LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, June 12, 1992
The
House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to rise on a matter of privilege.
Beauchesne's points out that it should be
raised at the earliest possible time and should be dealt with by a motion that gives
the power of this House to impose reparation or apply a remedy.
Mr. Speaker, something has occurred over the
last week that causes great concern for myself and my caucus colleagues, in fact,
something that I believe would be of concern to everyone inside this Chamber.
It is in respect to the rules that govern this
House, something that all of us have a role to ensure that they are in fact
maintained to the best of our abilities.
Last Monday during private members' hour, I
had stood up and asked to have a quorum count.
This is what the quorum count read, and the Clerk read it, that Mr.
Manness was here, Mr. Cummings was here, Mr. Ernst was here, Mr. Laurendeau was
here, Mrs. McIntosh was here, Mr. Reimer was here, Mr. Lamoureux‑‑myself‑‑and
Mr. Martindale.
Mr. Speaker, that added up to eight. If you add yourself in, that gave nine. Well, because of the circumstances
surrounding it, I did not question it at the time when you said that there was
a quorum here, because shortly after or during the Clerk calling the names a
couple other members had entered the House, even though I understand that they
should not have been allowed to enter the House.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you had decided that in
fact a quorum was in the House. Because
of that decision, I did not feel it was appropriate because I did not know what
it was that you had based it on and had planned on talking to you about it.
What causes me to rise today on a matter of
privilege is, yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) stood in his place
and asked for quorum. I read from the on‑line
from the Legislative Library, those that were present: Mr. Manness, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Neufeld, Mr.
Lamoureux, Ms. Friesen, Mr. Santos, Mr. Martindale, Mr. Edwards. Then, Mr. Speaker, you yourself pointed out
at that time, you have eight plus the Speaker, makes nine, there is no quorum
present due to the lack of quorum.
It goes on to say, an honourable member rose
for a point of order, and that honourable member was myself, because I wanted
to point it out at that time but, unfortunately, I was not able to bring it to
light then, which brings me to why I am bringing it forward now, Mr. Speaker.
It is in fact the earliest possible time I
have to bring it to this Chamber. What I
believe is necessary, Mr. Speaker, is that we need to have that particular rule
clarified. Is the quorum the count that
the Clerk gives, and should those individuals who came in possibly during or
right after the count have been included in the quorum as that happened?
[interjection! Well, the member for
* (1005)
It is very important that the rules be
consistent and, because of that inconsistency, the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards),
who was addressing a very serious issue, was not allowed to finish his
grievance. At no fault of his own, the member
for St. James‑‑
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is having great
difficulty in hearing this. This is a
very serious matter.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, what we are calling into question
is the rules. The Minister of Health
might have some opinions and might want to try to justify some of the
government's actions toward the defending of the minister, but that is another
issue that will be dealt with no doubt in the future some time.
The issue that we have before us is a very
serious one and, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, should be dealt with in a very
quick fashion because we do not know when another quorum could be called.
Having said that, I wanted to move, seconded
by the member for
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Acting Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I note that the member for
There are a number of problems with this as a
matter of privilege. One is it was not
the first opportunity. I think the member
should have raised it when Votes and Proceedings were published or when Hansard
was published. His problem was really with
what may have been an error on Monday, rather than what happened yesterday.
However, it seems that both the government and
the Liberals are wont to call a quorum.
We will let them do that. We
would rather get out of here and end the session in June rather than in July or
August, because the public has the right to present briefs at committees and to
follow the proceedings of the Legislature, and that will not happen if we are
here until August. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to have a hard time following that act.
The acting House leader from the opposition party makes some very good points.
I, too, agree that this should be raised as a
point of order and should have been raised as a point of order. It should have been raised as a point of
order indeed at the time at which, if in the mind of the member for
Certainly Monday indeed was the proper
time. The rule is very clear. The rule does not say nine; the rule does not
say eight; the rule says 10. Even the
member for
So the rule is very clear, and I think the
member had every opportunity on Monday, if he sensed there was an injustice, to
rise at that time on a point of order.
What is obvious is that the Liberal Party is
bankrupt of issues and, of course, they will try and disturb the proceedings of
this House on every opportunity as the vast majority is trying to work to an
orderly wind‑down of this House.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was a grievance of
the Liberal Party. It is their
responsibility to have members from their party in support of that
grievance. It is not incumbent upon the government
to have in place all the members of this Legislature. It is incumbent upon the
Liberals to have members in their seats to support their own grievance. If they fail to do so, they have nowhere to
look but at themselves for their lack of support.
So this should be dealt as a point of order,
in my view.
Mr.
Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their advice on this matter. Indeed,
I will take this matter under advisement, peruse Hansard to find out what all
members have said, and I will come back to the House with a ruling.
* (1010)
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the
petition of Fran Watson, Doreen Fines, Pat Vancaeyzeele and others requesting
the government to consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to
fight Dutch elm disease.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mr.
Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and
Natural Resources): I would like to present the Seventh Report of
the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its Seventh Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, June 11, 1992,
at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Mr. Derek Smith, President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Mr. Al Ahoff, Vice‑President Finance and Administration,
provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report
and business of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the year ended March 31, 1991,
and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Penner: I move, seconded by the
honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
Mrs.
Shirley Render (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report
on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr.
Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections presents the following as its First Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, June 11, 1992,
at 10 a.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee adopted at its June 11, 1992,
meeting the following recommendation:
MOTION:
THAT The Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections recommends that
A)
this committee will advertise extensively within
B)
that the dates of the hearings will be established by an all‑party consensus, and
C)
that the said committee report back to the Legislative Assembly not later than June 30, 1993.
Your committee reports that it has considered
the operations of and matters pertaining to the Freedom of Information Act.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mrs.
Render: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
I have a statement for the House.
I rise today to share with the House details
on an urgent matter concerning the withdrawal of federal government support under
the Post‑Secondary Student Support Program for Status Indians enrolled in
the university and college ACCESS programs at the time of the expiry of the
Northern Development Agreement.
The ACCESS programs are special post‑secondary
initiatives funded by the
As the members of the Assembly are undoubtedly
aware, the NDA expired in March, 1990.
During the following two years, we reached agreements to ensure the
federal government met its responsibility to provide eligible Status students
with financial support for regular tuition costs, living expenses and books, thus
enabling those students enrolled in ACCESS programs at the time of the expiry
of the NDA to continue their studies.
This fiscal year, however, the federal
government has chosen to abrogate its responsibilities to the 96 continuing
Status students who were enrolled in the ACCESS programs prior to the expiry of
the NDA. I cannot state too strongly,
Mr. Speaker, that the federal government's unwillingness to accept funding responsibility
for certain Status Indians in post‑secondary ACCESS programs is
unacceptable to the
Our government and I firmly believe that the
federal government must honour its commitment to the 96 Status students enrolled
under the Northern Development Agreement.
The federal government's refusal to do so is contrary to federal constitutional
responsibilities also confirmed in the Indian Act and by precedent. Our government is legitimately concerned
about federal efforts at offloading their financial responsibilities onto
* (1015)
The federal government's recent unilateral
decision to withdraw from long‑standing arrangements for social
assistance payments for off‑reserve Status Indians is another example of
its unwillingness to meet its financial responsibilities. We recognize the importance of the unique
education and training opportunities offered by the ACCESS programs and are
firm in our commitment to see the ongoing students through to the completion of
their studies.
Consequently, and despite the federal
government's decision to effectively abandon its responsibility for these
Status Indian students, the
In order to do this, our government will spend
$1.1 million to cover these students' costs this year. Since the expiry of the Northern Development
Agreement, the federal post‑secondary student support program
contributions to direct education funding covered tuition costs only, or about
20 percent of the total education costs for Status students enrolled in ACCESS
programs. The province covered the remaining 80 percent of education expenses,
including academic, tutorial, counselling and program supports, approximately
$8,000 per year, per student.
As well, the province has maintained its
financial support to the ACCESS programs above historical net provincial
expenditure levels. This will allow us,
not only to support the continuing Status students I have spoken of but also to
allow a new intake of students this year.
The federal government's unwillingness to meet
its obligations to the 96 students is unconscionable. I have requested an urgent meeting with the
federal minister responsible, the Honourable Tom Siddon, and my staff and I
will continue to press this matter with him in pursuit of a fair and just
resolution.
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I welcome today the statement of the Minister
of Education. What I cannot understand
is why we have waited two years for this kind of statement, this kind of recognition,
awakening on the part of this government of the way in which the federal
government, their federal Tories, their allies, have treated aboriginal people
of this province.
We have raised this question, I would think,
on a weekly basis in this House; issues of the absence of an aboriginal strategy
on the part of this government, the difficulties faced by the people who are
looking at the CP station, the withdrawal of funds from the Core Area training
programs. Everywhere you turn in
I want to again draw the attention of the
members of this House, I think, to the success of the ACCESS programs. This is not just one amongst many educational
programs, but it is a program which has won international recognition. It has given
We should, everyone in
So I regret, I think, very, very deeply the
silence I have heard from this government over the past two years on the way in
which their federal allies have abandoned aboriginal people and aboriginal
programs. I am delighted to see that this
minister is finally going to pick up the phone, is finally, after two years of
urging on our part, going to have a meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs
on this. I cannot understand why it has
taken so long for one Tory minister to call another and to deal with this
program which is affecting so many people in
* (1020)
I want to point out to members of this House
that although some of the aboriginal ACCESS programs will continue, they are continuing
at a very much diminished level. The
minister has spoken of an intake that will continue, but let us just look at the
medicine program, Mr. Speaker.
