norway House, Northern Flood communities. I say it is time to make a commitment to extend the paving into Nelson House, another Northern Flood community. I say on the record it is time to make sure that 280, the road into Split Lake, is indeed an appropriate road for the kind of traffic you see.
I say with the community of York Landing, the York Factory First Nation, that it is time to give serious consideration at working with the community--and I say this because I talked to the chief, Roy Redhead, just last week about this matter. The community is willing to become directly involved in trying to get the road built between York Landing and the main highway, 280, which would give them year-round, all-weather road access. I say to members opposite that one of the elements of the Northern Flood Agreement, I believe, was a commitment to bring those communities up to the standards of the 1970s, then the 1980s, now into the 1990s, the same kinds of things that people take for granted anywhere else in the province.
I look around at rural members on the government side and I see communities that have two and three and four different kinds of road access. I see gravel roads that are constantly being improved. I see roads that are being paved and repaved, and I say to the members opposite, in northern Manitoba there are many communities that either do not have roads or do not have roads that are acceptable in terms of the condition for the 1990s.
The solution has to be a real commitment, and I say to the minister, that includes looking at the real question of bridges, as those are concerns both for Cross Lake and Norway House. I say the bottom line is, to the minister again, that if you are going to act in good faith on the Northern Flood Agreement you will stop the process of appealing every arbitration ruling that seems to go in favour of Northern Flood communities. I would say do not even go to the arbitration. Make a commitment, and I say on the record that I do not know anywhere else in the province where you would see communities the size of Cross Lake or Norway House or Nelson House or Split Lake where you would have anything but paved roads. You certainly would not have the poor road conditions, and I put on the record that Cross Lake, Norway House the last number of years has had, in one case, the road I believe was closed for close to a week.
I can speak from experience. I have travelled on that road many a time. The first time I went in I got stuck right in the middle of the highway driving a truck, right in the middle of the highway, it is so muddy. I want to point to the condition of Highway 391. I have seen people who literally cannot even get up the hills on Highway 391. When you get any amount of rain, you have people sliding off.
To put it in perspective, you end up in those communities, the 391 into Nelson House, I checked the provincial statistics a number of years ago. The fatality rate was three times the provincial average on one stretch of highway for 72 kilometres. There is not a family in Nelson House that has not had someone killed on that highway as a result of an accident. The reality is that is because of a complete lack of commitment by this government to road access, to highway access, to transportation access in northern Manitoba.
At one time, they cut the Highways budget to 5 percent of the construction budget for northern Manitoba, you know, 5 percent compared to what? The current road network is about 11 percent. I would say we are probably about three quarters of the province. You know, we certainly deserve a lot more than the 5 percent that was allocated. We have fought hard and northern communities have fought hard. We have got that increased up. I believe last year it was 8 percent or 9 percent, but the reality is, if we want to get the roads fixed in northern Manitoba, it is going to take a real commitment, the kind of commitment that the previous NDP government put into place, when we spent in many years in excess of 20 percent of the Highways budget.
We built the roads, we built 280, we build many of the roads. In fact, I jokingly said to the Conservative Highways minister a few minutes ago that you can never accuse the Conservatives in northern Manitoba in terms of any roads, you cannot turn around and say, well, the roads they built are now in poor condition, so we have to fix them up. They have not built roads. The only roads that we have right now that are of any significance are roads that were built by NDP governments, everything from 391 to Highway 6 to 280, built by NDP governments.
What is missing is the commitment of the current government after 10 years to anything more than lip service for northerners. If people do not understand that this is part and parcel of the alienation that many northerners feel, I say to the government they have not learned a thing, and perhaps I would suggest this, and I just want to conclude on this.
I find it ironic, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), for example, because this is a well-travelled Premier. This is a very well-travelled Premier. I remember, I think it was last year, I was getting concerned that the Premier might lose his residency for health care purposes, he was out of the country so much. But, you know, this Premier has spent more time in Davos, Switzerland, than he has in northern Manitoba. This Premier has not even set foot in northern Manitoba outside of, I believe, one meeting in The Pas, one meeting since the last election.
I say to this government, and I remember the Premier when I was pointing out frustration of the people of Cross Lake, which I know the member for The Pas was talking about. He said, well, I was up North. I had a summer job up there. A summer job? In the 1960s.
I say on the record to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), after 10 years, I will compare the record of his predecessor. I will tell you, even Sterling Lyon travelled more to northern Manitoba than this Premier, but Ed Schreyer visited every single northern community. He is well known. You could talk to people in Wabowden, or remember the time he played softball in that community. You could talk about the time--you talk to Kip Thompson in Ilford, when he brought the entire cabinet up, when they took the entire cabinet caucus to Churchill by train. I will tell you that was a Premier that had a vision. That was a government that had a vision of northern Manitoba. Even Sterling Lyon spent some time in the North, I might add. There was the First Ministers' Conference--I believe it was held in Thompson in 1980. The Premier at the time did run into some difficulty. He could not remember the population of Thompson had dropped dramatically because of the downturn in the economy in Thompson.
But the bottom line is that I say it is a pretty sad comment when we have had more sightings of Elvis in northern Manitoba than we have had of the Premier. I put that on the record because we expect better. Northern Manitoba, we may not have the biggest population--with our four MLAs out of 57, we cannot rely on sheer numbers--but I can tell you one thing, and I say this because I know the people of Norway House and other communities, the flood communities, have seen this first-hand: we are the resource base of this province.
You know, the Golden Boy points north. The fact is that much of the quality of life that we have in this province is a result of that combination of industries that we have and resources. Without northern Manitoba, with its hydro, with its mining sector, with its forestry sector, I say to this government, we would not be in the position of having the kind of standard of living we have in this province. We essentially have three interconnected elements to the economy: the city of Winnipeg, which has a very significant factor in the Manitoba economy, with nearly two-thirds of the population; rural Manitoba, particularly with agriculture; but northern Manitobans are increasingly frustrated because year after year, I say through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the government, they take our resources. They take the royalties from the resources. We even see now they take money from mining and put it in the Mining Reserve Fund, and then dump it into general revenue, money that comes from northern Manitoba and should remain in northern Manitoba.
This is why there is so much frustration. When the people of Norway House signed and negotiated this resolution, the Northern Flood Agreement, it was not with any great joy. It was in recognition of the many difficulties that community just had, the many people, including many of the elders who are no longer with us in many of the flood communities, who had not lived to see the day in which there is some chance to rebuild. In this case, it was not just a lost generation, but a number of lost generations.
* (1500)
I say our commitment in this Legislature should not be just to pass this bill, which we certainly should do out of respect to the people of Norway House and their decision, but it should be to go further and take the true sentiment, I believe, of what the Northern Flood Agreement was always about. That is, first of all, to acknowledge it as a modern-day treaty, and, second of all, to make sure that we live up to the spirit of reconciliation with the Northern Flood communities by improving transportation, by improving health, by improving education and by improving most importantly economic opportunities for the young people who are the inheritors of the damage we have seen because of hydro development.
Now, hopefully, through this agreement, and if we can get a new partnership with the federal and provincial governments, I believe we can build the future for these Northern Flood communities that will go some direction in terms of building on the kind of opportunities, the kind of traditional lifestyle, the kind of real vision that we had in those communities as recently as 20 years ago, because I have seen first-hand how those communities have suffered.
So, with those few words, I know the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has some comments, but we fully support this bill and decision of the people of Norway House.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I did want to put a few words on the record on this very important bill. Bill 42, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I look at the bill, and I have had the opportunity to have a very brief discussion with the minister, generally speaking, is a very positive bill.
You know, Manitoba has benefited as a whole phenomenally through the whole issue of hydro development. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talked about the other important issues facing northern Manitoba. Even though we in the rest of the province have derived so much benefit because of the developments that have occurred in northern Manitoba, there is a more negative side to this whole story, and that story still is not complete. I look at Bill 42 as one chapter in that particular book in which, at least in part, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a step forward--in particular, here, we are talking of the Norway House Cree Nation and others--in the sense we are acknowledging the need for compensation. There have been many hardships. There have been many changes in lifestyle. No doubt the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) could articulate a lot better than I in terms of the dramatic changes that have happened over the years because of the Hydro development in particular.
I think that when I look at this particular bill and I see the potential future for development up North, one of the things that has to be taken into consideration, any future developments have to be done in such a fashion in which you have the stakeholders at the table sitting around and participating in the overall development. This way, we can still recognize the benefits of that economic development while at the same time acknowledge the potential negative impacts and to ensure that proper compensation is, in fact, facilitated.
