LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, June 24, 1992
After Recess
The
House resumed at 10 a.m.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
there might be leave of the House, such that the Minister of Energy and Mines
can table the first '92 report of the year.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines have leave to table his first report of '92, of the year? Is there leave? Leave.
That is agreed.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): As some would say,
better earlier than late.
I am pleased to table the 1991‑92 Annual
Report for the Department of Energy and Mines.
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I understand
the translation is not here yet with respect to the report motion as reporting
bills from committee, so I would then call Bill 42. I understand‑‑[interjection!
Sixty‑four. That is fine, third
reading, Bill 64.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 64‑The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, standing
in the name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition.
* (1005)
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want just to put a few
comments on the record on Bill 64 on third reading.
Suffice it to say that members opposite to
the government have been critical of some parts of this bill since its introduction. We have always believed that the office of
Child Advocacy and the office of an independent investigator should be treated
in a similar way to the provincial Ombudsman and report to the Legislature
directly‑‑not through the minister's office.
We would note again today, Mr. Speaker, that
even in today's coroner's inquest in
We, in
The question then becomes what did the public
say during the public hearings on this bill.
Group after group, Mr. Speaker, the people working on the front lines of
Child and Family Services, the people working on the front lines with kids throughout
Mr. Speaker, this government last year, or a
year and a half ago, took unilateral action to take away Child and Family Services
agencies in the city of
This is a very hard department to run. This is a very difficult department to be a
minister of, but it is even more difficult if there are not agencies and
advocacy bodies and investigative bodies that are independent of the minister. Therefore,
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that we see the Suche report rejected by the
government, because that report recommended that we have this body report
directly to the Legislature.
They looked at the pros and they looked at the
cons of going to the minister or to the Legislature. The government's own appointee, the person
whom the Premier (Mr. Filmon) felt was the best person to investigate the
allegations that were in our Child and Family Services residential facilities,
and the person whom the government and the Premier felt was best equipped to,
not only deal with those specific incidences, but to also deal with systemic
issues in the Child and Family Services department, recommended that office report
independent of the minister to the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, we had a similar report. I was not in government at the time, but
there was a similar report in the '80s.
Many of the recommendations we adopted were good ones. Some of the
recommendations we folded into the Ombudsman's office. It was independent, but it was not a separate
child advocacy office and investigation office.
It is not too late for the government to amend its own bill on third
reading. It is not too late for the
government to listen to the public who presented briefs on this issue.
It is not too late for the government to
listen, and I note that the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) is sensitive
about the issue of listening today. It
may be a good day for us to have a new beginning on the issue of
listening. Maybe the bells are ringing a
little bit in the Conservative caucus on listening, listening to the
public. The government's own person, its
own expert, who took the time and effort and energy and investigated this issue
for hundreds of hours, made a recommendation to this government to have it
independent of the minister and all the presenters at the committee. There were three or four presenters at the
committee, four presenters including written submissions, three public
submissions, as I recall, and one written one.
So we are in agreement.
* (1010)
All four public submissions will confirm the
wisdom of the Suche report and the Suche recommendations. Mr. Speaker, the government has a last chance
to listen today to the wisdom of their own commission, the last chance to
listen to the public in second readings.
We should not go to those committee meetings and say we are not going to
listen to anybody. If it does not confirm
the minister's opinion, perhaps he is wrong on this one. Perhaps he should
listen. We note that there was an
amendment brought in by the minister to study the issue after three years. This
is an issue that has been studied to death.
Mr. Speaker, we do not lack the studies. We have had two already. What we lack is the political conviction and
the political will that we can trust an independent body, and the political
will‑‑the children deserve no less than an independent body who
reports to this Legislature. I ask the
minister to trust an independent system, and I ask the minister to give children
the independent system that was recommended to this government.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, when I first learned of the Child Advocate bill, I was delighted. I thought that we were going to finally give
children in this province a voice so that they could be heard amid the debate
of adults, which pays lip service to its concern for children, that rarely
follows that lip service with action.
I was hoping that within a Child Advocate
bill, we would have the opportunity for a young person or someone who cared
deeply about that young person to be able to go to an independent Child Advocate
and say, I think there is something wrong.
I think this child has been betrayed by the system. I think this child's rights as a citizen of
this nation have been ignored.