That program for admitting aboriginal students
in premedical programs and into the actual professional medical programs is cut
in half, so whereas you could have, two years ago, graduated five aboriginal
doctors in Manitoba‑‑a small province, but one which is making an
impression upon aboriginal health and aboriginal communities through that‑‑when
you can only have an intake of two students into that program, your chances of
graduating those five aboriginal students every year, as we had anticipated,
are very, very much diminished.
So I am angry, I think, at the unconscionable
action of this government over the past two years. I welcome their action today, and I wish we
had seen it two years ago.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I would like to use a phrase
often used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and suggest that it is
"passing strange" that at a time in this country when we are debating
the devolution of powers to the native leadership in this country, that we are
not supporting qualified aboriginal candidates to take advantage of post‑secondary
education.
Now, I want to congratulate the Minister of
Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) today.
I think she has learned something from the experience of the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). I
was the critic for Family Services when the Minister of Family Services rose on
a very similar issue. At that time I
said, and I believe the member of the New Democratic Caucus said, that we would
support the Minister of Family Services in this battle with
Now the nice thing about this particular
announcement, and the very positive thing about this announcement is the
minister is not going to allow these students in existing programs to be disrupted. If I understand this statement today
correctly, she is not going to allow the program to come to an end, but will ensure
that there will still be intake into this program.
So while I concur with some of the statements
of the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), I do think that this is a much more positive
step than was taken the last time we discussed this issue of the federal
government withdrawal from this province.
I think the minister should be congratulated for at least that small
step. Thank you.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 100‑The Pension Plan Acts
Amendment Act
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of
The Civil Service Superannuation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that
Bill 100, The Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act; Loi modifiant les lois sur les
regimes de retraite, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a
first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor
having been advised of the contents of this bill recommends it to the House,
and I would like to table the recommendation.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning
from the Onanole Elementary and the Bertram E. Glavin Schools forty‑two
Grades 5 and 6 students. These schools
are located in the constituencies of the honourable Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) and the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer),
respectively.
Also with us this morning from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome
you here this morning.
* (1025)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
ACCESS Program
Premier's Discussions
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, over the course
of this dispute with the federal government there have been two Ministers of
Education, but there has been one Minister of Federal/Provincial Relations, and
that has been the Premier.
In 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991, we were asking
questions of the First Minister on this issue in this House. In fact, in 1988 and 1989, the Premier gave
us advice not to even ask him and give him any advice about how to deal with
the federal government on this issue, because not only would he get as much as
what was received before in these federal‑provincial programs, but he
would exceed the limits that were achieved by former governments in terms of programs
such as ACCESS.
The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) and the
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) have articulated the strong, strong success of
these programs. Last year, we had
aboriginal doctors graduating, and many of us attended their graduation
ceremonies, people from the North graduating as doctors returning to the North
in their own communities. We know
examples of teachers, of social workers, of nurses and even engineers, Mr.
Speaker, who have now been trained under this program.
The Premier has met on a number of occasions
throughout this dispute with the Prime Minister. I would ask the Premier: Has he ever raised this issue with the Prime
Minister? What results did he receive
from the Prime Minister on this very important issue?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, after responding to that speech,
I am tempted to take the adjournment so that I can deal with it at greater
length in the future.
I might say that I have raised this issue time
and time and time again. I have raised
it with the Prime Minister. I have raised
it with ministers of the federal government from
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier advise the House
what reasons the Prime Minister, the Conservative Prime Minister, has given the
Premier of Manitoba for not following through on the federal‑provincial
funding of this program and for not following through on what has been deemed
by people internationally as one of the finest programs in the world in terms
of training people and access for people in our province?
I know we had a dispute in the late '70s which
was resolved by
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the federal government
pulled the plug on this program, and none of the reasons I was given I consider
to be valid or reasonable.
Government Action
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the Premier to get involved himself in this dispute in the most public way with
the Prime Minister. They have
unilaterally made a decision. It has
obviously been made by cabinet at the highest level which is chaired by the
Prime Minister. The Premier has raised
it privately with the Prime Minister. He
has confirmed that publicly.
I would ask this government: What action will they take besides the meeting
with Tom Siddon who announced the decision? What further action will this
Premier take to ensure those fundings for this program? Will he be looking at public condemnation of
the Prime Minister of this country? Will
he be looking at court action if he says it is contrary to the Constitution? What action, specifically, will this Premier
take with his federal government colleagues to get this issue resolved? It is a priority for this province. We must succeed in this dispute with the
federal government.
* (1030)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we are in a very complex time
with the whole issue of where funding for aboriginals will be paid to and on
what basis will funding for aboriginals take place as part of the overall
transition to self‑government.
It is the federal government's belief that
ultimately they will supply the funding directly to First Nations, and First Nations
will then be responsible for allocating funding under programs such as
this. In that transition time, what that
leaves are some students who were started under the former federal‑provincial
cost‑sharing agreement and who no longer are able to access the funds
because funding is being put in directly to the First Nations by the federal
government.
That is the purpose that we are putting into
the interim funding, the additional funding, to ensure that those students who
began previously will be able to carry through to graduation, because we
believe that all of these programs, the ACCESS funding, have resulted in positive
effects on behalf of students, aboriginal students, have resulted in them
getting university education in various professional faculties.
It is because of our strong, firm commitment
to the aboriginal people and these programs that we have put in this additional
funding.
Urban Aboriginal Strategy
Government Action
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
I want to ask him why, in spite of two
announcements in throne speeches, in spite of over $400,000 spent in studies,
in spite of community consultations, in spite of Memorandums of Understanding
circulated in the city, has there been no action from his government on an
urban aboriginal strategy?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the minister responsible for Native Affairs.
Ms.
Friesen: It was in the throne speech. I do not understand why the Premier cannot
answer‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister took that one
for the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey).
Aboriginal Issues
Education/Training Opportunities
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My supplementary question is to the Minister
of Urban Affairs, who refused to conduct any investigation into aboriginal
issues in the city of
I want to ask him now: Will he investigate the impact of the withdrawal
of federal funds, both in the Core Area Initiative and in the education field,
on the training and education prospects of aboriginal people in the city of
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I think the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), this morning, very well
outlined the position of this government with respect to withdrawal of federal
funding from educational processes.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Core Area
Initiative, the member full well knows that we have been in a negotiation mode for
the better part of a year attempting to find an appropriate agreement to
provide for the needs of those people in the core area of
As I told her before, and I will explain it
again to her today, we are not prepared to sign an agreement simply for the sake
of signing an agreement. We want the
best possible agreement that provides the best possible opportunities for our people
of
Urban Aboriginal Medical Program
Funding Reduction
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My final supplementary is for the Minister of
Health.
I want to ask him if he has examined the
impact of the reduction by half of the urban aboriginal medical programs, the impact
this will have upon northern, native communities and upon the aboriginal
medical systems in the city of
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not have
that information. I will attempt to
provide the same.
Education System
Grade 10 Curriculum Changes
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, after being contacted by a number of teachers, I raised in Estimates
in May of this year the issue of curriculum changes being made to Grade 10.
On May 4, I asked the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) why the decision had been made to do away with English 100 and English
101 and English 104, and to create one English program, which quite frankly, as
far as I can detect as an educator, is going to be a mush program. They are going to do the same thing with
geography. They are going to do the same
thing with history, but they are not going to do the same thing with mathematics
and science, because they recognize that different learning abilities must be
taught to youngsters in Grade 10.
I asked the minister why she understood that
there were different abilities for math and science but she did not understand
that there were different learning abilities for English and social studies
students. Her answer was, Mr. Speaker,
that she had achieved a consensus.
Will the minister explain today why it is very
clear that she has not reached a consensus, that a number of principals across this
province are questioning why she has taken the step that she has taken?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I think
it is, first of all, important to say this was not a unilateral decision. This was a decision that came on the recommendation
of the advisory committee on the implementation of the Answering The Challenge
document. That particular advisory committee
had also very carefully spoken with the field and then had, as a group of
representative educators‑‑and I will remind the member that the
advisory committee is made up of representatives from Manitoba Teachers'
Society,
Mr. Speaker, I will also tell the member that
as a department we have not received any communication from the field specifically
discussing this as an issue of concern at this time.
Mrs.
Carstairs: But George Wall, a past president of the Manitoba
Association of School Superintendents, has indicated that this change has
sparked controversy within the education system.
In light of this controversy, will the
minister now go back to the drawing table and speak with principals like Maxine
Zimmerman at
Mrs.
Vodrey: I think it is very important for the member to
note that this particular decision will be piloted in some schools across the
province over this coming year, and we do expect to have feedback directly from
those people who are implementing this process before a final step is taken.
There will be an opportunity‑‑again,
I stress that‑‑to have the continued feedback from the education
community as they test and implement this particular decision.
Mrs.
Carstairs: There is only one reason to pilot a program,
and that is because you think that program will be superior to the program that
you are presently offering. These
principals and teachers are saying it will be inferior.
Will she now evaluate the program before it is
piloted, before children are given a lack of quality education in the fields of
social studies and language arts at the Grade 10 level?
Mrs.
Vodrey: The article the member refers to certainly expresses
that there are principals and there are educators who are completely in favour
of this decision. Perhaps the member has
not had the opportunity to speak to those people. Perhaps the member has also not had the
opportunity to review the literature that supports this particular decision or
perhaps to review the issues which we did raise in Estimates, those issues raised
in Estimates which said that these particular curriculums can be differentiated
within the classroom.
I have said to her, the program will be
piloted, and we will look for feedback during that pilot year.
Health Care System Reform
Bed Closures
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
That proposal includes, Mr. Speaker, 17
psychiatric beds which now brings the total of proposed bed cuts in the city of
I want to ask the Minister of Health: Since this memo dated June 8 from the senior
vice‑president of nursing at Health Sciences Centre says this plan is
partially decided, for the sake of dealing with uncertainty among patients and
fear among hundreds of staff at Health Sciences Centre, what has been decided
by the Minister of Health? What is the
plan? Would he clear the air and give
all Manitobans details of his health care reform?