So, hopefully, whether it is a Conawapa in the future or some other development, a lot more consideration would be given so that we do not find ourselves in the same sort of a situation where we are today. We do perceive this bill as a step forward. Thank you.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would also like to add a few remarks to this bill. I want to say at the outset that I wholeheartedly support Bill 42 in that it makes legal the agreement that was reached between Norway House First Nation, the Canada-Manitoba governments, and Manitoba Hydro. I want to also say at the beginning that we, and in case the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) misunderstands my usage of the word "we" first person plural, by that I mean we, the aboriginal people of this province, agree with the agreement. We support the principle of self-government and self-determination.
The Norway House First Nation--Cree spoken--has approved the settlement negotiated between the federal government, the province and Manitoba Hydro, as I said. After 20 years, they have decided that this is the best offer that they can expect. We, of course, respect their decision to agree to the settlement, and we--and, again, I mean aboriginal people--will do what we can to ensure that the province, the government of Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro, uphold their commitments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of many people. As the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had indicated, there are past chiefs and councils, elders, and many members of Norway House First Nation who have served on different committees and boards with the hope of finally settling the Northern Flood Agreement at Norway House.
I want to acknowledge those councillors and chiefs who have passed on, the elders who have passed on and will not be able to materially benefit from this agreement. However, they worked long and hard to ensure that their children and grandchildren were able to benefit from this agreement.
Of course, I want to acknowledge the dedication and hard work by Chief Ronnie Evans, his council and his elders. Ronnie Evans, in my estimation, is a great leader. He is a visionary and he--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but could I ask the honourable members who want to carry on a conversation to do so either in the hallways or in the loge? I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member at this time.
Mr. Lathlin: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, Chief Ronnie Evans is a visionary. He works hard and long and with a great deal of commitment in the interests of his people, the people of Norway House.
This bill in itself ratifies the agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it cannot and does not deal with a whole host of other concerns involving the conditions that our people find ourselves in, in northern Manitoba. As I said earlier in a previous statement that I made to this Chamber, 10 years under this government meant 10 years of neglect for northern Manitoba, and the people in northern Manitoba are paying the price now. Northern communities have been suffering from the cutbacks of this government. This government spent over $1 million on the Northern Economic Development Commission and then put that report away to gather dust, and since then no action on any of the recommendations has ever been implemented.
In fact, even copies of the report themselves have been difficult to find in any government office. Just a month ago I was trying to--it took me about six weeks to locate a copy of that particular report. Like the AJI report, the recommendations of the Northern Economic Development Commission were never taken seriously by this government.
The legacy of this government in northern Manitoba, as I said, is cutbacks and neglect. Anyone who has travelled on any northern road--I believe the former Minister of Highways, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), had travelled by car from wherever, 373 anyway. He travelled to Cross Lake, and I understand that when he arrived in Cross Lake he was met, of course, by the residents of Cross Lake. I believe, I am told, I am given to understand, that one of the first remarks he made when he got out of his car was that he was ashamed to find the road in that condition. The member for Steinbach may want to correct me. So even the former Minister of Highways saw first-hand the conditions of the road, and he acknowledged that work had to be done. Of course, since then, nothing has been done.
* (1510)
As a matter of fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the chief and council of the recreation department of Norway House First Nation had applied for membership in the Manitoba Junior Hockey League just as OCN had done two years ago. The major reason given by the officials at the Manitoba Junior Hockey League for rejecting the application by Norway House First Nation was that they could not see junior hockey teams travelling to Norway House on a regular basis, given the conditions of Highway 373. So the point I am making there, of course, is that, so long as those roads continue to be in the sad state of repair that they are in, development in those communities will take long.
Notwithstanding Bill 42, Norway House residents know that the high cost of living, limited government services, educational, and training opportunities will continue, as will the high record of unemployment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I have a little bit of time here, I want to give examples, because a lot of times when I speak here in this House and I talk to members on the government side, you know, I do not think very many of them really understand the conditions, the living conditions. When northern MLAs talk about the living conditions in northern Manitoba, I really think that they do not understand what we are talking about.
For example, in the area of education, if I was living here in the city of Winnipeg and my children wanted to go to school or university or community college, it would be cheap, because all I would have to pay for is tuition and supplies. But if I come from northern Manitoba, like Norway House, I would have to pay for room and board, groceries, clothing, transportation, everything. In other words, it costs about $10,000 more for the people in the North to send their children south to go to university. I do not think the people, especially the members on the government side who live close to the University of Manitoba, Brandon, University of Winnipeg, I do not think they understand what we talk about when we mention those situations.
Another area is sewer and water. The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) the other day in answering questions for members from this side gave a response saying that Headingley had been neglected for far too long and that they deserve to get sewer and water. So, bang, he gave them a $5-million grant to do that.
Now, as I was saying earlier, as well, in this House, if only he had that same commitment for the North, we would not be standing here day in and day out trying to point out to the government, trying to make them understand that they have to also look at northern Manitoba when they are spreading the resources of Manitoba across Manitoba. In other words, every Manitoban should benefit from the resources of this government, not just in the city of Winnipeg.
At the same time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our traditional livelihoods such as trapping, hunting, and fishing have deteriorated to the point where it is no longer feasible to go out into the land and try to make a living that way. The elimination of the federal government fishermen freight subsidy program for northern fisherman practically wiped out the fishery industry in the North. The provincial government cutbacks at the same time for fishermen in the North also helped to put into further demise the fishing industry in the North, which is being done by mostly aboriginal people. These cuts, by the way, were front and centre at the recent House of Commons hearings that were held in The Pas, Grand Rapids, and also in the Interlake.
Bill 42 is a significant step forward in the pursuit of self-government and local control, but as long as this government continues to deny that northern Manitoba gets its fair share of funding and services, communities such as Norway House, Cross Lake, Shamattawa, and others, Pukatawagan, will continue to face great challenges in coping with the high unemployment conditions facing their people in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, again, I wholeheartedly support this bill because it will mean that the residents, the members of the Norway House First Nation will finally get to see the benefits of the agreement on the flooding that took place, flooding that practically did away with their way of living in Norway House. I also want to congratulate the efforts of Chief Ron Evans and his council.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to rise today to put just a few comments on the record as it relates to this bill and to compliment not only the citizens of the community but also my colleague the Minister for Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Newman) and all those people who have been involved in accomplishing what I believe has been a tremendous achievement. It only came about because of the will and the desire of those community people who had had enough of the ongoing negotiations, the ongoing representatives of other people speaking on their behalf where they finally got involved, yes, with some advisors and, yes, with some legal counsel, but with the true spirit of wanting to get an end to what has been a long outstanding challenge.
So I just want to put a few comments on the record. I think it truly is a piece of Canadian history, and I want to further say that, under Premier Filmon and his government, this is a piece of history that I am pleased to be a part of. I know that it has taken a long time, and there were some frustrations with members opposite when they were in government that it was not able to be achieved in the time in which they were in office, but to carry on--and I am not saying this in a partisan way--the work that was accomplished from all those involved is to be commended. So I say this to the other outstanding people who are involved in negotiations and discussions, we can accomplish the right things if all the right minds and the people work together with the right objectives and with the spirit of fairness as a basis for which it is based.
So I am pleased to be part of it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for this opportunity to put these comments on the record.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I pose the question, I would just like to advise honourable members when referring to members of the Chamber, we should be referring to their positions and not by name.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your direction and would correct the record to say the honourable First Minister of the Province of Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 42, The Norway House Cree Nation Northern Flood Master Implementation Agreement Act; Loi sur l'Accord cadre de mise en oeuvre de la nation crie de Norway House relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* (1520)
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to make just a few comments on this particular bill. It is a bill that is brought forward by the Minister of Finance in each and every session, usually to implement the recommendations in the Budget Address which, indeed, this one does. Of course, it can enable the government to take care of some housekeeping matters, as well, some miscellaneous tax changes and the like.
But I want to say at the beginning that, although we had objections to the budget, indeed, voted against the budget--the budget, of course, including reference to many other areas of government activity including health care spending, education spending and so on--nevertheless, we are supportive of the various tax changes that the minister has brought in, and, therefore, we are supportive of this particular Bill 29.
We cannot say we are delighted with everything, but, generally speaking, we are supportive of a reduction of Manitoba's personal income tax rate, which is being implemented by this particular bill over a two-year period from 52 percent to 51. I believe, 51 percent of basic federal tax for 1998 and then down to 50 percent by the year 1999.