Unfortunately, that is not what is in Bill
64. Bill 64 is a very pale imitation of
what all of us who wanted a Child Advocate are now going to receive. While we recognize that there has been an
improvement in Bill 64 with an automatic review process at the end of three
years, we do not believe that that meets the expectations that those of us who
had a deep concern about the protection of the rights of children had with
respect to this bill.
We do not know why the minister chose to be
conservative on this list and not progressive, because he had an opportunity to
do something which would have put, I think, his name into the history books. He had an opportunity to establish for the
first time in Canada, an independent office representing children, an independent
office that would be allowed to investigate, not only when the Child and Family
Services Department lets them down, but when the education system lets them
down and when the Health department lets them down and when any other
department of government violates their rights as a human being.
* (1015)
He did not have, or his caucus did not have,
or his cabinet colleagues did not have, the courage to give this minister this opportunity
to shine as an advocate for children, because if he was truly advocating for
children, he would have given the Children's Advocate the powers to mount
independent investigations, he would have given the Child Advocate the right to
advocate independently on behalf of children, he would have given the Child
Advocate the right to look at a myriad of government departments for the
purposes of advocating on behalf of children, he would have put a very special
stamp on his ministry‑‑and that stamp would have been that he was
not fearful of what they would uncover, that he was less concerned of protecting
the bureaucracy, the institutions than he was in protecting the children‑‑he
would have clearly said that children are my mandate, that children are the
ones for whom I evoke and have the greatest concern.
If he had done that, he would not have been
fearful of protecting the establishment.
What do they have to fear? Well, they
have some things to fear if there is an independent Child Advocate's
office. They have the fear that in this
Legislature, criticisms will be raised about the way government departments have
worked in relationship to children. What
a terrible fear to have to deal with, the fact that you might have to deal with
some criticism in this House with regard to the way that things were handled. They deal with that every day.
We have an Ombudsman's office, and the
Ombudsman's office criticizes. They do
not fear that. They do not fear that independent
process, but the Ombudsman deals primarily with the issues of adults. The Ombudsman looks after those people who
are far less vulnerable. Yes, there is a
section in the Ombudsman's office that allows him to deal with children, but
not with the breadth that a Child Advocate would do. The tradition, if you look at Ombudsman's
report after Ombudsman's report, is that they do not deal with children's
issues predominately. They deal with individual
adult issues.
Children need to know that they have an
advocate for them. I deeply regret that
the minister has not had the courage to give them the kind of independent voice
that we have provided for the adults through the Ombudsman's office. I look forward to the review in three years,
but I really do not think that any of the evidence and information that comes
forward in three years is going to be any different than the evidence and
information that we have today.
We know, for example, that the
I say to the minister today that when that day
comes and they do pronounce it, I want him to think long and hard that he could
have done it. He had the opportunity to
do it, and he chose not to.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
We have spoken in this House and certainly in
committee at great length on second reading about Bill 64 and its potential versus
its actualized potential. Mr. Speaker,
as both opposition parties have stated, our major opposition to the Children's Advocate
bill, or the Children's Advocate office as envisioned in Bill 64, is its
reporting mechanism, that it does not report to the Legislature as the
Ombudsman does, but it reports directly to the minister.
We have stated our concerns about the
potential for lack of objectivity and lack of independence by this reporting mechanism. We heard some very eloquent presentations at
our public hearings a few days ago and had some very interesting written
presentations as well. I would like to
fairly briefly go through some of the concerns that were raised around Bill 64
by the community presentations, including the written and verbal presentations.
* (1020)
Mr. Speaker, one of the written presentations
was a letter from the executive director of the Child and Family Services agency
of central
One of the positive things about the
Ombudsman's bill, the way the Ombudsman reports to the Legislature, is that the
Ombudsman has access and responsibility for all actions by all government
departments. The Children's Advocate
bill narrows that focus to only those children who are or have been under supervision
at one point or have been part of the Family Services department. As Mr. Schellenberg and others have quite
eloquently stated, children do not fit into boxes like that. Children in our province require advocates
and require people to help them in all walks of life.
In the Estimates process, the minister stated
that approximately 4,000 children in
As Mr. Schellenberg states, the vast majority
of children in our province, indeed, by legislation all of the children in our province,
are touched by and participate in the education system. We have all heard of situations in our
province today where the education system is feeling again the same kinds of pressures
that the Family Services system is feeling, the health care system is feeling,
the housing system is feeling, all of our services are feeling and that is the
effects of our social and economic problems that we have facing us today.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think another very
important point that was raised in the public hearings is that we must
recognize not only verbally, not only in our philosophy and our public statements,
but by our actions, and I am saying by the government's actions, that children
need advocates far more than in just the most narrow of focuses, the Family
Services department.