* (1040)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated
to my honourable friend where she indicated a proposal in the St. Boniface
allocation of their 115‑bed reduction and a proposal from the Health
Sciences Centre outlining a similar initiative in terms of their planning
process, it is now June 12, Sir, and what is in process is exactly the analysis
that my honourable friend has urged upon me in the past, to assure that the
proposals meet with the agenda.
They can only do that through the vehicle of
analysis of those proposals within the ministry of Health, and furthermore, Sir,
to have the wider discussions with the
That process is ongoing right now and will
reach a logical conclusion.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Let me ask the minister then, Mr. Speaker, since
it was on May 6, just about one month ago, that the minister told us the only
proposal on the table in terms of psychiatric bed cuts was the 20 beds at
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, when I made that response to my honourable
friend on May 6, that was correct.
Mr. Speaker, government will be announcing the
decision in terms of the Misericordia recommendation from the
Now, Sir, as I have indicated to my honourable
friend, both teaching hospitals, in attempting to analyze needs within their facilities,
are proposing to government certain categories of beds that they believe can be
retired from service without compromise of quality patient care delivery.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell my honourable
friend whether government will accept all of the proposals as written, or whether
after the consultation process that I have described to my honourable friend,
we will suggest changes to, in co‑operation and consultation with, the
two hospitals.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: I want to ask the minister‑‑and
this is not a facetious question. I want
to know, is there really a plan, or is this, in actuality, a shell game where
17 psychiatric beds are being closed at the Health Sciences Centre and then
transferred to meet this new, huge, expensive building, the psych services building?
Is there anything real in terms of this
reform, or is it really just moving the boxes around?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, most reasoned observers of
health care believe that the process in
Workers Compensation Board
Intimidation
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the widow of the deceased
claimant has spoken of the WCB threats and intimidation of her husband. I would like to show from a direct quote by
the deceased claimant: Workers Comp do
most of their damage by phone for two years.
Every time I talked with my adjudicator, they stated there was a letter
in the mail cutting off my benefits. The reasons were many and ridiculous.
My question is for the Minister responsible
for the Workers Compensation Board. Does
the minister condone this action on the part of the Workers Compensation Board,
where they use threats to intimidate the claimants of the Workers Compensation
Board?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of
The Workers Compensation Act): Mr. Speaker, the member
for Transcona is well aware that in this particular matter, an inquest before a
provincial judge has now been ordered and that all aspects of the file,
including information that he alleges here today, will be brought forward for
review by a provincial judge.
I would just tell the member for Transcona,
continually he tends to bring information forward that is not quite accurate to
this House, which troubles me somewhat.
I hope it is simply because he does not have his facts straight.
I know yesterday in Question Period, in
raising this matter, he indicated that an official of the board had indicated
to the widow that she did not have to file another claim. Since this is not a matter on an open file, I
can table this letter today from the board's solicitor‑‑whom I
understand is no stranger to members opposite‑‑Mr. Scramstad, which
clearly indicates the member's assertions in this House were not accurate.
Point of Order
Mr.
Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that is a
direct affront to the widow of the claimant‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order. Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona did not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member for Transcona, with his
supplementary question, please.
Mr.
Reid: Will this minister responsible for the
Workers Compensation Board investigate the intimidation as shown by the deceased's
statement: WCB says they will give me a
small pension, not enough to live on; what will we do then?
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as I have told the member, there
will be ample opportunity before a provincial judge, with the evidence provided
under oath, for this to happen.
But I would remind the honourable member that
in this particular case, which is on the public record to date, that the gentleman
in question was receiving full benefits, special additional compensation, that
the PPD, or the Permanent Partial Disability rating would have by itself
resulted in a small pension, but the individual was receiving the special
additional compensation, the full rate.
From the information that is already on the
public record, I understand that was the case and was to continue. So the facts again do not support the
member's accusation.
Mr.
Reid: It was retroactive increases, Mr.
Speaker. Six weeks after the deceased‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Reid: Will this minister investigate the use of
threats and intimidation on claimants by the WCB, and will the minister put a stop
immediately to this policy?
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very fully that the
workers compensation legislation and the general benefits scheme is a very
complex one, but I would advise the member for Transcona to go and do a little
work on appreciating that scheme. He
seems to imply that the Permanent Partial Disability rating would have affected
that individual's pension.
If he does some work, he will find out that
the special additional compensation brought it up to its full amount. All of the matters that he raised will come
out in the inquest before a provincial judge.
If there is in fact truth to the allegations that he raises, then
appropriate action will be taken.
Conawapa Dam Project
Environmental Panel Report
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is for the Minister of Environment.
After years of pressure by environmentalists
and members of this party, Manitoba Hydro and indeed the New Democratic Party have
experienced conversions of sorts on the road to Conawapa, Mr. Speaker, with
respect to doing a full and thorough environmental impact assessment prior to
the construction.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment has
been on notice for three months that this expanded process will require further
time.
My question is for the Minister of
Environment. Can the Minister of
Environment tell the House what the new time frame will be for the report from
the joint environmental panel investigating Conawapa, given that he has been
advised now for three months that it will require sufficient increased time
than was originally predicted?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am
not going to succumb to the bait that the member wants to raise and insert
myself into a political debate when this is in fact an environmental debate.
That fact is, Mr. Speaker, the process has
begun, the panel is operating, dealing with scoping issues, and we will allow
them to proceed without political interference from me or him.
* (1050)
Mr.
Edwards: My question for the minister again: Will the minister assure the House that any
deadlines will be flexible, allowing for the full environmental data‑gathering
process to occur, and that the main concern will be to get that data and to do
that job, rather than have the fictitious deadlines set by this government when
they built penalty clauses into the deal with
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the public debate is proceeding
with the panel. There are cases being
made by various individuals who want unlimited and massive extensions to the
time. There are others who take a
different view, that the work can be done in a more concise and practical
manner, and the panel will deal with those issues.
I have a great deal of confidence in the
competence of those panel members, that they will weigh the issues that are
before them, weigh them with the knowledge that they have‑‑that is
why they are on that panel‑‑and that they will make decisions
around those subjects that will be in the best interests of environmental
concerns, but the time frame will proceed in a reasonable and practical
manner. I am not going to get involved in
political wrangling over it.
Intervener Funding
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, this is the very minister who did
get involved and said he capped intervener funding at a million dollars after
the panel was trying to do its work.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James, kindly
put your question now, please.
Mr.
Edwards: I have one final question for the minister,
Mr. Speaker. Will he be expanding the
monies available for the interveners in this process, given that it is now
going to be a much more substantial study, that it is now going to be‑‑[interjection!
Point of Order
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) from his seat has cast an allegation that I am somehow speaking
for my own benefit again. The Premier
repeatedly makes that aspersion.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James did not
have a point of order there.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, kindly
put your question now, please.
Mr.
Edwards: I have a final question for the Minister of Environment.
Will the minister commit today to expand the
funds available, which will be necessary to do the full job, and look into the full
impacts including the entire
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member
makes a rather unfair comment when he talks about capping of any intervener
funding. The participant assistance
committee made a recommendation which was for the prescoping, which was about a
quarter of what I had indicated was available.
There will be a second round of opportunity
for participants to apply to the advisory committee for funding. They will make their decision based on what
are in the guidelines that the panel puts forward. Again, he wants to interject a political
element into a decision‑making process.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the process has to be
reasonable. It has to proceed in a
reasonable and practical sense, and we will put our faith in the panelists to
make the decision in the best interests of
Fisheries Branch‑Brandon
Closure
Mr.
Bob Rose (
The fisheries are a very important part of southwestern
But this optimism was tempered somewhat, Mr.
Speaker, by a recent article in the
He goes on to say: He insists that the province is abandoning
its commitment to southwestern
I would like to ask the honourable minister,
Mr. Speaker: Is the province committing
to it? Is it abandoning its commitment to
southwestern
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the honourable member for the question because it, of course,
demonstrates‑‑and I understand the process. The question was asked in this House for that
headline. I wanted to be accurate in my
reply and took it as notice. The member
for Brandon's (Mr. Leonard Evans) suggestion that the Fisheries branch was closing
in
What is happening in
The three Fisheries officers currently working
out of
Education System
Grade 10 Curriculum Changes
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Education.
I am not an expert on curriculum, nor are
members in this House, but I am concerned by the larger question that the minister
does not appear to be listening. I heard
the concerns of the community. I raised
it in Estimates. The Liberal Party Leader
(Mrs. Carstairs) heard the concerns in the community. She raised it in Estimates. I am very concerned that the minister has
indicated today that she has not heard the concerns regarding this curriculum
policy.
My question to the minister is: Who is she listening to, if anybody?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly
remember discussing this in Estimates with the two members opposite, and I have
explained in the House today that I have not received any written communication
from any members who have taken issue with this particular decision.
I am listening to and I have received advice
from the advisory committee, which is representative of the Manitoba Teachers'
Society, the
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, and a very important
point is, this program will be piloted this year, and with the pilot program we
will have the opportunity not just for speculation, but for true feedback from
those people who are applying this particular decision.
Mr.
Chomiak: My supplementary is to the same minister.
In light of the circumstances surrounding
this, will the minister reconsider this approach and at least come back to this
House justifying the changes that she is implementing in light of the concerns
raised by the very respected members of the community, not to mention the
concerns that we had raised in Estimates?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Well, again, I have to say to the member that
I did receive recommendations from the advisory council, and that particular
council also looked at the research relating to the potential of presenting a
core curriculum at Senior 1 and Senior 2, and the effects on students.