One could argue that there are other ways, of course, of providing tax relief for Manitobans. We have been in the past advocating property tax credits as a means of providing tax relief. We do regret the fact that the government, I believe, under the former Minister of Finance, reduced the property tax credit; I believe it was by $75 per household. I believe at that time, along with the extension of the sales tax to include all kinds of things, including Big Macs, that the government increased its tax levies by over $100 million. In fact, that is well documented in a memorandum prepared on this subject, or a report prepared on this subject, by the Ministry of Finance itself. So there is no question that there was an additional tax burden put on at that time.
We believe that, if a property tax credit increase is brought about, it would be brought about in a way that would be more equitable indeed than a personal income tax reduction, because obviously the people who are going to get the greatest benefit from these reductions are those who earn the higher income levels.
Nevertheless, we are supportive of this. Also, I note that the Manitoba Learning Tax Credit is to be increased, and we are supportive of this as well. Having said that, I believe we need to do more to help our young people go to university and to go to college today. I appreciate the fact that many, many years ago there were very few programs. I think of my own time when I was a student, there was very little that would help you go to university. That is a long time ago--when the dinosaurs roamed. No, I am just being very facetious here.
These programs were not available, but at least we have something. We would like to see more, but we are pleased to see this. What I am particularly pleased with is the support given to film and video production. There is a tax credit that was introduced last year, and it has been helpful in promoting that industry. I think that is an industry that in the past has often been neglected by governments. We are prepared to provide stimulus and incentives to many manufacturers, in particular, but we sometimes--in fact, we have forgotten about the potential of this area of art. Certainly, we are supporting the arts in Manitoba through this tax credit, but also supporting a very vital industry that does create jobs for our people.
There were further tax reductions. The business tax reduction, which is essentially the primary one, is the Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy, a minor reduction. Again, I would state to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and to the government, again, you are proving the point, the assertion that I made many years ago, that this government would never ever get rid of the payroll tax. The reason, of course, is simple: it brings in too much revenue. It brings in a very significant amount of revenue. I think it is over $200 million. Even interestingly enough, even with the minor tax reductions or reductions of this particular business tax, of the payroll tax, even with those reductions, the amount received by government really has not diminished. In fact, in some years it has increased.
So this is an area where I believe I have been proven correct. That is, even though the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province, who was at that time the Leader of the Opposition, said that his government would totally eliminate the payroll tax, it has failed to do so, and, as I said, for a very good reason. The government needs the money. References have been made by the minister in reviewing this bill and in his budget speech to stimulating jobs in the province. We all want to stimulate jobs, but I do not believe that this particular bill, this particular levy, the Health and Post Secondary Education Tax Levy, otherwise known as a payroll tax, is really significant in terms of job creation or in terms of inhibiting jobs. I do not believe that is a critical factor by any means. It may have a minor influence, but it is not a critical factor.
We have to recognize and be honest with ourselves that the critical factors that affect the level of economy activity in Manitoba and that affect the level of jobs and the level of unemployment are some major economic policies and some economic programs that exist beyond Manitoba, and economic realities.
I think, first of all, of the relatively low rate of interest. Interest rates could still be a bit lower, but a relatively low rate of interest certainly helps consumption. People are more ready to borrow to purchase durable goods, consumer durables. It certainly aids in the purchasing of houses, the demand for housing. It certainly aids business that needs to borrow in order to expand the plant or equipment. So low interest rates do stimulate the economy, and we are benefiting from that. Thank goodness we are benefiting from that.
While there are some people who are very concerned about a lowering Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar, the fact is that we are being stimulated by this relatively cheap Canadian dollar. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism knows, it does enhance our exports out of Manitoba to the United States and indeed to other parts of the world because our goods are lower priced, they are more competitive, and we are selling more. That is good.
So a cheap dollar does create jobs, does stimulate the economy, and we are benefiting from that.
Of course, we should also mention the expanding U.S. economy. The U.S. economy has been on a roll now for a few years, and we are benefiting from that. That is good. We are benefiting from that because we are selling more to the United States on that account, and we are benefiting generally from the buoyancy that we seem to see in the North American economy.
Having said all that, I am still going to maintain that there is a role for provincial government policy to affect our economic situation. I am not going to take the time of this Legislature to go into that, but there are certain policies that we have advocated, and I do not think the members opposite would necessarily oppose the need to do our very best to have a well-trained workforce, to have the highest standards of education, including technical education, to do whatever we can to enhance and stimulate technology and innovation, to do whatever we can to help small business improve their situation through all kinds of programs, helping them with marketing advice, merchandising advice to the extent that we can with government consultants.
* (1530)
I am not saying they have all the answers, but they can make a significant difference, particularly for small and fledgling entrepreneurs. So there are some of these things that we can do and should do, but these bigger factors are the ones that play a critical role in the state of our economic health.
I note in this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for instance, we refer to the mining sector. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) introduces an exemption from the motive fuel tax on propane fuel used in drying mineral or concentrates and heating mining facilities, effective October 1 of this year. Well, that helps the mining industry, and we are not opposing this but, again, my point is that the health of the mining industry is in large measure determined by the international prices of minerals, whether it be nickel, copper, zinc, or whatever. Those are the critical factors--or gold. No matter what we do for the mining sector by way of tax relief or some incentives, they are not going to stay in business and they are not going to expand if the price is not right, if they cannot get the value on the international market for the nickel that comes out of the ground or the gold or the copper or the zinc or whatever.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have made a few comments about some parts of the bill. There are other details in it that, again, we do not have any difficulty with. As I said, generally we support most of the measures that are presented in this. So we are quite prepared to see this Bill 29 go on to committee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, want to put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 29.
It is interesting. Over the years we have seen a government that has consistently, and I will give them that, come up with the freeze on personal income tax and, in this particular budget, it decreases personal income tax. No doubt that is going to be one of its major campaign platforms, if I were to speculate, of course.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of the things which I would anticipate the government would not be campaigning on is another form of taxation. That is, of course, the property tax, where it makes reference to the provincial levy. This is a more regressive form of taxation, as I am sure everyone is aware, and in that area this government has actually been moving backwards. So what we have seen is a clawback or a cash grab on the property tax, and now we see some money going back through personal income tax.
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will leave it up to you and others to draw some conclusions on that, but may I suggest that the personal income tax is much more progressive a form of taxation than a property tax. I would think that some could draw the conclusion that even though they might have a good campaign issue here, they have been very negligent with the whole issue of any sort of taxation fairness in trying to address some of the inequities and unfairness that are there that Manitobans are having to pay.
I have asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) on numerous occasions, and, no doubt, I will get other opportunities to ask the Minister of Finance about the whole issue of property tax, in particular, the school division portion of that tax and, in part, the provincial levy. There needs to be a lot more effort from this government, a lot more leadership from this government in dealing with that particular issue.
It is interesting and it should be noted that the purpose of this bill is, in essence, to enact the budget, changes in taxation and monetary policy and a few other minor things from what I understand. There was a couple of things, in reading through it, that I thought were somewhat interesting that I want to comment on, some very positive things, you know, the film and video tax credit. The member for Brandon has made reference to it. We have seen significant, just huge increases in that whole area over the years. I think that it is a very positive move.
Something that is always interesting, something that I had never given any thought of, everyone is concerned about that year 2000 computer crisis that is looming out there. It was somewhat thoughtful of government to come up with a bit of an incentive, a bit of a break for those who are trying to achieve that compliance. Manitoba companies will, in fact, get a bit of a tax break. I think that is a positive thing.
Another thing that I really made notice of--and I did not want to speak too long on this particular bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker--was the rebate for sales tax for new homes. I believe it is up to $2,500 as a maximum. I think that the government of the day has to also realize that there is benefit in upgrading our current housing stock. It is nice to see a lot of the new homes popping up here and there, more often than many would like, we see it is just out in the satellite communities. For some, that is a very positive thing, but there is a great deal of concern in terms of the impact that is happening in the Capital Region if, in fact, it is not being, let us say, orchestrated or better planned out what is in the best interest of the Capital Region.
Having said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do believe that the government needs to put more effort into the current housing stock that is there and to come up with additional programs to see more, whether it is in older homes in Winnipeg or in smaller communities, whether it is the Brandon or the Arthur-Virden area, up North. There are older communities, obviously, throughout the province in which the housing stock could use improvement, and I would have liked to have seen more movement in that area from this particular government. But, as I indicated, there are no doubt a number of things that one could comment on with respect to this particular bill, but for us I do not see any reason why it could not go to committee at this point.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 29, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1998; Loi de 1998 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), Bill 27, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave for this matter to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
* (1540)
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): This is essentially a small technical series of amendments that will come into effect retroactively to essentially bring the act that establishes and maintains the Crocus Fund up-to-date with income tax requirements. We will be supporting this act, but in so doing I want to first of all pay tribute to the owners and managers of the Crocus Fund, the many thousands of Manitobans who are its shareholders and its very, very diligent staff who have made an exceptional success of this labour-sponsored fund.