Again, as we have stated in the House and it
was brought up by the presenters at the public hearings, the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the government actually, has had the advantage of
a decade of reports, recommendations and studies about the need for an
independent Children's Advocate reporting directly to the Legislature with the
authority and the responsibility for dealing with all children's issues, not
just those under the Department of Family Services‑‑the Kimelman Report,
the Reid‑Sigurdson Report, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and the Suche
report.
Mr. Speaker, the Children's Advocate bill,
Bill 64, does not reflect to the degree that we feel necessary the substantive recommendations
made by those four reports. As I stated
in my speech on second reading, those reports are even more important and
should have been listened to even more by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) and the government, because they came from four very different
perspectives.
* (1025)
Again, they dealt with a broad range of issues
dealing with children and children's problems over a range of time, almost a decade
now, Mr. Speaker. Not only are we, but
also the public who is involved in care and concern for children, very disappointed
that the minister has chosen not to respond and deal with the very fundamental
issue that has been raised by all those reports.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this government has talked
over its term in office about its consultative process. I know that the critic for the Department of
Health has and could speak very eloquently on the whole concept of consultation
as used by this government. We in Family Services have also raised issues about
the use of the consultative process as sometimes a smoke screen for bringing in
information or programs that the government wants to do, or the government
actually talking with groups and then proceeding to implement programs that are
diametrically opposed to what the groups have recommended.
It appears that in the case of Bill 64, that
consultative process was even more narrow.
The department did consult with
As far as we can tell, Mr. Speaker, there has
been very little, if any, consultation with the groups, organizations and agencies
that actually deal with children, outside the Department of Family Services,
and I am not, of course, privy to the degree of consultation that took place
within the Department of Family Services.
This was a concern that has been raised by us in this House. It was a concern that was raised by
presenters at the public hearings.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to put on the record,
again, something that was in the presentation by the Manitoba Coalition on
Children's Rights which did put on a very extensive and quite illuminating
conference in April of this year, portions of which were attended by the
minister and myself. The panel
discussion during that conference had as one of its speakers the children's advocate
from the
Mr. Speaker, not only did the minister not
consult widely with groups in
* (1030)
Mr. Speaker, one of the parallels that I would
like to draw on the Children's Advocate is one that was referenced by the Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in his remarks this morning, and that was the
Electoral Boundaries Commission. I
mentioned this in my speech on second reading, as well.
The Electoral Boundaries Commission in
As I mentioned in my comments on second
reading, the then Chief Electoral Officer, the late Richard Willis, with whom I
had dealings for three election campaigns in an organizational capacity, was to
my mind the epitome of what a children's advocate should be. He was independent. He was fair.
He was neutral. He was incredibly
competent in his actions as Chief Electoral Officer. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, he held widely‑known,
very strong political beliefs. He was
not neutral when it came to his own personal life and the political beliefs that
he held.
But because he reported‑‑not only
because he reported to the Legislature, because the kind of man Mr. Willis was,
he would have done this in any event, but part of his strength as the Chief
Electoral Officer and part of the strength of our electoral process in
It gets back to this very fundamental, central
issue, that when you are dealing with anything that has to do with legislation,
that has to do with services provided by the government, particularly in the
areas of programming in an area that is as sensitive and has such potential for
problems developing as programs dealing with children in this province, you
must be as individual and as independent as possible.
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the second
opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs) said, the government here has lost an opportunity
to be in the forefront of this type of legislation in this country, has lost
the opportunity to show leadership. I find
it very interesting that the government, this minister, has chosen not to take
the initiative in this regard when he has chosen to take the initiative in
another very important area, that of the revamping of the legislation dealing
with vulnerable persons.
We know when that legislation comes before
this House, it will be ground‑breaking.
It will be potentially legislation that will be a model for not only
Mr. Speaker, the government which has taken
such a leadership initiative in the vulnerable persons area, understanding the
fact that there will be problems, there will be situations that will not have
been addressed or will have been inappropriately addressed by this ground‑breaking
legislation, has chosen in that regard, in that context, to say, we are willing
to take those risks because we know how important it is to make changes in this
area.