That research tends to support this particular
decision. However, what I have said to the member is, I will be monitoring and
looking very carefully at the implementation at those schools that choose to
pilot this particular program.
Child Guidance Clinic
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): My final supplementary is to the same
minister.
Will the minister also monitor and assist, if
necessary, the changes that are happening to the Child Guidance Clinic in the city
of
Will she monitor that situation, because the
effect of the breakup of the Child Guidance Clinic could have a very wide‑ranging
effect on the delivery of special needs services to the children in the city of
* (1100)
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I have said in this House, over several opportunities to answer this
question, that the decision to opt into the Child Guidance Clinic model is one
that is a local matter.
Now, the issue of local decision making has
been the subject of debate in this House for several days, and the member seems
to be requesting something, an interference with the specific local decision
making.
Point of Order
Mr.
Chomiak: On a point of order, the minister is casting aspersions
on my character. There is a quantum of
difference between phoning a school board and trying to pressure them to do something‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
Review
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba
Intercultural Council had a review in 1988, as was reported in the
My question for the minister is: What is the reason for this review, and why
are these reasons only coming to light as the minister is tabling the act on
multiculturalism?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr.
Speaker, I know that the Manitoba Intercultural Council has just sent out a
news release this morning, and it says MIC welcomes the act and the
review. I will quote: The Manitoba Intercultural Council welcomes
the introduction of The Multiculturalism Act tabled in the Legislature for
first reading on Monday, June 8.
Mr. Speaker, I will not read the whole news
release. I am sure members of the media
and possibly members of the opposition have copies of it. In fact, they indicate in this news release that
they had asked government in the past to do an independent review because MIC
has been in operation for 10 years, and there may be some changes that are
required.
Ms.
Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this is an organization that is
on the ropes.
I will read from the same press release, and I
would ask the minister, how does she respond to‑‑and I quote from
the press release: There is concern
expressed that the review of MIC is taking place after The Multiculturalism Act
is already tabled. Some feel that this is a piecemeal approach that will not
allow for a comprehensive look at all aspects of the government's multiculturalism
initiative‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: There are some concerns expressed in MIC's comments,
but I do want to indicate to you that there are many, many Manitobans from the
ethnocultural communities that have different opinions than are stated or
expressed here.
Many of them have indicated to me through our
major consultation process that in fact we are proceeding in the right direction. They want a multiculturalism act today, Mr.
Speaker.
Ms.
Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, they want a comprehensive act
that has some‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member for Radisson, kindly put
your question now, please.
Ms.
Cerilli: For the same minister, why is the minister
not living up to her commitment in 1990 when she said: It‑‑referring to review of
legislation and development in multiculturalism‑‑should be done in
a manner, when we are looking at multiculturalism in the
Mrs.
Mitchelson: As a result of the community wanting a multiculturalism
act, and as a result of many within the community having some concerns over the
role, mandate and structure of the Manitoba Intercultural Council, Mr. Speaker,
it could not be included in the act.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to consult and to
work with the community. I would ask
members of this Legislature to go ahead with debate on this piece of
legislation, get it to committee and let members of the community come out and
speak and give us their indication of support.
SAFER Program
Eligibility Statistics
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, one in 10 adults in
Many of those who are unemployed are low‑income
seniors, and they are eligible for the shelter allowance for seniors. Regrettably,
the Minister of Housing does not know how many low‑income seniors are
eligible.
Will the Minister of Housing now agree to find
out how many seniors are eligible for SAFER?
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the SAFER program
has been in effect for 10 or 12 years or more, that brought in by the
The program, Mr. Speaker, is widely
distributed in terms of information.
People are aware of the benefits of the program. Seniors organizations,
social agencies, all kinds of groups, are well aware of the information related
to the SAFER program.
Mr. Speaker, a simple call to the department
will let anyone know what the benefits are and if they are eligible.
Public Awareness
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Will the Minister of Housing publicize the
SAFER program, using every possible means, so that many more seniors will be
aware that they are eligible for SAFER?
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, we had this
discussion during the Estimates process on Monday evening, and I think maybe my
honourable friend for Burrows has a learning disability, because I explained‑‑
Point of Order
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, all members should respect all members of society, including people
who have learning disorders. A mental
health or any other possible ailment like that should be treated with the utmost
respect, and it should not be part of the partisan debate in this House.
We should debate substance, not personalities.
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable member does not have a point of order. The honourable minister, to finish his
response.
* * *
Mr.
Ernst: Mr. Speaker, then let me suggest that my
honourable friend has great difficulty in understanding the fact that I think
on four or five occasions during that process in Estimates, I indicated I would
review that matter.
I do not know how many more times I need to
tell him that I will take the matter under advisement, look into it and see
what potential opportunities exist.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Bill 49?
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 49‑The Environment Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), Bill 49, The Environment Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Radisson.
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to stand and put some comments on the record to another government amendment
to The Environment Act. This is a very
technical amendment. It has a lot of
problems with language, as a number of other amendments that have come before
the House from this government related to Environment and Natural Resources
matters. We are concerned, because it is another amendment that is going to
expedite development and is going to make it easier, as did The Wildlife Act
last session, for development to go ahead.
It is going to make it easier for appeals to
licences to be sent through or not dealt with seriously, and it is going to bring
in changes to the staging of licences, staging of the issuing of environment
licences.
* (1110)
The legislation that we have already in the
province already allows for the staging of licences, of environment licences,
and we would welcome conditions being brought in so that alterations and
staging of licences would be subjected to some type of conditions. The problem with this legislation is that it
does this inconsistently. The licences
are being given in stages in smaller and smaller parts, but only the conditions
proposed in this legislation apply to the small segments that are being allowed
for with this legislation. It is a
concern that the conditions for amending licences and allowing for licences to
be issued in stages should be for all stages.
The other real problem with the legislation is
that these conditions open the door for the development to proceed in a piecemeal
fashion and that there be some momentum gained with proposed developments. There could be a situation where a licence is
given for one stage of development that does not have very much of an
environmental impact but is very intensive and expensive. This is going to make it very difficult for government,
especially this government as we have seen previously, to pull away from that
development to then have another stage for a licence reviewed. That stage may have very large environmental
impact, but it will be after a large amount of investment into the development
which has already been licensed, and it would be very difficult for arguments
to be made and for the proposed developments to be turned back or to be discontinued.
It does not make any sense at all to be
creating legislation at this time that is going to allow for developments to
proceed as we have seen with Rafferty‑Alameda, we have seen with the
As I was saying, part of the concern for this
bill is that the conditions for amending licences and for staging licences, the
conditions are not strong enough that they even encourage this piecemeal
approach to the development of projects in that province. One of the largest concerns is that the
condition of the licence is that the environmental impacts do not have to be mitigable. The wording of these conditions allows that
negative impacts in the environment could be known, but they would not necessarily
have to be mitigated.
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
There are concerns with this bill that it is
not, as the notes on the bill suggest, going to clarify the alteration process
for environmental licence, since there are words in the legislation that are
used in different places and have different meanings. We will be proposing some minor amendments
that I hope the government will look at seriously that will deal with those problems.
There has also been a major proposal from a
review done by the Manitoba Bar Association that deals with the specific
wording that I have referred to, and I am encouraged that the minister has
reviewed that proposal and will give it some serious consideration and will,
indeed, make some amendments that will not allow for appealed licences to have
an easier‑‑to end‑run the system basically and make it easier
for licences that are appealed to not be reviewed properly.
The final comments that I will make have to
deal with the other amendments to the Clean Environment Commission, that they are
changing the quorum for the Clean Environment Commission. I would just like to say that the Clean
Environment Commission's integrity is of concern because of the way the Clean
Environment Commission on the one hand is being, some would even say manipulated,
because we have seen with the Ducks Unlimited project in this province where
certain studies were withheld from the review of the Clean Environment
Commission on that process.
We have seen with the Abitibi‑Price
recommendations how they have been ignored by the government, and now we have
currently with Conawapa, the Clean Environment Commission, where they are going
to be proposing, or it looks like they will be proposing, that a proper
environmental review that is going to look at the cumulative impacts is going
to take much longer than maybe provided for by the penalties on the deal for
Conawapa.
All of these make us question the seriousness
of the Clean Environment Commission taken by the government if amending the quorum
is, in some ways, again, treating the Clean Environment Commission and the
whole environmental impact process as simply a hurdle, that they want to make
it easier for them to deal with the Clean Environment Commission.
We often hear that we now have to have, as
legislation indicates, environmental impact assessments, and that is supposed to
give the public and all of us some confidence that the environment is going to
be protected, but we have some concern that the Clean Environment Commission,
given all the responsibility that it has for ensuring that a proper assessment does
take place, is not being taken seriously and is not being left to be truly an
independent body.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
conclude my remarks on Bill 49, and we are prepared to move it to
committee. I know there will be some
interesting and, as I have said, rather technical but thorough presentations on
this bill. I would welcome the
amendments that I know that the Bar Association is going to be looking at.
I encourage the government to seriously look
at strengthening this amendment to The Environment Act, so it will indeed make
the staging of licence a more fair process and one that will ensure that the
environment is going to be protected and not going to allow for more expeditious
development as we are concerned that this bill does currently now. Thank you.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 49. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion? All
those in favour, please say yea‑‑
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Question, please.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The honourable government House leader wishes
the question repeated?
* (1120)
Mr.
Manness: Yes.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Speaker asked if the House was ready
for the question. The response was
yes. Then the question was posed as the
second reading of Bill 49: Is the House
ready to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have Yeas and Nays, please?
Madam
Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 49, The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Connery, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Driedger,
Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Manness, McAlpine, McIntosh,
Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson,
Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema,
Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Lamoureux, Maloway,
Martindale,
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 25, Nays 17.
Mr.
Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on the record
that I was paired with the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), and if I
had voted, I would have voted against.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Would you call Bill 84, Mr. Speaker?
Bill 84‑The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act (2)
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 84, The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage
d'habitation, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale).
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): I am pleased to rise to speak on this
amendment. I would like to address three
concerns: One is the proclamation of The
Residential Tenancies Act, itself; secondly, the amendment bill; and thirdly,
the regulations.
As the minister well knows, we on this side
have been concerned and concerned on behalf of thousands of tenants, and I would
say even concerned on behalf of landlords, because we believe that this is
basically good legislation. As the
minister knows, this process began with her predecessors and the NDP government
and that we believe it is a fair bill which addresses a number of concerns
which we think will be of benefit to both landlords and tenants.
However, we are still waiting for
proclamation. It was passed on December
14, 1990, and the minister's predecessors promised a certain timetable for
introduction. Both of her predecessors
promised a certain timetable for proclamation.
Now this minister has promised a timetable for proclamation, which I believe
she said was late spring, early summer.
Now, in Estimates, that is being pushed back just a little bit, and once
again, we have more delay. However, we
hope that this will be proclaimed before the House adjourns, so that we can
have a look at the regulations and see whether the regulations do what the intent
of the bill says they should do.
Mr. Speaker, I read the minister's speech on
introduction of second reading, and the minister claims that the amendments are
in keeping with the particular section.
I do not have any particular concern with these amendments. It appears that the minister has probably
been lobbied by her landlord friends and has listened to her landlords, and the
result is this friendly amendment for landlords, whereby she has given them a
greater latitude or greater opportunity to put security deposits in a variety
of instruments.
I am not even sure that I understand what is
meant by allowing them to put up a bond with the department and allowing for
different kinds of financial instruments; however, that is a technical part of
the bill and, at this stage, we are only debating the bill in principle.
So I will look forward to committee stage when
I can ask the minister more questions. I
know that the minister will be able to answer the questions and explain it to
me more fully, because the minister has been most co‑operative, at least
on the amendment‑‑perhaps not on proclamation‑‑but at
least on the amendment.
In fact, the minister came over and talked to
me. This minister always comes over and
talks to her critic. I think that is one
of the distinguishing things about this minister. I am not sure whether she does this by way of
damage control or is just being helpful in explaining things or trying to get
people onside. We should probably give
the minister a little bit of credit for the consultation that she does.
* (1130)
So we will get into the technicalities of the
amendments in committee stage. I hope
that some members of the public come out, mainly to ask the minister where the
bill is and why has the bill not been proclaimed? We will see.
If we are still stuck here in July or August, I doubt if we will hear
from the public. But if it is going to go to committee soon, then I hope the public
are there. We are prepared to send this
to committee today because I am the first and last speaker on this amendment, and
we are going to pass it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I said I would talk
about the regulations very, very briefly.
We have had concerns about the regulations since The Residential
Tenancies Act was first introduced. In
fact, it was first introduced as Bill 42 under the previous government. We noticed that there were changes between
Bill 42 and Bill 13, and when we asked the minister at that time, he said,
well, wait until you see the amendments.
So I said, on December 13, 1990, you are asking us to trust you. That
was in effect what the minister was saying:
trust us, it will be in the amendments.
It will be in the regulations, I am sorry. We are waiting with great interest to see
what is in the regulations and see if the regulations are in keeping with the spirit
of the bill. With those few remarks, we
are prepared to pass this to committee.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member
for
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No, leave.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat unfortunate
that leave would not be given, but I have had the opportunity to speak on
residential housing in the past, and I have seen the government in terms of how
it has failed on numerous occasions.
I must remind the government that the
government had made commitments to the public of
Mr. Speaker, when I was the Housing critic, I
had the opportunity to go over the then‑legislation, the legislation that
was being proposed from the now‑Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme). He had us come up into his
office and explained what it is that that legislation was hoping to do. We expressed at that time a lot of the
concerns that we had. One of those concerns
was the mandatory condition report, something that I will get to a bit further
down.
But, Mr. Speaker, the then‑minister put
in a lot of effort, a lot of hard work in order to bring forward legislation
that he felt was, in fact, something that should have been passed. He had consulted with numerous groups, had
given indication to us that they would be receptive to amendments, to friendly amendments
and so forth, operated in a very co‑operative fashion.
Unfortunately, and for many of the members of
this Chamber, we can all recall what in fact really took place. What took place was that the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) because of pressure from landlords decided that it was necessary to
withdraw that piece of legislation from the session. We found that that was most inappropriate and
very unfortunate, because not only did I, myself, as the then‑critic for
Housing put a lot of effort in trying to reach out and talk both to
representatives of the tenants, representatives of landlords, we consulted with
the recommendations that were commissioned from the government, some 139
recommendations. We did exhaustive
consultations with all areas of the public, if you will, who were going to have
an impact on that then‑proposed piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, to some degree, the then‑minister
also met with a large number of individuals and interest groups and so forth. I
know that when the Premier decided to pull that legislation, the then‑Minister
of Housing, the now‑Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) was
very disappointed. He was very disappointed,
disappointed enough that he had said that this was going to be a priority in
the next session. It will be the top priority
of the next session. It will be one of
the first bills.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I believed the minister
when he had told me that, primarily because I know of some of the work that he
did even though he and I disagreed on some of the changes that we were
proposing. We had the election that took
place and in fact after the election we saw new legislation come in. That legislation was quite different than the
legislation that the former minister was proposing.
I have to question as to why this government
is‑‑
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I wonder if the honourable
member would permit a question.
Mr.
Lamoureux: I do not have unlimited time on this
particular bill, but if you are willing to take away that time from the 40 minutes
that I am normally allotted, I would be more than happy to allow the minister
to ask a question. [interjection! Leave has been given? If there is leave, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Is there leave to extend the honourable member's time?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No, okay.
The honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing on two points,
and I am going to answer the question specifically to the minister. Before I do that, again, I suggest to the
member for
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms.
Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is
precisely because the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), not only before he
was elected, but since he has been elected, has spoken out so admirably and
eloquently for the residents and tenants of this province that we want to get
this bill into committee so the public can hear about it.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* (1140)
* * *
Mr. Reg
Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I
would point out that today is the first time that the critic for the New
Democratic Party spoke on this bill, and I would ask the House, do we not have
the same right to speak on a bill?
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the
irresponsibility of the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and the NDP on this
particular issue, but I want to answer the Minister of Natural Resources' (Mr.
Enns) question that he managed to put on the record, and that is, why am I
standing here today and not allowing the bill to be passed? [interjection! Well,
the Housing critic, too, would like the opportunity to speak on it, but the NDP
and the government want to see it passed today.
Keep in mind, and this goes to the question,
the bill itself was introduced on June 3.
That is when the minister spoke on this piece of legislation. She might get away with believing that the
NDP will be irresponsible on this issue because they want to get out of the
Chamber, they want a summer holiday. Well, we have a responsibility to speak,
to air our concerns. We have serious
concerns about a number of pieces of legislation.
Point of Order
Mr.
Martindale: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we want to send
this to committee so people can speak to this if they want to, so that we can
pass it to the benefit of all landlords and tenants in
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, I only wish that the
member for Burrows, who has had a change of attitude on how this Chamber is
run, unfortunately, will only think about the types of things that the New
Democratic Party is saying. I must say
that I am very disappointed, very disappointed.
One would expect that the official opposition would take a more
responsible approach to dealing with legislation.
I have a right as a member to speak to this
piece of legislation. I have had, as the
former critic, a sincere interest in this area.
I have the right to be able to speak to this bill, and if the NDP want
to see it go to committee, I can assure them that it will go to committee. We are not going to prevent the bill from
going to committee.
There is only one party in this House that has
consistently tried to filibuster this Chamber, and that was when Jay Cowan was here
on final offer selection. So maybe some
of these current members should go and start talking to Jay Cowan and talk
about what actual filibustering is as opposed to legitimate concerns that we
have. So stop thinking about your summer
holidays, and start thinking about the people of
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, getting back, after the point of
orders being raised, to the issue that we have before us‑‑and that
is in regard to landlord and tenant affairs‑‑it is very important
that there is follow‑up to what happens inside this Chamber.
[interjection! To the Minister of Highways, no, it is not in my mind, because
this government has still not proclaimed legislation that was passed regarding
the landlord and tenant affairs. So
things have occurred inside this Chamber, dealing with the residential act, and
there has been absolutely no follow‑up with this government. I have an opportunity to remind this
government that it has a responsibility that once it makes a decision inside
this Chamber, it should keep up to what it is that it is proposing to do.
Mr. Speaker, I still have a concern with
respect to the mandatory condition reports.
At the time, when we saw the major piece of legislation before us, the then‑Minister
of Housing disagreed with myself and felt that it would cause problems. Well,
as I did then, I believe now that it would go a long way to making Landlord and
Tenant Affairs that much more easier if we had mandatory condition
reports. I even set out, on behalf of the
Liberal Party, a process in which we could see the mandatory condition
report. I remind the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale), at least when he was not a member of the New Democratic Party
inside this Chamber, he supported the mandatory condition report. I hope that he still does and that in fact
the NDP party supports the mandatory condition report.
We did not try previously because we were
concerned that the government initially was not even concerned whatsoever about
bringing any form of changes to the landlord and tenant relations. The reason why I say that is because, shortly
after the '88 election, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said that any changes will be
put on the back burner in regard to the residential tenancy bill. That was going to be put on the back
burner. That is the reason why we felt
that it was necessary, a number of years ago, to bring forward a private
member's bill that was caucused and had the support, I believe, not only of our
party but also, at least I was led to believe, of the then‑NDP party.