This is truly a Manitoba project sponsored by the Manitoba Federation of Labour with a board representative of Manitoba workers and supported by this government and by the previous government that helped to establish the approach to developing capital pools within Manitoba that could be used to support Manitoba business expansion, the retention of jobs and, most importantly, in terms of the actual name of the act, the ownership on the part of employees of Manitoba companies.
The Crocus Fund has done outstanding work to make it possible for employees of, for example, Green Gates or Wow food concepts, and other companies that they have invested in over the years, OpTx being a current one, Westsun, many, many different successful Manitoba companies, to develop not only a reach for their products beyond our borders as a province but to develop an equity stake in these companies on the part of their employees. This obviously increases the employees' commitment to their companies, to their work. It allows for the fair sharing of the results of their hard work amongst all levels of the company. So this fund has been an outstanding success on the grounds of its fostering of capital pools and its fostering of employee ownership.
Even more impressively, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Crocus Fund had the most outstanding record of all labour-sponsored funds in Canada last year. When I first invested in the Crocus Fund some years ago now, I was actually told by my broker, who arranged this investment through my RRSP, that perhaps this was not a wise investment. I was rather surprised that a Manitoba broker would say that, but that is what this broker said. He said it was not a wise investment because, first of all, the fund had no track record, which, of course, was true at that time, but also because my funds would be locked in for a long term, and I would not be able to access them.
I think, happily, that advice has been proven wrong. It has been an outstanding rate of return in comparison with other labour-sponsored funds. In fact, any time that an investor can help create and support jobs in a province and can help establish Manitoba employee ownership and still have a return of 13 percent, 13.7 percent to be exact, over a year in a fund that is doing those things, I think Manitoba investors have done very well indeed. That, of course, is not taking into account any of the tax credits which are available to investors which further offset the cost of Manitoba investments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the other side, we also last year witnessed the government putting in place some competition with the Crocus Fund in the form of the ENSIS Fund managed by the good friend of the government, Mr. Bill Watchorn. It is interesting making some comparisons between Crocus and ENSIS. We have the Crocus Fund managed by Manitobans, owned by Manitobans, investing in Manitoba companies, successfully pulling capital together so that Manitobans could further strengthen their own economy. In the case of ENSIS, we have a rent-a-union, unfortunately, a federal union that has only 124 employees in Manitoba, as opposed to the Manitoba Federation of Labour representing way over a hundred thousand Manitobans in the labour movement.
We have a company that was not confident enough in their own ability to market this fund in distinct contradistinction to what Crocus did, so what did ENSIS do? It hired BPI, a large mutual fund manager out of Toronto, to provide a management function to this new fund. What benefit did that action have for Manitobans? Well, I think we can see what the benefit was. In the first year, ENSIS hoped to attract between $10 million and $20 million in investment. They received less than $4 million. Crocus attracted about $17 million in that same period of time.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, unfortunately the government did not believe in its own concept. Instead of staying with a truly Manitoba-based competitor to Crocus, if indeed we even need a competitor, they allowed what happened in Ontario. What happened in Ontario did not do good things for the labour-sponsored investment funds business in Canada, because rent-a-union means that those who had a real stake in it are not present at the table, who ought to have a real stake in the fund are not present at the table. So the national union, based in Ottawa, that has nominal interest in the ENSIS Fund, has a couple of named representatives on the board, neither of whom reside in Manitoba.
The ENSIS Fund is not big enough that it can make any investments this year. So what did it do? ENSIS contracted with one Clayton Manness for $250,000 to his company, Man Agra. ENSIS contracted the process of bringing them deals.
Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not an investor, but I have read a few prospectuses, and it is not normal to try and fund somebody to bring you deals. In fact, someone who needs investment capital usually has to pay to go and get that capital. It has to get somebody to help them go get it, and it pays them a fee, a finder's fee, if you like. It is extremely unusual for a capital pool to be so hard up for good deals that they have to pay money out of their capital pool, a quarter of a million dollars, to a former Finance minister to bring them deals.
This is a very questionable transaction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when a brand new fund, supported by this government, supported by this government's loan of $350,000, has to go to a former Finance minister with $250,000 and say, Mr. Manness, bring us your good deals. This is very strange. If, indeed, as the Deputy Premier and Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) has asserted, there is a shortage of capital in Manitoba, shortage of capital available for Venture Capital kinds of projects, why would a fund have to pay another party to bring it deals? This is a very strange transaction.
So the Crocus Fund does not have to hire somebody to bring them deals. When somebody is wanting to get an investment from the Crocus Fund, they approach the Crocus Fund. The Crocus Fund does not pay them to come. Why did ENSIS enter into a $250,000 contract with Clayton Manness to bring it projects? If it was a sound capital fund in the first place, people would be beating down the doors asking for them to invest in their company. ENSIS does not need to pay somebody else to bring it deals, but that is what they have done with $250,000, according to at least the press releases that were put out at the time of its founding.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we support this legislation. We did not support the legislation that brought into place the ENSIS Fund because it was, we suspected, simply a shell to allow Mr. Watchorn to rent a union somewhere. Now it has turned out, not only to rent a union, but to give a former Finance minister $250,000 to bring it deals. When governments do that kind of thing, they run the risk of putting at jeopardy the good work that was done by funds like Crocus under labour management with full labour participation, with the labour movement of Manitoba behind them. Instead, they have a union based elsewhere, a management company based in Toronto, and are paying a quarter of a million dollars to a former Finance minister to walk deals into their board room. They bring into a real question of credibility their own intent at providing support for labour-sponsored investment funds.
We support these technical amendments and expect that the labour, that the Crocus Fund, the real labour-sponsored investment fund in Manitoba, will continue to succeed as it should do, given the hard work of Manitobans to establish it, to manage it, and to find the good investments that it has made over the years to make it an outstanding success.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 27, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituent en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
* (1550)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), Bill 18, The Registry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'enregistrement foncier, standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be the only speaker from our side of the House on this bill, and on the conclusion of my remarks we will be agreeable to sending this bill to committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is certainly one of the most important bills that this minister will be introducing this session, but I do feel that it leaves out provisions that we feel are relatively important and should have been dealt with. Certainly that has to do with the declining property values here in the city of Winnipeg. This government, over the last 10 years that it has been in power, has done next to nothing to try to reverse a trend which is leading to declining property values and other serious problems in the core area of the city.
For example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one of my constituents in the last few months brought to my attention a case where a house that they had inherited through an estate was sold for, I believe, $11,000 or $12,000. This is after an appraisal of just 18 months ago showed the property to be worth around $25,000. The city tax assessment indicates that the property is worth around $30,000. What has happened is that over the years--in fact, another case that I recall, I believe a house on Beverley, was sold, after I believe 10 years, last year for roughly $10,000 less than the people bought it for 10 years ago, and it was relatively well-maintained property. On Langside Street, an appraiser that I was speaking to a few months ago told me that there were incidents where the houses are being sold for the lot value of around $6,000.
You could imagine the shock that people have when they bought houses 20 years ago in good faith and, like the majority of people in the city, expect that after 20 years of paying down their mortgage, they would have a mortgage-free house and a house that at least had kept up with the inflation rate. It is agreed that Manitoba is not a boom market, never really has been, but it is a dependable, stable market over a number of years. You can imagine the shock of my constituents and other constituents who are in the core area when after 20 years they find that the house property values are worth less than what they paid for the house. So if you purchased a house for $40,000, 10 years ago, and you have been paying the mortgage off for the last 10 years--well, we will say 20 years--and the house is paid off, this house now is worth half of what you paid for it in the first place. That is part of the sad truth.
In fact, this problem is getting worse; it is not getting better. This government is showing really very little indication that it really understands the problem. It is not a question of whether they are going to do anything about it. It is a question of them even recognizing there is a problem first and then dealing with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think I know what the fundamental problem is. That is that there is no political representation on that side of the House in the areas affected. The people in that area of town have the good sense to not elect Conservative MLAs because they know what happens when they do. I think that it is almost a neglect on the part of the government because they do not have representation in the area, so they simply walk away from the problem, show no interest in it, and are more concerned about building bridges in Charleswood and keeping people in their own areas happy. They take care of the hospitals in their areas of political support before other areas, and that is clear in their actions over the last 10 years.