I cannot understand, nor can the people who
spoke out at the public hearings understand, why the government is so unwilling
to take the initiative in the role of the Children's Advocate, particularly
when the government can say there is not a single study, report or
recommendation in the last decade that has not supported this initiative. There is not a single member of the opposition
parties who has not strongly supported this initiative. There was not a single presenter or brief
presented to the public hearings on Bill 64 that did not support this initiative. We do not understand why the government,
which says that it wants to be consultative, that says it is concerned for children,
that talks about the need for intergovernmental action, that says it wants to
take initiatives and be in the forefront, is not choosing this tailor‑made
opportunity to do so.
One other area that was mentioned that I found
interesting, because it was a slightly different twist to the possibilities of an
independent Children's Advocate, was presented by the representative for
Knowles school at the public hearings.
What he said was that they could see Knowles school as a major component
of the children's programming under the Department of Family Services, has had
its own share of internal problems over the last while and also deals with some
of the most serious problems that the department has to deal with in terms of children
with severe disadvantages and dysfunctions.
Mr. Speaker, what the representative from
Knowles school said was that they would have hoped the Children's Advocate
would have been independent because they as an agency could see their ability
to use that office, to talk to the Children's Advocate about problems they were
having with other parts of the system, with the health system, with the mental
health system, with the justice system, with the education system, all of those
systems that we have been saying must relate together when it comes to dealing
with problems and children who have difficulties.
Here is an organization that could potentially
be on the receiving end of one or two complaints to the Children's Advocate. They are more than willing to have that
happen, but they also see a positive outcome for their ability to be able to utilize
as an agency an independent Children's Advocate. I thought that was an excellent point and one
that has, I believe, been lost sight of by the government, that an independent Children's
Advocate could also be very wisely used in helping the various parts of the
system talk in dialogue with one another and clear up concerns and issues.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in closing, because I
know we have other bills to go on to, I want to speak very briefly about and to
the person who will be selected to be the Children's Advocate, should this
legislation pass. This person has an
enormous responsibility, made even more enormous and negative by the lack of
foresight on the part of the government in its drafting of Bill 64 and its lack
of listening to the recommendations that have come from all sides and for a
decade on the Children's Advocate.
However, this person deserves at the outset
the support of every member in this House, and I would hope he or she would
have that because he or she will not be the architect of some of the problems
we foresee with the implementation of this act, but will have the responsibility
for trying to ameliorate the negative impacts that we fear will be the result
of the current drafting of Bill 64.
So in the best of circumstances this person,
even if he or she were reporting independently, would have an enormous task, a task
worthy of a Solomon. But, Mr. Speaker,
given the fact that the government has not given the best possible instrument
for the Children's Advocate to work from, we, even before the Children's Advocate
is hired or has begun his or her work, wish them all the best and are concerned
that they will have their job made even more difficult than it needed to have
been.
We are finally concerned, Mr. Speaker‑‑and
again, I would speak briefly to the amendment that was before the committee about
the reporting back in three years to the government. We do not think, frankly, that this amendment
was worth the two‑month delay that it took to get the bill from second
reading to committee. We feel that it is
modest in its positive impact at best, and we are still dealing with the
political process. This committee of the
House will be a committee, if it is established as all other committees of the
House have been established, with a majority from the government.
* (1040)
So while there will be in three years time
some additional reporting mechanism in place, the government of the day‑‑and,
Mr. Speaker, I speak very frankly as a possibility of being a member of the
government of the day in three years. I
would much rather not have to deal with the reporting back of the Children's Advocate
to a governmental committee. I would
much rather have had three years of experience of a truly independent
Children's Advocate.
This reporting back will be to a committee
that is controlled by the government.
The recommendations that come from that committee will be controlled by
the government, and so while it is a modest step forward, as I said before, it
is certainly not something that should have kept this bill from being debated prior
to the last day of the session.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we again
see the possibility, and I hope it does not come to pass, but we must be aware
of this, that because the Children's Advocate is not independent, because the
Children's Advocate will report to the Minister of Family Services, will not be
able to make recommendations and deal with all of the departments and all of the
potential problems that children in
I will close by saying I heartily wish that
government had listened to the people of
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I
thank the member for
Both members have talked about the scope of
the legislation. I think that is an issue that has been under discussion by a number
of people. I would simply point out that
I do not know whether the debate has taken place within other agencies, within other
departments, that members want to include in the scope. I am probably more familiar with the
education system than the health system, the justice system or other
departments, and I do not believe that debate has taken place with the
The second point that I would make is that we
had said initially that the manner in which the legislation is drawn is consistent
with
I want to tell critics again that I am pleased
with their contribution. I listened
carefully to the three presenters at committee the other night, and it gives us
information as we develop this office in the next coming months and have an opportunity
to put the Children's Advocate in place.