I know that when the Minister of Housing spoke
on it, he felt that in fact these were some very legitimate concerns but unfortunately
felt that he would not be able to implement them. Well, given what happened,
given how the bill was ultimately pulled, the bill that the then‑Minister
of Housing was trying to pass was pulled, Mr. Speaker, one has to question
whether or not the government, through the Premier alone, was the one that really
objected to the mandatory condition reports.
Mr. Speaker, we have some legislation now that
could quite possibly take into consideration those condition reports. So I suggest to the minister, before we go
into committee, that she seriously consider what was being said‑‑and
there are many words on the record. All
one needs to do is look at the Estimates, to look at the debate on the Liberal
bills that were proposed when we were in a minority government, and you will
find why it is necessary to have that component in any sort of rent regulations
or Landlord and Tenant Affairs, that it is definitely in their best interests.
Mr. Speaker, one might ask in terms of why it
is that I would want to reflect on what has happened. The reason for that is, now we have a bill
that purports to do some things that in fact we support.
Mr. Speaker, the concern that we have is what
prevents this government, in particular the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from, once it has
been passed, preventing this bill to become the law, if you will. Now, I acknowledge the proclamation on the
bill, and I am concerned that the intent of this government is, at least
through this particular minister, once again being sincere. I think that it is incumbent upon all of us
when we are addressing this bill and whoever addresses this bill‑‑and
I can indicate that we will be voting in favour of this bill‑‑but
it is incumbent upon all of us inside this Chamber to ask the reason why it is
that other legislation that was passed by this Chamber has been dragged along.
Mr. Speaker, I can only hope that in fact that
will occur and would ask the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to be patient,
because as I have pointed out when the minister was maybe not listening that
the bill itself was introduced on June 3.
How many times has the bill been called?
How many times has this bill been called since June 3? It is not a question of filibustering. It is a legitimate concern I am sure that the
government wants to hear not only what one party believes, or two parties, that
in fact all three parties positions are on this particular piece of
legislation.
* (1150)
That is why I say that on Bill 64, when it
does go to committee that we will be voting in favour of it. That this bill does‑‑I am sorry,
Mr. Speaker‑‑84. My
apologies, I think the government House leader (Mr. Manness) thought I was
talking about 64, and I guess I alluded to Bill 64, but I stand corrected. I meant to say Bill 84. I just guess I am looking forward to debating
Bill 64 and Bill 98, two bills that I hope to continue to speak on. I have spoken on Bill 64, to the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale). The member for
Burrows should be patient.
Mr. Speaker, the landlord and tenant relation
is very, very important. What we do is
we hear from the public and, hopefully, when it does go to committee that we
will have some input from the landlords and from tenant representatives, where
we will see the concerns not only expressed about this specific bill but the principles
of the bill, the principles being the landlord and tenants relations.
When we start talking about tenant and
landlord relations‑‑for the members who are on that committee‑‑it
is much more broad than the clauses that are put forward in this bill, as everyone
knows, that it includes legislation that was passed but not proclaimed from
this government. Mr. Speaker, I could
cite numerous cases that I have had personally regarding Landlord and Tenant
Affairs.
We had talked about one of the major problems
that were facing tenants and landlords with respect to slum landlords. That was
one of the concerns that has been addressed during the previous debate that we
need to be able to do what we can that is in the best interests of both
landlord and tenant. Even though there
was a small minority who felt that the then‑legislation was going too
far, we felt as the government under the leadership that was demonstrated to
some degree from the now‑Minister of Government Services that the issue
had to be addressed. He attempted
sincerely to address that issue through legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think that gave a lot of
expectations to Manitobans, in particular to tenants, and to even be more specific,
to those tenants who were living in slum homes.
It even made individuals who are landlords maintain and provide a service
to the tenants. Far too often, what
happens is a few bad apples, and I emphasize a few, will spoil the whole
basket. These landlords and tenants interests were best served by having this
type, this basic principle put into the legislation. I had thought that everyone had agreed to it,
but I am not too sure if in fact today everyone agrees to it because of the
lack, the inaction of this government.
I wanted to stress some disappointment
because, as I say, this is a bill which we did not receive any notice
whatsoever from the government in terms of them calling and not allowing us to
adjourn debate whatsoever.
The government House leader (Mr. Manness) gave
absolutely no indication. I know that
the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) is wanting to adjourn debate on this
bill as the Housing critic for the Liberal Party. I only trust that he will be allowed to adjourn
debate given that this bill was introduced on the third and failing that, it
should be noted that what the government is really doing is invoking a mild
form of closure.
Mr. Speaker, this is a new step for the
government. I have only been here for
four years, but I can honestly say that this is the first time I have seen the
government‑‑I have seen the opposition invoke the question, the NDP
opposition‑‑but the first time where the government has decided to
force a bill through this Chamber without any sort of advance notice to the
House leader. I find that unfortunate,
and I hope that is not a sign of things to come, because there are other major
pieces of legislation that warrant debate.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I tried to
demonstrate to the members of this Chamber, warrants that debate because we
have had 139 recommendations. As I say,
I am going to conclude my remarks by saying that we support this bill; we want
the bill to go to committee. I would
only hope that we will have another opportunity to be able to speak to this
bill, but if the government fails to do that, we will allow it to go to
committee.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 88‑The Homesteads, Marital
Property Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la propriete familiale,
modifiant la Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
In this House, as I have stated before and
other members have, there are many times when we are opposed in principle to legislation
that the government brings in. However,
at least on the first reading of Bill 88, we are in support of the changes that
this bill is making. Mr. Speaker, we
will be taking it to committee, and I will close my brief remarks at that time.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la propriete familiale, modifiant la Loi
sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, if you will
call Bill 89, please.
Bill 89‑The Family Maintenance
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 89, The Family Maintenance Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'obligation alimentaire, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
* (1200)
Mr. Speaker, in principle, The Family
Maintenance Amendment Act does some very important things. It particularly allows for the increased
protection under the judicial system for women who have been threatened and
abused by people who they have brought before the judicial system. It simplifies peoples‑‑and I use
the word women in this context, because the vast majority of the people who
were affected by this legislation in the past have been women.
The Family Maintenance Amendment Act allows
for women to access, far more expeditiously and easily, the justice system by making
the need for a lawyer and the preparation of written material far less
onerous. It goes on to make it possible
for applicants to go to designated magistrates without a lawyer and at no cost,
to ask for a nonmolestation order quickly and informally.
A question that I would have and will be
raising in the committee hearings is just to make sure that the judicial system
and its designated magistrates are enough in number to allow, in actuality,
that quickness and that ease of access to be undertaken when the legislation is
proclaimed. There are many pieces of
legislation on the books that are excellent in principle but that do not have
the resources adequate to enable the legislation to, in effect, be able to act
as well as it could.
The other major part of this legislation is
that it stiffens the penalties for individuals who violate the nonmolestation orders
and prohibition orders, doubling those penalties. We, again, applaud the Justice minister for
bringing in this very necessary legislation.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am
prepared, on behalf of our caucus, to pass this bill through to committee.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to
speak on Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please‑‑89.
Mr.
Edwards: I am sorry.
Mr. Speaker, the comments I have on both Bills 87 and 88, let me just
say as a matter of record that we want those to go to committee. We understand that there are points to be
raised, but we will let them go to committee.
With respect to the bill before the House, my
friend has made comments about the concerns in this area, the concerns
generally in the community. We, of
course, want to see the level of payments maintained at an equitable rate which
allows people to provide for their families after the family unit has been
broken up. It is always a tragedy, Mr.
Speaker, to have families break up. It
is particularly tragic when there are children involved, young children
involved. I am sure today's society and
most in this Chamber are certainly aware of personal circumstances in which
friends or family have gone through these very trying, very difficult times
when a family is breaking down.
We want to provide as much as possible, I
think, as legislators, for the ongoing ability of both family units‑‑the
two that are created‑‑to maintain a level of income which allows them
to not have the necessity of financial stress add to the emotional stress and
burden of a family breaking up. Children
are extremely vulnerable in these circumstances and, unfortunately, all too
often get caught in the middle. One only
has to go to the Family Division court any day of the week to see the children
who get caught in these marital breakups.
Mr. Speaker, the financial stress which is
often caused to the parent who takes the children is untenable and is not supportable. We must be vigilant in forcing him or her who
has the income, who has the assets, to provide for the children of the
marriage. As the Justice critic for the
last number of years‑‑and I am sure my friends in the New
Democratic caucus can attest to this as well‑‑this is an area that
we hear constantly about in terms of people having problems with the breakup of
a family and in dealing with the courts.
They are constantly writing us and complaining that they feel they have
been dealt with unfairly, they feel that they have not been heard by the court.
Consistently, I must say that in many of the
circumstances, what is really happening is that people are finding that courts cannot
satisfactorily settle or solve the emotional trauma that they become involved
in in a marriage. That is true. Courts will never be able to satisfy people
who come to court bitter about the breakup of their marriage. Mr. Speaker, courts just cannot do that. My advice to people who are going through
this difficulty is, if at all possible, avoid court because it will not be a
satisfying experience in any way, shape or form. No matter what comes out of it, the courts
are really to be seen as the last resort in dealing with the breakup of a
marriage.
Mr. Speaker, almost anyone, I am sure, who has
had to go through domestic litigation in the Family Court can attest to that. It is not a satisfying experience for
anyone. Everyone loses when these things
have to go to court. It does cost money to
go to court.
The most unfortunate circumstance is when
spouses, one or the other, decide that they are going to go to court to somehow
extract a pound of flesh, extract some revenge, and the idea is, well, if I am
going to be broke, I am going to make darn sure that my spouse is broke,
too. That is the type of attitude which injects
itself into domestic disputes all too often.
It just means that things get caught up in the courts. Money gets spent. It drags on for years, and who pays the final
price?
The final price is paid by the children, Mr.