Now, there is a fundamental belief in this minister in the free market conditions, and he is simply typical of the rest of the members of this government in terms of their philosophy. He should understand that, when you follow the free market to its logical extension, you have poorer people getting poorer and richer people getting richer. Of course, he and his friends do not worry about things like that because they happen to be on the other side. They happen to be on the richer side of things, so they are enjoying their circumstances because their circumstances are getting better. However, if they were on the other side, they would see that things are slipping and they are slipping fast.
For example, we have seen evidence over the years, and certainly recently there is a group that has been formed to deal with empty and boarded houses that are a blight in the area. This group has been active recently to try to change some city by-laws to get slum landlords to tear down houses. What is typically happening is that slum landlords who own houses in the core area simply take the rent out of the properties, let them run down. The houses get run down, and, rather than tearing the houses down, they simply walk away from the problem. When forced, pushed by the authorities to do something about it, they simply change the houses from one owner to another to simply buy time.
Madam Speaker in the Chair
Given that a goodly number of the members of this current Conservative caucus come from via the City of Winnipeg as city councillors, they should know that the city has to take some steps to tighten up the rules to make certain that people who own properties in the area are required to tear down these derelict houses and improve the properties and not let them slide into the state of disrepair they have over the last little while.
Another area that we have to look at is just the whole declining area or the traits of the declining area. We had the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) today talking about the number of bank closures in the area. You know, you do not see that happening in the minister's constituency of River Heights. We have the banks, the Royal Bank, in particular, closing down numerous banks in the area. You know, it is not because the banks are not profitable; it is just that they are not profitable enough, given their scale.
The corporate greed at the end of the day will backfire on these people because what you are going to see if the banks keep concentrating on foreign exposures and foreign involvements at the expense of servicing the Canadian population, what will happen is they will find themselves over a number of years further and further alienated from the people that they are supposed to be representing. What you will find is their market will be chewed up, will be eaten up by substitutes. Those substitutes will be the credit union movement. This may, in fact, be a good side.
We have had the responses to the bank mergers and so on, and I have observed it several times now that, in fact, the banks may be cutting their own throats here, that they may be voluntarily--I know of no business that voluntarily gives up markets that are profitable, and this is what you have happening here. You have these banks withdrawing, not because they are not making a buck, but because they are not making enough dollars, so say their board of directors and their president from Toronto. No concern. These overpaid bank presidents who earn $3 million a year, these overpaid bank presidents that this minister defends on a daily basis. This minister defends the bank presidents that he identifies with, that he is involved in, or that they lobby him for support. He is certainly a compliance target. [interjection] A doormat, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, for the lobbyists from the banks.
Madam Speaker, we have seen in other areas of town that, when you have pool halls, tattoo parlours, massage parlours, pawn shops and all these other enterprises, Money Marts, being set up in an area, you can see the area start to decline. We saw that in the Sherbrooke area, west Broadway area, in the Ellice area. We see that in the north end, and we see that moving now into other areas of the city. I think it is incumbent upon us as MLAs to make certain that zoning changes are approved at the civic level, certain types of zoning to prevent this type of commercial activity from setting up because it is like a magnet. When you have one, the rest of the commercial activities follow from there.
Certainly this government needs to embark on activities for children to keep children active and to promote healthy families in the core area, and we do not see a commitment on the part of this government to solve any of these problems.
With those few remarks, Madam Speaker, I move that we send this bill to committee for further discussion.
* (1600)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I want just to add a few words to Bill 18 prior to its going to committee. From what I understand, this particular bill allows the provincial government and the federal government an exemption to Sections 18 and 19 of The Registry Act. In essence, it allows for faster legal transfers of lands between the two senior levels of government.
I think that is the primary purpose of Bill 18, but I listened to what the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) was talking about and would concur with some of the points, not most of the points, but definitely with some of the points. I think a major part of the answer has to be the whole issue of revitalization of communities. That is best done through a very progressive, positive actions at the community level, whether it is issues such as community policing to revitalization programs.
Earlier I was talking on Bill 29 on the importance of improving our housing stocks, in particular, in older communities. The best answer to the member for Elmwood's (Mr. Maloway) statement, I believe, is one of having a more proactive government in redevelopment or revitalization programs that will bring more houses being fixed up in the local communities, therefore, giving families more stability in the communities.
Those things would be very positive, providing good programming, whether through community clubs or other nonprofit organizations, Madam Speaker. That will do a lot for ultimately increasing the value of homes in so many of the communities that are out there. The government has been very negligent in that whole area, and we trust at some point in time that that will change.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 18, The Registry Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, this bill was introduced at the last minute in the session and introduced in xeroxed printed form. It was not in its normal published form. It was a great hurry to get it introduced, and I think that we can see why that was if we go to Section 44, which is the issue of an operating agreement with a health authority.
This is an amendment which inserts a whole new subsection into the other act that it is amending, The Regional Health Authorities Act. Essentially, it puts in place a bogus mediation procedure. I cannot believe that members opposite will actually vote in favour of this act, because if they were to be asked on the street corner in their home town: would they agree to a procedure of appointing a mediator and going through mediation, if the end result of the mediation process is the ability of the minister to impose a settlement anyway? Not only is the minister in possession of a settlement--the result of failed mediation--it is binding. There is no appeal.
We have a Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) who is so unconfident of normal mediation and arbitration's effectiveness, so unconfident of the ability of the health authorities to enter into fair agreements, so unconfident that the normal procedures of arbitrating agreements that are difficult that he wants to bring in the kind of legislation which makes him the designated authority under the act, the designated authority to offer mediation, the designated authority to choose the mediator, the designated authority to review the results of the mediation, and the designated authority to impose on the parties his solution.
Why would anybody even bother with mediation? Why do we not just say, well, you want to be king for a day, Mr. Minister, why do you not give us your solution now? Why waste the money of the health authority and the hospital or the personal care home or the private corporation that are trying to mediate some kind of reasonable agreement? Why waste time? Why not just put the minister in charge of it all, and let him say we are going to do it this way; this is my solution.
What kind of legislation? I ask particularly the rural members opposite here who have hospitals and nursing homes in their communities that have provided long and valuable service to the people who built them and, in many cases, paid for them, sometimes with public help, sometimes with very little public help. I ask them to think about what it would be like to be the operator, owner, board of directors of the hospital or personal care home in their community and to have an issue which they perceive to be very important to their institution, as was the case with St. Boniface and Misericordia and Concordia and Grace hospitals in the city of Winnipeg, and to have the Minister of Health say, well, you can mediate if you want, but at the end of the day I am going to make the decision.
How would members opposite, the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), the member for any of the rural areas represented here--Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach)--how would they feel if their hospitals were told mediate if you like, but at the end of the day I will make the decision? What mediation is that? What is the point of this legislation?
Well, the point of the legislation, unfortunately, is transparent. The point of the legislation is the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) has decided he is finished talking. He is finished discussing. He is now going to impose his solution. He is going to tell the faith-based hospitals, and anybody else who wonders, just how things will be in his health care system. He has forgotten that it is our health care system. He has forgotten it was built by women and men who built voluntarily personal care homes and hospitals and institutions like the VON, the Red Cross and others, Madam Speaker, who provided valuable service, invaluable service, in fact, to the people of Manitoba.
He is tired of the process of talking. He is tired of the process of working together to work out solutions, and he is going to use this act to impose his own solution. He is not committed to the notion of arbitration. He is not committed to processes of negotiation. He wants a hammer, and the hammer is Bill 57 introduced in haste at the end of the session with the hope that it would just slide through the House, because it looks like it is just a few technical amendments to the mediation process.
This bill gives the Minister of Health absolute totalitarian control of every facility, every organization, every unit that delivers health care in this province, because at the end of the day, if he does not like the agreements reached between regional health authorities or the Winnipeg health authorities and any given institution, he can impose the solution under this legislation. I say that is a shameful, shameful approach to the process of building a stronger health care system for all Manitobans, that this Minister of Health has the arrogance to believe that his solution is the only and the right one, and that at the end of the day he should have the power to impose it, not only the power to enter into mediation, but the power to determine the outcome of mediation.
There are members of the legal community opposite, and, indeed, Madam Speaker, the minister himself is a member of that community. Would he in his capacity as a lawyer ever agree to a process at the end of which one party to the process can determine the outcome? The answer is no. As a lawyer, he would stay miles away from that process. That is a bad process because it is not fair. It is not equitable. It is not evenhanded.