I thank all those presenters and the critics for their input.
Thank you very much.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? For the House, the third reading of Bill 64,
The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
services a l'enfant et a la famille. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Bill 42, third reading?
Bill 42‑The Amusements Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements, standing in the name for the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave? It is agreed.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Bill 70, please?
Bill 70‑The Social Allowances
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance, Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the
honourable Leader of the Opposition.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to just put a few
comments on the record on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.
Probably we will want to deal with this bill a little later on in the session,
today's discussions as well, because obviously we have a philosophical
disagreement‑‑not a philosophical disagreement, we have a
disagreement with this bill. It is hard
to say what philosophy this bill has, but we will want a vote at a later point
which will not surprise the government House leader.
I just think it is an opportunity for me to
put a few remarks on the record on Bill 70.
I recall a late Friday afternoon, I think, if I am not mistaken, it was
a late Friday afternoon announcement from the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Now, I have only been around six years, but I
may be one of these people who gets a little suspicious when I hear announcements
on Friday afternoon, especially later in the afternoon. So I like to kick it around a little bit and
see what is in those announcements when we get them late in the afternoon.
I noted that the minister put this blue
Conservative ribbon around an alleged reform package on Family Services and
family allowance provisions of the
Mr. Speaker, underneath the veneer of the
words of the minister‑‑and I recall them again today‑‑of
equity and fairness, the two themes of this so‑called reform, we see a
real social allowance iceberg, one‑tenth above the surface, nine‑tenths
below. Day after day, when we have asked
questions to the minister and the government, they have refused to tell us what
is below the surface in terms of the potential 70,000 families in this
province, many of whom are forced to take social allowance, what it means to
them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, and I say this to the
Minister of Treasury Board, he is here today.
I asked questions in the House one day when the minister‑‑I
cannot go any further than this‑‑but I was not able to ask the
minister the question. I did not ask the
minister the question. I asked about a
$350‑million expenditure in social allowance and what were the financial
options available to the government and what was the Treasury Board review of
this legislation. [interjection! Yes.
The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) would not give me the answer, and he
intimidated that he did not know or that he did not review it. [interjection!
Thank you.
The Minister responsible for the Treasury Board has finally said what I
alleged in the House, that you would not bring a bill forward like this, Bill
70, unless you had an extensive review of all the financial obligations and all
the financial options and the financial costs of the regulation that you are
going to pass this fall to implement this bill.
You cannot pass legislation like this without having that financial review
and without knowing what are the consequences of that financial review.
Now, the minister, every time we asked him a
question, dodged it. He acted like there
was no review. Now either the government
was incompetent or it was withholding information from this Legislature on a
very important bill. I can say to
members opposite, there is a tremendous anxiety, as witnessed by the public
presentations at committee. Again, is
the government listening? Is the
Premier's office listening? Is the
government listening to the people on this bill?
* (1050)
There is a great deal of anxiety, Mr. Speaker,
about what this bill means on the so‑called equity side and what that
means in terms of the fairness side, because the government is asking all of us
to take a leap of faith on this bill.
The public is saying to us, do not take that leap of faith. The public, in their presentations, are
saying to us in opposition, do not take the leap of faith with the
Conservatives on social assistance reform; we do not believe them.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we have, as I
recall it, at least a minimum of three separate systems of payment in the
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
So what we do not know, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is when the government is moving to a so‑called single‑tier welfare
system, or social assistance system, are they going to the tier below the provincial
rates? They have said no. Are they going to the tier at provincial
rates? They have said maybe. Are they going to the tier of 90 percent of
the recipients of this province? They will
not tell us. So, Madam Deputy Speaker,
we do not know what tier this government is going to.
Now, the Treasury Board will know this,
because they will know‑‑I am not on Treasury Board. I have to do the calculations on my own, but
there is about a $5‑million to $8‑million difference between the
options. The minister responsible for
the Treasury Board can perhaps acknowledge whether it is about a $5‑million
to $8‑million swing between the two options. Now 50 percent of that is cost‑shared
from
Now I am taking you through the arithmetic as
we understand it in opposition, because the government has not shared their information,
but if I am way off base, I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to
tell me I am off base‑‑about $8‑million difference, 50‑50
cost‑shared between the federal and provincial governments. That money, if it is not, it would be, net
terms, about $4 million to $5 million for the province for the regulations next
year, and for the municipalities or the recipients, it would be about an $8‑million
to $10‑million difference out of a $350‑million expenditure.