Speaker, the children of the marriage who get caught up in that. They do not understand the motives of revenge
and hostility that their parents have for each other. They have no concept of that. All they know is, at the end of the day, they
live in a family and in a family unit that has far less resources to satisfy
their needs for the things that children need which cost money. They know that; that is what they know. All they know is, the additional financial
pressure on the family exacerbates the already difficult situation that they
face in trying to deal with their parents now living in two different places,
they having perhaps to live in two different places in any given week. It is not a good situation. Financial stress only exacerbates the
problem.
We need to provide for a way for maintenance
payments to increase as the cost of living increases, as the cost of the child
increases. Different children cost
different amounts of money at different points in their growing up, Mr.
Speaker. Anyone in this House who has children will understand that, that children
cost money, but it is a different amount of money at different times.
* (1210)
Sometimes children need special services. They get interested in special things, and it
is legitimate that they do that. It is
in their interest that they do that, but that costs extra money. We have to have a flexible way to allow the income‑earning
spouse to be forced to fluctuate the level of maintenance. That has to be allowed to occur. We have to be flexible and we have to provide
a way for people to go quickly back to the courts to have maintenance adjusted.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened, unfortunately,
is that the courts have not kept up with the rate of inflation and the real cost
of living. What has happened,
unfortunately, is that the people in front of the court have all too often been
left without sufficient resources to meet the needs of the new family unit.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what this bill does
generally and very quickly in the area of practice and procedure is, I think,
to streamline the process. I think it
allows for a better process, and in particular, as well, the bill deals with
the nonmolestation orders which of course are very important.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say on that, as well,
that nonmolestation orders are a very important aspect of domestic law. There is no client, there is no litigant, like
a domestic litigant, like someone involved in a domestic dispute, because unlike
any other area of the law, domestic litigants leave their logic at home. Someone involved in a domestic dispute,
someone involved in a struggle, unfortunate as that may be, on the domestic
side, generally is bitter, generally is extremely unhappy and does not want to
deal rationally with the situation.
Money does not seem to talk, like it does in
most cases. Generally people come wanting to settle a financial claim. They are asking for damages. Generally, when you put to them the financial
realities, they become logical, money talks‑‑not in domestic
situations, Mr. Speaker. It rarely is
the most important factor. People become
bitter and angry and not wanting to forfeit anything, lest they should be seen
as weak. Generally they are unhappy in
the extreme at the party on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, the nonmolestation orders are
important, because unfortunately, added to the problems that people have, the bitterness
they experience with marriage breakups, oftentimes they become violent. That is the worst tragedy, but that also occurs
on occasion. So it has become a standard
practice to include nonmolestation orders, and this bill goes some ways to dealing
with those and to making it clearer of what they are to be about, to making it
more expeditious in achieving nonmolestation orders. Anyone who visits the criminal courts and domestic
violence courts will also see that a lot of domestic violence comes out of broken
homes. It comes out of the feelings of
revenge, bitterness, anxiety, which comes from the dissolution of a marriage.
It becomes particularly important to clarify
up front with people, when their marriage is breaking up, what the consequences
will be of taking the law into their own hands and exerting violence on
others. The consequences are not just
the nonmolestation orders, but the consequences become criminal in nature, and
that is also tragic, Mr. Speaker.
The nonmolestation orders have served a useful
purpose in the past. They are not the
answer. The answer obviously is to provide
for mediation, conciliation services up front for people when they see their
marriage starting to dissolve. Mr.
Speaker, we have an interesting‑‑[interjection! Well, I am sure the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) will want to hear me move into the
next part of my comments on this bill and deal with the mediation and
conciliation services in the Family Law branch.
I know that the Minister of Natural Resources will want to hear comments
on the mediation and conciliation services, which do in fact attempt to head
off the kind of difficulty that would require a nonmolestation order.
Those conciliation services do no end of good;
it is our position in assisting litigants to avoid lengthy, expensive, bitter
court battles in which things like nonmolestation orders become important. Mr. Speaker, we have seen, unfortunately, in our
view, this government not enhance that area of the Family Law branch. That is unfortunate. I would like to see mediation and conciliation
services offered on a much broader range and to a much greater degree.
We all must be aware that it takes both sides
consenting to have any success in mediation or conciliation. One party deciding that they do not want to
participate means the end of mediation and conciliation. Mr. Speaker, it is not for every case,
because it is only in the cases where the people understand that the real cost
of fighting things through the courts, that the real burden will be borne by
the children. When people realize that
it is amazing how quickly they are willing to go to mediation and conciliation
and to talk.
Mr. Speaker, nothing ventured, nothing
gained. Mediation and conciliation in my
experience works far more often than the people who are going into it think it
will. The fact is that people need to be
encouraged and told bluntly what the costs will be of litigation. They need to be told bluntly that they should
think of their children first and bury the hatchet between themselves, at least
for the sake of the children, in the dissolution of their marriage and deal
with this rationally. Keep logic onside; they have to be told that up‑front. All too often, of course, it does not
register, but it is important that every effort be made at the outset to assist
people to coming to an amicable‑‑not happy‑‑but
amicable settlement of their assets, of maintenance payments, of the way they
are going to live their lives separate and apart. That is so true, particularly true, when
children are involved.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to further
discussion on this bill with the minister at committee and indeed on Bills 87
and 88. But we are pleased to see this
and those bills referred to committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is
the House ready for the question? The
question before the House is second reading of Bill 89, The Family Maintenance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'obligation alimentaire. Is it the will of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed. Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think
there is a willingness of the House to debate two further bills. I wonder whether or not we can continue to
sit until those bills are disposed with, whether there is leave of the House.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):
That is Bills 73 and 75. There is
leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House that the Speaker
do not see the clock until we have disposed of Bills 73 and 75? [Agreed!
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, inadvertently I just thought of another
way.
Mr. Speaker, will you call Bill 75 followed by
73, or 73 followed by 75? What is the wish?
* (1220)
Some
Honourable Members: 73 first.
Mr.
Manness: 73 first, followed by 75.
Bill 73‑The Health Care Directives
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 73, The Health Care Directives and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave? No, leave is
denied.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise as our only party
spokesperson dealing with Bill 73, and I will indicate at the onset following
my remarks, we will be agreeing, voting in favour of having the matter go to
committee.
I rise with a good deal of intrepidation on
this matter because Bill 73, Mr. Speaker, is a very significant piece of legislation. I can indicate to you that because of its
long‑term ramifications and the significance of this particular bill,
many members of our caucus were desirous of having an opportunity to discuss
this bill publicly, but we have weighed the consequences of drawing the bill
out, perhaps not having it had an opportunity to go to committee where the
public, whom we are most concerned with in terms of their response to this
bill, will have an opportunity. We,
therefore, have concluded that I will be the only spokesperson, and we look
forward very anxiously to the public's discussion with respect to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, often in this Chamber all matters
are important and matters very directly affect many of us. Very rarely is a bill, I think, going to as
directly affect many of us in this Chamber on both the personal level and as
legislators as Bill 73. I must reiterate
and perhaps it is because I have a legal background, but I think not; this is a
very significant bill.
It changes fundamentally a particular aspect
of dealing with those requiring health care decisions and with health care practitioners
very significantly. It is also
something, and that is why we on this side of the House feel confident that we
can send the matter onto the committee, it has also been widely discussed both
privately and publicly with respect to the whole question of, and I will use
the generic term, living wills. There has been a Law Reform Commission report,
Mr. Speaker, which, at least from my reading and interpretation, has largely been
followed in this legislation.
There has been a fair amount of public
discussion with respect to this particular bill and its ramifications. Very briefly, we certainly have analyzed it,
we have had an extensive discussion in our caucus on it. Quite clearly, it is a very significant piece
of legislation. There are basically two
major factors with regard to this. It is
the whole question of directives, and it is the whole question of proxies and
how they relate to medical care decisions, long‑term care and various other
very, very difficult questions, questions that generate a tremendous amount of
debate. We are looking forward anxiously
to discussions from the public, because the issues raised by this are of a long‑term
consequence.
As a lawyer, I was approached many times
during my active practising profession by individuals who inquired about this
kind of decision, this kind of a bill.
As a parent and as an individual, I see the ramifications of it every
day, have thought about the ramifications of it and did note the comments of
the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) in terms of her comments with
respect to this bill and her personal circumstances surrounding her involvement
in a matter of this kind in which this bill will be affected.
It also, Mr. Speaker, and this is something
that we think should be duly noted‑‑the effects of this bill will
have a significant effect on mental health legislation and the rights of individuals
who may or may not fall under the auspices of that kind of legislation. Even though I realize that there is a notwithstanding
clause contained in this bill, the ramifications to those suffering or perhaps
who may fall under the jurisdiction of The Mental Health Act, but maybe within
the jurisdiction or between the cracks of The Mental Health Act, there will be effects
on those individuals, and I can indicate that we have discussed this in our
caucus. We will be bringing forward some
very positive, what we feel is positive, suggestions that we feel the
government and the Liberal Party would probably be prepared to accept with
respect to improvements in this bill.
Very rarely am I as concerned‑‑well,
we are always concerned, Mr. Speaker‑‑but this will be a very
significant hearing process. The representations which we will hear, I think,
will have a significant bearing in terms of this bill, although I can indicate
that we will in principle support this bill.
We support the intention of this bill.
We support the direction of the bill.
There are some structural changes perhaps. There are some effects as I have already
indicated dealing with people who may fall in the area of some forms of
disability that may be improved in terms of amendments to this act which we
will try to deal with.