* (1610)
The Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) would not allow that for a minute in his capacity as lawyer, but in his capacity as Minister of Health he likes it because it gives him more power than any other Health minister has ever had to impose his will on faith-based institutions, to impose his will on every community institution that delivers health care, on every voluntary organization that delivers health care in this province.
This is an unprecedented grab for power by a minister who has failed to work in a conciliatory manner with the institutions of this province that deliver our health care, and so he has decided to heck with conciliation, to heck with mediation, I will take control. That is what he has done through Bill 57.
It is a shameful piece of legislation. It cannot be amended. It should be withdrawn. It should be stricken from the Order Paper, because it interferes in a way with our faith-based and community-based organizations, with every hospital and every personal care home in this province. It simply takes away their autonomy once and for all and strips away the charade that these are community based, strips away the charade that he cares about regional health authorities and is prepared to trust them, and puts in his hands all of the power to determine all of the substantive issues that affect all our health care.
It is a shameful piece of legislation. It should be not only defeated, which it should be, it should be withdrawn and stricken from any kind of reference in the record.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing (Mr. Reimer), Bill 36, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk? [agreed] And also standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington, who has unlimited time.
An Honourable Member: Just keeps on going and going.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): The Energizer bunny just keeps on going and going and going.
Madam Speaker, in my earlier comments, I outlined the outline. Now, today, I would like to talk about several elements, depending on the time that I have remaining today.
I would like to talk about the Cuff report, which is the genesis of most of what is in Bill 36, how it is shaped, how it fits into the evolution of the city of Winnipeg. I would like to talk about a couple of major other reports like the report that led to the origination of Unicity in the early '70s and the Cherniack report and the previous government's response to that report, then some items from the debate on a bill in 1991, earlier amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act. Then I will go into a bit about what the current situation is in the city of Winnipeg as seen by several people who have spent a lot of time looking at it. Then finally, if I have time this afternoon, I will begin discussing some of the elements of the Cuff report, the process and the conclusions that went into that report.
Again, Madam Speaker, I would like to reiterate that the reason there is a bit of time being spent by myself on the Cuff report is that it forms the vast majority of the elements of Bill 36. I think that where that came from and how it was arrived at and the conclusions that Mr. Cuff arrived at and the process of the Cuff report are important in our understanding of the basis of Bill 36.
Madam Speaker, the city of Winnipeg has not been a city except since 1873 when it was incorporated, but it has been an area, as we spoke about earlier, a meeting place for well over 6,000 years. It has been a centre, a larger or smaller centre, for that length of time. So we are not talking about a new entity here. We are talking about an area that has been involved as a community of one sort or another for, as I said, about 6,000 years.
These next comments and information come from Mr. Cuff in his report in a brief history of the city of Winnipeg. I am going to speak to it very briefly, because it does talk about how the city itself has evolved and has changed in its governance over the years. As I said, in 1873, it was incorporated and there were four wards of three aldermen each--and I emphasize aldermen because until very recently, they were all men--so 12 representatives for the city in 1873 when I think the city may have had maybe 50,000 people. Each ward had a fairly small number of people to represent it.
In 1872, the wards were increased to six, so, again, fairly small numbers of constituents. In 1884, they reduced the number of aldermen from each ward from three to two; so, again, it is changing. In 1906, Elmwood was designated as a seventh ward; so, as the city increases in size, the number of wards increase. In 1920, just after the First World War, the wards were reduced from seven to three while the number of aldermen increased from 14 to 18. So while the geographical area was smaller, the number of representatives was increased.
In 1955, the province established the Greater Winnipeg Investigating Committee, which I believe was probably the first committee that looked at the city of Winnipeg. Their mandate was to examine problems caused by a fast growing suburban area around the core--seven cities, two towns and 14 rural municipalities. Now this is where we start getting into our "modern" situation, but even 43 years ago, there were problems with the fast growing suburban area around the core. Madam Speaker, imagine what Winnipeg could look like today if 43 years ago we had actually started really effectively addressing the issues relating to the city of Winnipeg and its surrounding areas.
In 1959, that committee concluded that long-term planning was impossible, as the area was currently configured, and recommended an amalgamation of major urban services. So, again, they are starting the feeling that the capital area needs to have an amalgamation of services to be more efficient and effective. In 1961, some of those things did take place. Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg was charged with the responsibility for water and sewage, property assessment, transit, regional streets, regional parks. While that did change in the next decade to Unicity, the Metro did start the process of people thinking about the need for a larger entity to ensure better services.
In 1971, under Bill 36--coincidentally the same number of the bill we are addressing in this session--Unicity was created. There were 13 separate civic governments that were united into one city, and The City of Winnipeg Act was born. There were 50 councillors, one from each of 50 wards, and a mayor elected at large, all elected for a three-year term. Also, there were 13 community committees established, and they were to deal with more local jurisdictions. Resident advisory groups were also established in 1972 to be elected at community committee meetings to provide direct citizen participation to the committees. These two community committees and RAGs were very important for what is happening in Bill 36.
* (1620)
In 1975, Judge Peter Taraska put in another review which recommended the reduction in size of City Council from 51 to 39 members and streamlining the administrative structure. In 1977, the community committees were reduced from 12 to six, and the number of wards were reduced to 29. So all the way through here, we are moving back and forth, up and down, changing. From 1984-86, The City of Winnipeg Act Review Committee, the Cherniack Report, had made some recommendations to the then NDP government, and I will talk about those in a little more detail later. In 1987, the province released a white paper in response to the review committee proposals, and I will speak about that later. I will say, Madam Speaker, though, that one of the major concerns that has been expressed throughout this process that has culminated in Bill 36 is the lack of real, meaningful, public input into the process.
In the Wards Boundary Commission in 1991, in The City of Winnipeg Act Review Committee, the Cherniack in 1986, and the Taraska report in The City of Winnipeg Act that led to Unicity, every single one of those commissions held extensive public hearings throughout the city, and they held them locally. They held them in the evening when people could come. There was none of that with the Cuff report, and there has been none of that with The City of Winnipeg Act, Bill 36.
The province, after the Cherniack report was tabled, did a white paper, a very extensive white paper, which I will address in a few moments. This government has done nothing. They have virtually rubber-stamped what the gang of 12 at City Hall has asked for.
In 1988, the Boundary Commission recommended changes to the boundaries of the 29 wards to guarantee an average population of 20,500. Now, in 1991, the province followed the Winnipeg Wards Review Committee, although my understanding is that, in the debate in 1991 in the Legislature, the Eldon Ross committee was charged by the province as part of its terms of reference to recommend a reduction in City Council from 29 to 12-15 wards. So the Ward Boundary Review Commission did not have a real independent mandate. Of course, it followed its terms of reference and recommended the reduction, even though many of the people who presented at public hearings, and certainly those who presented at the public hearings held here in the Legislature in that time, said this was a bad thing. So we can see that there have been a number of changes to the City of Winnipeg structure over the last century and even over the last 25 years since we became Unicity.
Briefly, to discuss the concept of Unicity, the proposals for urban reorganization in the greater Winnipeg area that were from the Schreyer government in 1970 stated, and I quote: Almost all of the urban area's difficulties stem in whole or in part from three main roots: fragmented authority, segmented financial capacity, and lack of citizen involvement.
I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that phrase, that statement, is as relevant today as it was 28 years ago. Even though we have had three reports and a number of amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act, we are dealing with the same issues today as we were then, and we are working backwards rather than forwards.
Unicity was designed to unify services and decentralize political processes so that the quality of local government could be improved and the citizens of greater Winnipeg would have a greater say in the policies and programs that affect them. There are two principles here, two principles that are being destroyed by Bill 36, the unification of services and the decentralization of the political processes, so that the citizens could have a greater say in the policies and programs that directly affect them. That was the goal of Unicity.
The number of representatives was 50, and that was a reduction. Actually, that was a centralization, if you will, from the 13 local communities to one Unicity. So there was a reduction by half of the number of councillors that represented people in the new, amalgamated Unicity. In recognition of that fact, the Unicity process put in place community committees and resident advisory groups, so that we would have a more efficient representative process through 50 wards instead of 100. At the same time, we maintained a local community orientation through community committees and the RAGs, so that citizens would have ready access to local government.
Unicity provided for a number of levels of government that citizens had access to. They could talk to their RAGs. They could be members of the residents advisory groups. They could talk through them to the community committee, which was put in place in order to enable citizens throughout the city to have a local voice. Then they could go to the standing committees, and they could also go to the City Council. So there were a series of avenues for people to have access to local government. Much of that has been reduced or eliminated through the changes that took place in 1991, and the changes that are being proposed now.