So that is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the
government had stated in their bill their full intention of what the tier would
be and that there would not be any decline or reduction in the support for the
90 percent of the people on municipal assistance, not just in the city of
But this minister is asking us to take a leap
of faith. Madam Deputy Speaker, the people of the province have asked us not to
take the leap of faith with the government.
They will support a one‑tier system if we know what the tier
is. We would be much more favourably
disposed to look at a one‑tier system if we knew what the one‑tier
system was and whether it was going to mean a reduction to the municipalities
or a reduction to the recipients, because if the government decides to go to
the lower one tier, then one of two things are going to happen.
One contingency is‑‑what Greg
Selinger and the City of
So again, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would ask
this government to listen. We would ask
this government to be forthright, but if you are not going to be forthright, we
are going to take the advice of the community.
We are going to take the advice of the community and oppose this bill,
because the community does not trust this government that it will be fair at
the end of the day. The minister alleges
he will be fair, but he does not prove it in his bill, nor in his regulations,
nor in any documents that he has tabled in this House.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister has
made an assertion that he will bring equity and fairness to the system, but his
bill does not provide that. The minister
knows that. His bill is a leap of faith,
and we are worried that this is a leap backwards. I would not recommend any members opposite
sign a blank cheque. I would not
recommend any members on this side sign a blank Order‑in‑Council
for this government on social assistance.
That is what this minister is asking us to do, to sign a blank Order‑in‑Council
in terms of legislative approval for this minister. It would be foolish and irresponsible for us to
do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we would ask the members
opposite to listen to the St. Matthews‑Maryland ministry who opposed the government. The church is opposing the government. We would ask this government to listen to the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization who opposes this legislation. If it is fair, why is the Anti‑Poverty
group opposing it? Why is it opposing
it?
Why is Winnipeg Child and Family Services
opposing this minister's legislation, people working in the minister's own ministry? Why are Choices opposing this legislation,
that independent nonpartisan group opposing this legislation? [interjection!
Well, I am just representing what the public said at the committee. Why would the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg
oppose the minister's legislation? Why
do they say that the minister's legislation is not fair? Why does the West Broadway Community
Ministry, another church group, oppose the legislation? Why does the City of
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have church
groups. We have people working with
welfare recipients on the street and working out of the minister's own
department. We have the two major bodies
to speak out, and they are nonpartisan bodies that speak out for welfare
recipients and have studied this issue more than any other person in this
Legislature: the Social Planning Council
of Winnipeg and the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization. We have both of them saying to us that they
have studied the bill and they have reviewed the minister's assertions, and
they do not believe that the government will provide equity and fairness in this
bill.
* (1100)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have other
speakers on this bill, but we have listened to the government, we have listened
to the people. We will vote against Bill
70, because we do not have any comfort at all that the government will continue
to support people on social assistance in an equitable and fair way, as they allege. They could have corrected this by having all
the issues in the legislation specified in law, but we will not take a leap of
faith with a Conservative government Order‑in‑Council. We will vote against this legislation, and we
will take the advice of church groups and social action groups and other
community groups that have asked us to defeat this legislation.
Again, I would ask the minister to listen to
the people, to the listen to the public presentations, to listen to the people who
are most involved with social assistance recipients. There are 71,000 people in one year on social
assistance. We have had the largest
increase in
We see now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that bodies
that this government should listen to are advising them to defeat this legislation
or not pass this legislation. You have
today, or possibly tomorrow, the last chance to listen to those people working
most directly with social recipients. I
would urge the government to listen and not pass this legislation. Thank you very, very much, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I
rise to speak on Bill 70 and to let the government know, as I think they
already know, that the Liberal Party also will not be voting for Bill 70. We will not be voting for Bill 70, because
the intention of this bill is not carried forward in the actual drafting of
this bill.
Nowhere was that more evident than the
government's unwillingness to support the amendment that I brought into committee
when this bill was in the committee stage.
All this amendment to this bill attempted to do was to ensure that
nobody would be paid less than they are presently being paid. That is all that amendment was to do.