I, also, in terms of my legal analysis,
anticipate there will be some legal difficulties in terms of the interpretation
of this particular bill and its subsequent evolution. I think we will see some form of litigation
and some evolution of the concept of living wills in
With those brief comments and understanding
the significance of this bill, I can indicate that our party is looking forward
to the public hearings that will take place and for the public's input with
respect to this bill that will touch every single man, woman and child in the
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question for the House is second reading
of Bill 73, The Health Care Directives and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
* (1230)
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 75‑The Health Services Insurance
Amendment
and Consequentia l Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), Bill 75 (The Health Services Insurance Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie
et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the
name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No, leave is denied.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to put a few comments on this Bill 75.
This bill represents the policy announcement of 1988 and 1990 by this
government and also, I guess, the other provincial parties to combine both the
Health Services Commission and Manitoba Health under one organization and to
increase accountability and set a system where the co‑ordinator approach
for health care can be delivered. I
think this bill will do that.
This bill will ensure that there is a balance
in the community as well as the institutional care, and that can only be done
if you have one body in charge of the whole thing. There are a number of minor parts in this
bill which are basically housekeeping and one of the major parts here is
Section 85.1(3), the role of the Medical Review Committee.
Mr. Speaker, you and the members of this House
are very well aware of some of the media stories about the allegations of some of
the billing practices of the health care providers. There has been a public debate, but nobody
really knows the full details because it is so much a closed procedure. I think this bill, this amendment will
improve that part, because I think taxpayers have a right to know exactly what
is happening after due process is given to a particular health care provider
and they have gone through everything. I
think eventually the people of
So, Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to see
that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has addressed that part of the
problem, because right now, under the present laws, the Minister of Health has
to give anybody's name‑‑he has to resign. So it was a very difficult situation for the
Department of Health to continue to not answer the questions from the
media. Then the health organizations
were under pressure, so each one was ducking the issue. So I think basically it will give us the
opportunity here to correct their mistake of the past.
But we will encourage the minister to review
the process of the Medical Review Committee in a way which will reflect the current
needs of the health care system, because something which was put in place 10
years ago may not be very relevant at this time. We need to review the whole process, and we
will encourage the various health care professional groups to come forward with
their particular proposals at the committee stage and raise those issues which
are very important to them.
Mr. Speaker, too often the information is not
conveyed to them, and sometimes it is very late. So we will ask the minister's office to make
sure that the Manitoba Medical Association, Medical Review Committee, and other
interested parties should come, so that we can even ask some questions. I am sure every member would like to know how
we are spending our $1.8 billion, because this is a very important issue in
terms of how the money is spent and how our open‑ended system is functioning,
and the Medical Review Committee does play a very important role in that
aspect.
Mr. Speaker, the other very important thing,
but I do not know why‑‑I mean the minister is politically very
smart. But one thing they have done,
which is very good for the people, is giving authority to Manitoba Health
Services Commission. The minister has to
give the budget lines every year. So
from now on, after this bill passes, he cannot blame the hospitals. They have to tell us so we will be able to
have access to any information we want.
Actually, that is a very good process for all
of us, because it is very difficult to blame and put pressure on the hospital boards
and ask them to make tough decisions. I
think the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) should make those decisions because
he is finally responsible. So that will
be very helpful. I see it as a very
positive move on the minister's part. It
is politically risky, but it is good for the people of
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other areas
of minor concern we have that we will discuss at the committee stage. Since we
are almost at the end of the session, I will be the only one who will be
speaking on behalf of my caucus on this bill, at this stage, but will encourage
other people to come forward.[interjection!
Specifically, I will encourage the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to come and sit in the committee and give a piece
of his advice. With his 25 years of
experience in this House we should also hear other than the Natural Resources.
I do not want to hold members in this House on
this beautiful Friday afternoon. Like
others, I have also to go for some other work.
So I will end my remarks and say again, let us go to committee and hear
from the real people who are very much concerned about the issue.
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, it is going
to be very difficult for me to keep my remarks on this very extensive
legislation to a bare minimum; something I will do, or attempt to do, in the
interest of seeing this legislation move to committee as quickly as possible
for the benefit of public input and for some substantive answers to some very
detailed questions that we and others have about this legislation.
Let me indicate at the outset that there are
two important issues being addressed by this legislation. One is the amalgamation or the integration of
the Department of Health and the Manitoba Health Services Commission. The other is the ability it is entrenching in
legislation, the ability of government to disclose the names of doctors who
after due process it has been demonstrated that they committed a wrongdoing in terms
of the fee schedule and the provisions of the Department of Health, that those
names can be disclosed and made public.
* (1240)
I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that
in principle we support these two major changes. Our concerns have to do with the details
around the enactment of those two principles and with the lack of consistency
between the words of this bill and the reality of this government. Most people in this House will know that that
provision in Bill 75, which deals with the amalgamation of the Manitoba Health
Services Commission and the Department of Health is long overdue. In fact, the Department of Health has been
operating, in a way, illegally for the past year since the amalgamation and
integration actually happened last year.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
We debated that integration and amalgamation
in Estimates. We dealt with a restructured, or the beginnings of a restructured
department and we asked then, where is the legislation to back up this major
change that requires legislation? A year
later we have those changes, and we have some concerns after seeing this document
and seeing the details of these legislative proposals.
Let it be known, Mr. Acting Speaker, that we
support in concept this move, because it is and can be a very important part of
health care reform. That, in fact, is
the major reason, as I understand it, for this integration, for this
amalgamation. It is to enhance, to
contribute to, to help with the whole process of meaningful health care
reform. The co‑ordination and provision
of an integrated and comprehensive system of health is absolutely essential if
we are to achieve the sheer goal of moving our system from a curative‑illness
model to a wellness‑prevention community‑based health care system.
The reality does not fit with that underlying
principle or premise behind this bill.
We have many questions with the restructuring and reorganization in the
Department of Health. Why is staff morale so low? Why are well‑qualified, highly‑respected
individuals leaving the department? Why,
Mr. Acting Speaker, are people being fired one day, under the guise of a
restructured department, only for us to learn that down the road the boxes will
be shuffled again and the department or parts of it put back the way it was so
that a new person can be hired? We have questions. Is this an example or an issue to divert attention
away from the real agenda of this government?
Is it an attempt to create a vehicle in order to get rid of certain individuals,
to consolidate efforts around a particular agenda, to get rid of any voices of
concern, of objective advice, voices who question and query a government, as
they should, in positions of well‑qualified members of the Civil
Service? Is this a question of moving
boxes around? Is it a shell game or is
this integration real?
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, it will have to be
demonstrated to us that the integration is real, that the reform is real, that the
plan will work and work on behalf of the best interests of Manitobans.
It is clear, from this legislation, that there
will be an enormous amount of power in the hands of one individual, the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard). The integration
of these two aspects in the Department of Health bring, under one person, tremendous
responsibility and power and influence.
I will not get into a debate about the present
minister's method of ministering, but I want to register a concern, that while
this integration is important in terms of health care reform, it has a
downside. Under the wrong person, under
the wrong government, with bad intentions, with bad motives, with hidden
agendas it can be a tool to accomplish a most dangerous destructive plan of
action for the people of
We will be watching this government and the
Minister of Health to see how that power and influence is used or abused. We will be holding the minister and this
government accountable for the broad‑sweeping provisions of this bill and
expecting, from this day forward, a new openness around requests for
information on budgets for hospitals, on detailed provisions of our health care
institutions, something to which we have been denied access to this date.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, let the record show
that we expect, upon proclamation of this legislation, that the information
that we have long been requesting about hospital budgets, about capital
expenditures, about long‑term planning initiatives will be forthcoming on
a free and open basis.
I raise one final concern that has to do with
the entrenchment in law of the Manitoba Health Board. As we read this legislation and we follow
previous examples and actions of this minister and this government, we have
real concerns about whether or not, as a result of this legislation, there will
be a meaningful advisory body to the minister on health policy and particularly
on health care reform policy.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not see yet, and I am
waiting to be proven wrong in committee, a meaningful body, representative of the
many multifaceted areas in health care on this board. I do not see a meaningful role for this
committee in terms of health care reform.
I do not see a check placed upon the minister and this government in
terms of decision making. I do not see
yet anything more than a patronage body, a place for this government to appoint
political pacts. No, I am not making any
comment on present membership, although we have raised, as you know, some questions
in that regard.
But for the long term and in the future, I
want to say, based on the terms of reference, based on the lack of detail
around the responsibilities of this committee, we do not see the kind of board
that was intended to be a part of any integration, any restructuring of a new
Department of Health. All of our work in
this area, and members opposite will know that this is an area that was well
researched and studied by the previous administration in the dying days of its
last government.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is clear, from all of
that research, that integral to any kind of legislative change and a new restructured
department was the creation of an advisory board on health policy that would
have access to appropriate health planning, expertise within the department,
the university, the hospitals and the larger community. It would have significant lay
representation. It would reflect many of
the different health care needs and issues in our community. It would play a vital role in health care
reform, in hospital‑funding formulas, in payments to physicians, in the
development of community‑based systems.
* (1250)
We do not have that in this legislation. We have centres of decision making happening
outside of the department entirely. We have
the Urban Hospital Council over here, we have the advisory health networks over
here, we have the rural health council over here, we have a dozen different
bodies outside the jurisdiction of this department making the decisions in
conjunction with the Minister of Health, and we are concerned on that
front. We will be raising questions in
that regard and seeking answers.
I will conclude my remarks by saying I look
forward to a thorough discussion of this very in‑depth, serious matter at
committee. Thank you, Mr. Acting
Speaker.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the second
reading of Bill 75, The Health Services Insurance Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi Sur l'assurance‑maladie et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before you
call adjournment, I would like to, on House Business, announce that the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Thursday, June 18, at 10 a.m.
to consider Bills 47, 72, 74, 88 and 89.
Mr.
Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
The hour being after 12:30, this House now
stands adjourned till 1:30 p.m., Monday.