The Cherniack report again reflected this. The Cherniack report recommended reducing City Council from 50 to 24, or from 29 to 24, sorry, but, because again you go back and forward and have to be flexible in the number of residents that you represent, they said the City Council should be policy driven and responsible for the overall elements of city business, while the community committees need to be empowered to tailor and allocate local services and be responsible for local planning within the overall planning policy of the city. Again, it is a balance between the City Council numbers, with overall policy authority, and the local input by RAGs and community committees.
The government of the day, in 1987, the NDP government in its white paper addressed many of the issues that were raised in the Cherniack report. The government said that the city had now arrived at a point where there is a need for greater political leadership and action in order to make Winnipeg a leading Canadian urban centre, one whose government is accountable and responsive to the needs and will of its electorate.
When you read the Cuff report, the language is very similar. Cuff says that we need to make Winnipeg a modern capital city that is reflective of the needs and aspirations of its citizens, but the devil is in the detail. The NDP government, in 1987, their response and their implementation of these principles is far different than that seen in Bill 36.
The government 10 years ago also saw that there were problems, as the Cherniack report stated, with the relationship between the administration and the elected officials between the various levels of government in the City Hall, and recognized that, as does the Cuff report, but again their suggestions for implementation are very different.
The white paper recommended that the members of the Executive Policy Committee would be nominated by the mayor and elected by council, instead of what is being recommended in Bill 36, which is the mayor has the sole authority to appoint members of the Election Planning Committee.
The province, in 1987, recognized the need to enhance local control over local matters, especially if you are reducing the number of city councillors, and the need to have greater decentralization of political planning and budgetary authority to the community committees, so there remains that balance. The government of the day, as I said, did not just rubber-stamp what Cherniack had said or anything anybody else had said. The government of the day actually went out, discussed things with the city, discussed things with other people and produced a white paper before they produced any legislation so that the public would have an opportunity to see what the government was thinking about and have some meaningful input.
* (1630)
The government said that The City of Winnipeg Act should provide the citizens of Winnipeg with responsible political leadership and clear democratic accountability. It supports the objectives of enhancing local control over local matters without detracting from city-wide interests, and this is totally antithetical to what is happening in Bill 36, where local control is being destroyed and power is being put in the hands of an oligarchy.
The government, and I am quoting here, resists the notion that a reduction in the number of councillors would automatically make council more efficient, and I think we have seen this in the outcome of the changes in 1991 to The City of Winnipeg Act, where the number of city councillors was reduced from 29 to 15.
I do not think there is a citizen in the city who thinks that City Council has been more efficient and more responsive to their needs. That is not to cast aspersions on city councillors. It is to say that you get down below a certain level and you cannot provided responsive local government and you will be able to provide even less responsive local government when you have no community committees, no RAGs, no input from the citizens of Winnipeg and perhaps no input from half of the members of the City Council.
The government in the white paper talked about the make-up of the standing committees and the Executive Policy Committee, and here again, recognizing the need for there to be representation on these committees from all segments of the city, stated that a councillor from each of the six community committees as elected annually by the community committee councillors should be on the Executive Policy Committee. Well, not only do we not have that, in Bill 36, there is no guarantee that a city councillor will be present on any of the standing committees. The standing committee composition can be established by the mayor and/or the EPC. So half of the city councillors could be completely eliminated from any of the standing committees.
Again, the white paper talks about proper co-ordination and balance between local and city-wide perspectives, all areas of the city to be represented on the Executive Policy Committee, which will enable each area of the city to have someone on the Executive Policy Committee or "the cabinet" so that local concerns can be on the table when you are discussing city-wide issues. This is not happening today and it will happen even less if Bill 36 is passed.
It is also a two-way street because if you have local representation, if you have a representative from each community committee area on the EPC, then you not only have information going from the community committees to the EPC, but you have a reversal of that information flow, so you have people from the Executive Policy Committee being able to go back to their local community committees and say: yes, this is what is our concern here, but let us put it in the city-wide context. This is not going to happen under Bill 36.
The government in 1987 was willing to give the city a great deal of latitude in establishment of standing committees subject to only two principles, and I quote, that each member of council must be represented on at least one standing committee and that the proposed balance on Executive Policy Committee between the six community committee representatives and the mayor and the five city-wide appointees be preserved.
So, again, there would be two-way communication, representation from all parts of the city, and a balance at City Hall. This is not happening now because the current government in 1991 did not see fit to put this in place, and it is going to be even more emasculated in Bill 36.
In the white paper, the government also says that citizen participation continues to be a government objective worthy of preservation and expansion. You cannot say that about the Cuff report, and you cannot say that about the request that came out of the Cuff report from the city to the province, and you most certainly cannot say that about Bill 36. Citizen participation will not be preserved and expanded. It will be reduced, and in some cases eliminated. It is an objective of the City of Winnipeg, according to the government in 1987, to create a greater and more meaningful level of citizen involvement in local government. Back to the democracy issue. If you do not have meaningful participation by the citizens, you do not have democracy, and you do not have good government.
Legislation can provide the opportunity for citizens interested in local issues to have a voice and to be heard. You cannot force people to be involved, but you can provide the opportunity. The government said the provision of statutory opportunities is a means of ensuring at least a basic and universal level of access for citizens to their local government system. We will not have a basic or a universal level of access for citizens to their local government systems under Bill 36, because there is no statutory requirement for any kind of community input, for any kind of requirement for the city councillors to have some local input.
Madam Speaker, that is a very brief overview of what the provincial government in 1987 was talking about. They recognized, as this government has chosen not to, the need for local participation, the need for democracy, the need for accountability, the need for balance between structures in the city of Winnipeg. We see today what a nonrecognition of those principles has led to, and in Bill 36 it is a continuation of that antidemocratic situation.
* (1640)
In 1991, Bill 68 was presented before the Legislature which basically, among other things, but the most important part of that piece of legislation was the reduction in the size of number of city wards from 29 to 15. The minister then, the then Minister of Urban Affairs, the then member for the constituency of Charleswood, stated, as has been stated by every Minister of Urban Affairs and by every report, that these amendments are aimed at strengthening the effectiveness of local government of the City of Winnipeg, that this will make political accountability more visible, enhance political leadership within City Council, effective urban government and balance the consideration of local area need with what is needed for the city at large, virtually the same language that the current minister used in introducing Bill 36, that the Minister of Urban Affairs in 1987 talked about in 1987. However, Madam Speaker, in only one of those cases, one out of the last three, can we say that the actions fit the words. In 1991, Bill 68 did not do this, and Bill 36 most definitely does not balance local needs with what is needed for the city at large.
The minister then said if the reduction to 15 councillors with a strong mayor does not change things at City Hall, then other possibilities will have to be examined in the future. If we had been pressing into 1991, we might have been able to look ahead and say, oh, oh. Actually, I think we did look ahead and say, oh, oh, because this government is not interested in providing more democracy at City Hall. Their changes will only be worse, and that has been proven true.
The Minister of Urban Affairs in 1991 said that "timely decision making becomes more difficult with a large council." My comment when I read that was, yes, Madam Speaker, democracy is messy. It is not efficient. It is certainly not as efficient as a dictatorship or as an oligarchy, but the whole point of democracy is not the end result of efficiency at the exclusion of everything else. That is what Bill 68 did when it reduced the number of city councillors, and that is what Bill 36 is going to do.
The minister then talked about the trend among Canadian urban centres is toward smaller councils and that reducing the number will bring it in line with other Canadian cities. Both the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and myself in speaking to that bill in 1991 stated that Winnipeg is unique, as I have stated in my comments last week. We have a unique situation, unique neighbourhoods, a unique composition of a variety of socioeconomic strata, of ethnic strata, of political strata. We are unique in having come from a number of small communities that still retain their neighbourhood characteristics only 25 years ago, 26 or 27 years ago. So we do not need, nor should we look like other cities. We should have legislation in place that responds to and reflects the unique characteristics of Winnipeg. Bill 36 does not do that. It changes it. It makes it worse.
Madam Speaker, very briefly, what is the current situation? I am going to quote here briefly from Glen Murray who is a city councillor and a man who is running for mayor and a man who has said publicly that he does not need nor does he want the elements of Bill 36 in this legislation. I quote: City government in Winnipeg has steadily been transformed from a group of politically independent municipalities with local autonomy to a highly centralized, one-tier, regional city government soon to be directed by a powerful superbureaucrat and with political power vested increasingly in the office of the mayor. This has been done with little or no public input and has happened on an ad hoc basis over a long period of time. Several public consultations with the public that resulted in reports to council or the provincial government were, in the main, ignored.
He then goes on to say: The shrinking of council and the elimination of the few authorities community committees had has ended real local authority. Twenty-five years later, after Unicity, it is hard to see the efficiency and the savings of Tory government changes to The City of Winnipeg Act. Exurban development and sprawl are not controlled. Loss of local authority has resulted in local decisions that are often neither relevant nor useful to the neighbourhood they are made for.
Madam Speaker, when Unicity came in, they talked about the need for local community representation. Right now, we have 15 city councillors who each represent over 40,000 citizens. Now, with the possible exception of Brandon, I do not know what the current population--
An Honourable Member: Forty thousand.
Ms. Barrett: The member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) says to me that the population of Brandon is about 40,000. So, when we talk about the level of representation at City Hall in the City of Winnipeg with 15 city councillors, we are talking about every single one of those city councillors representing, with the exception of Brandon, more people than any other urban centre, rural municipality, hamlet, in this province. So there is less representativeness at local government in the City of Winnipeg than virtually everywhere else in the province because there is more than one city councillor in the City of Brandon. There are 10 city councillors in the City of Brandon.
So when we put that together with the other elements of Bill 36, which give enormous powers to the mayor and her or his appointed Executive Policy Committee, we have a huge diminution of representation and representativeness in the City of Winnipeg.
The other element that Bill 36 is going to exacerbate is one that was talked about in 1991, and that is the alienation of residents and citizens from their local governments. We have seen an alienation across all levels of government, and there are many reasons for that--which would require a much longer period of time than I have to discuss thoroughly. But when you have one city councillor representing 40,000 people, you are bound to have a division. There is no local communication; there is no local connectedness. With Bill 36, without the requirements for community committees, without support for local groups like RAGs, it is going to get even worse.
I would briefly like to discuss the Cuff report. I wish I had actually more time because it is quite a remarkable report not only for what it says, but for the process that was undertaken. Mr. Cuff, in his background section to his report, is very frank and open, actually, and he talks about the fact that you do not have reports in isolation. You do not have reports without connective tissue around it, and the election of the current mayor in 1992 and her re-election in 1995 engendered this report. He as much as says had someone else been elected mayor in 1992 and 1995, the Cuff report would probably not have been requested. The mayor had no real attachment to the City Council, city process system, or its historical basis. She felt alienated from it, and some of her actions helped that along.
There was a shift to the right in the political spectrum by the election of City Councils in '92 and more in '95, which increased support for the mayor and her bias--which is the word that Mr. Cuff uses--that the system needed to be changed. She saw these changes as partly a matter of style and partly that of substance. The changes that were necessary, and, I believe, without going into great deal that just as the 1991 Wards Boundary Commission was given the requirement that it recommend a reduction in the number of City Council from 29 to 12 to 15, the Cuff report was given a direct and probably, in some cases, an indirect slant by the mayor and the Executive Policy Committee. He was pretty much told what it was that he was to write.
Consultants are not totally independent. Consultants usually are hired on the basis of their past work, and they are hired on the basis of their philosophy and their ideology. [interjection] As my colleague from Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) says, he who pays the fiddler calls the tune. This is very evident in the Cuff report, Madam Speaker. Again, I wish I had more time to discuss it, but there is one real problem we have with the methodology, well, several of them, but one basic one is that Mr. Cuff conducted 202 interviews.
Now, this is not a small number of interviews, but we do not know who he talked to. We know one element that he talked to. We know that he talked to 16 City of Winnipeg Council members. So he talked to every city councillor--one would hope so. He also talked to Levels 1 and 2 managers, Level 3 managers and other staff and 14 external interviews. He refuses in his document to append a list of the people with whom he spoke. We have no way of knowing who they were. Not what they said, that is confidential, but there is no reason why we should not know who it was that Mr. Cuff spoke with.
* (1650)
Mr. Cuff then did not take his preliminary findings to City Council as a whole, did not consult. He took his preliminary findings to the City of Winnipeg Executive Policy Committee at a retreat, so that city councillors as a whole did not have access to the Cuff report until, like, 10 days before the final decision had to be met. So parts of those processes were very, very undemocratic.
He said that he did not anticipate a large crowd at the public hearings during nine o'clock in the morning at City Hall, because for the average person the Cuff report is not about day-to-day frontline service delivery, so the public should have few concerns. Now, if this is not an oligarchic kind of a statement, I do not know what is. Many individuals commented on the speed with which this report was dealt with. Cuff unveiled the report on October 10, 1997. It went to City Council on October 29, 1997, and it was voted on less than three weeks from start to finish, and there were some major changes that took place in that time frame. So there were no public hearings. There were not months and months of public consultation like there was with The City of Winnipeg Act in 1971, with the Taraska report in 1976, with the Cherniack report in 1986, with the Winnipeg Boundaries Review Commission in 1991. All of those reports had extensive public input and public hearings. Not a single thing in this report.
This is because the mayor did not want them. The mayor said, and I wish I could find it here, the mayor said: I do not want it to go too slowly. We have to get it in. We have to rush it through. We have to rush it through.
There are many people that have spoken about the need for public hearings. Another part of the Cuff thing is what its basic philosophy is. Russ Wyatt, a Transcona resident at the public hearings, said, and I quote: this is nothing more than a greedy, self-interested power grab that would make Machiavelli proud and which sickens the rest of us. By forcing this matter through so fast and with such haste, you either have something to hide or you are scared of the public, or maybe both.
I think Mr. Wyatt hit the nail on the head. The City Council--part of the City Council, not all of the City Council, never mind that the Free Press said that it was a unanimous decision. It certainly was not. Four city councillors voted against the Cuff report, and several others had very serious concerns with some elements.
The Cuff report, upon which Bill 36 is based, destroys democracy. The process stunk, Madam Speaker, if I could be that open. The ideology is a right-wing corporate ideology that talks about bottom lines, that talks about efficiency, that ignores the needs of community residents, that ignores the needs of a democratic process. There were only four private citizens making presentations to the public hearings on the Cuff report at City Council in late October at nine o'clock in the morning. Most people work.
One of those citizens from Westwood, not from the inner city, from a Westwood community, stated: many people in the city are unsure of the direction things are going. It is unfortunate that they have decided to move so precipitously.
There were other people who made presentations who spoke about the same thing. Many people--and, again, I wish I had some more time, but not only the process of the Cuff report itself, but the lack of openness in whom he consulted with, the right-wing ideology that spread far and wide throughout his report, the speed with which the City Council, the mayor and her henchpeople shoved this process through, and the unconscionable willingness of the province to go along with this in the light of 25 years of history of open, democratic discussions about major changes to the city of Winnipeg.
The other areas--and I will discuss this in more detail when I talk about the elements of Bill 36. The people of the city of Winnipeg who spoke out and who have spoken out since then who are sharing concerns are deeply, deeply distressed by the powers given to the mayor, the powers given to the Executive Policy Committee on the one hand, and the potential for total disenfranchisement of half of City Council by the structuring of the powers to the mayor and the Executive Policy Committee, so half of the people of the city of Winnipeg could be represented by emasculated city councillors, city councillors who have no power, no influence, no way of getting their constituents' concerns heard by the people who are actually making the decisions.
So internally in council that is the problem but, again, in addition to that, the antidemocratic elements of Bill 36 take away the requirements to have community committees, eliminate funding and support for RAGs, tell the City Council that the Executive Policy Committee can make determinations as to what form, if any, community consultation will take place.
It is bizarre, Madam Speaker, that this government--well, it is not bizarre. It fits. It fits. This is a government that says, on the one hand, that less government is better government and then, on the other hand, gives that "smaller government" enormous powers, powers that no democracy should allow to have happen, powers that when the next election takes place, and I am calling on the Premier to do that as quickly as possible, because the people of the city of Winnipeg and people of Manitoba are demanding it in many areas, but the antidemocratic, oligarchic Bill 36 and those elements that when they fit in a package of its entirety is just obscene.
When all of that is known by the people of the city of Winnipeg, there will be an outcry. I can guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that after the next provincial election, those odious changes, those changes that make democracy an empty shell in the city of Winnipeg will be reversed by the next government of the province of Manitoba, which will be a New Democratic government in the province of Manitoba. The minister can bet his bottom dollar on those changes taking place.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, this will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).