If the government was true to its word, that
this is not going to happen, then there should have been unanimous support for
that amendment, because we tied that amendment very specifically to the rates
that were presently now being paid. The fact that they, as a group, voted
against that amendment brought to bear very clearly that this government has
every intention of introducing a rate to be paid to welfare and social assistance
recipients that will be lower than what most of them are now presently
receiving.
Ninety percent of the municipal assistance
recipients live in the city of
Why?
The City of Winnipeg councillors, in their wisdom I would suggest to
you, made a very careful decision, a very thoughtful and concerned decision,
and that decision was made even when some members of the Progressive
Conservative Party were sitting on City Council, and I make reference particularly
to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson). He seemed to have recognized at that
particular time that the time to spend money on children was very clearly
indicated to be spent in the first year of their life.
Why?
Because all the studies and evaluations that we have seen on infants is
that there is a very clear tie, a very clear relationship between nutrition and
performance. We know that there are
studies, for example, which show actual increases in IQ, whatever that test is
and whatever it evaluates, but children who have had good nutrition show
themselves to have improved their intellectual potential at the zero to one‑year
stage, evaluations which show that clearly, that this has that effect.
We also know, for example, that women who
receive adequate nutrition in pregnancy produce children of higher weight and that,
in the long term, reduces very serious medical costs, serious medical costs
that are a result of low birth‑weight babies which often lead, interestingly
enough, to complications in delivery.
One would think perhaps it was high‑weight babies that might do
that, but it is not true.
We also have discovered that low‑weight
babies do not perform well. They do not
perform well intellectually on intellectual testing, but more importantly, they
do not perform well on the testing of their health capacity. In other words, if they are low birth‑weight
babies, they tend to be low birth‑weight children until the age of about
five. Low birth‑weight children place
a much higher demand until the age of five on the health care system and in
perpetuity if those health care problems are not dealt with immediately. Low birth‑weight babies, for example,
end up having more colds, are often put on more antibiotics because their colds
tend to be more complicated colds leading to pleurisy, leading to pneumonia,
leading to bronchitis, all those kinds of considerations.
So that is my fundamental concern on this
bill, that the government has clearly shown its hand in this thing. They are in fact going to set rates which are
lower than those rates presently being achieved by recipients, and it is such
short‑term economy because it will not take many of those people,
children in particular, so that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) will end
up picking those costs up through the Health department's budget.
Where is the reality here in this government,
that you slash money from the social service budget and you pick it up in the health
care costs, and health care costs are far more expensive than having provided
the prevention from the beginning. The whole
health reform package of the Minister of Health focuses on prevention, and he
is right. That is where it should go, in
prevention.
But if people do not eat well, then they are
sick more often. If people do not eat
well, they do not perform well in schools.
If children do not eat well, they have a tendency to not be able to
participate in the recreational activities that are available to them. Let me leave the minister with just a final
story.
I taught at a very large high school in
* (1110)
When the boy ended up in Emergency, they said
he was suffering from malnutrition. It
is tough for me to deal with an issue of malnutrition in one of the wealthiest
countries in the world, but inadequate amounts of social assistance results in malnutrition. Malnutrition results in serious health
problems and serious educational problems.
I know the minister is not going to change his
mind. I know that there was a call for
that from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), and I wish that third
readings would bring about those miraculous kinds of changes, that they would
suddenly see the light. We know that is
not going to happen. The only thing we
can do, therefore, is to say that with regret, a concept that we have long
supported, a concept of one‑tier social assistance in the province of
Manitoba, we cannot support in the guise of this bill because the bill will not
do what the bill is intended to do which is to create a social safety net for
Manitobans where their benefits will be equitable.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): When I first spoke on this bill, I asked a
very simple question. I asked a question
as to who spoke for the poor of
I asked that because, as I said, there are
many people in my own constituency, many people across the province who will be
potentially affected by this bill. If
this were a bill affecting labour‑management relations, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we would hear from the Chamber of Commerce; we would hear from labour organizations. If this were a bill affecting liquor
legislation, we would hear from the Hotel Association, the Restaurant Association,
the western brewers association. If it
were a matter affecting farm issues, we would hear from KAP, the National
Farmers'
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, who speaks for the
poor? Well, the concern about this bill
is very clear, and it is a concern that is based not just on fear, but based on
the track record of this government.
This bill gives a blank cheque to the provincial government to set
rates. It gives a blank cheque.
Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) is not aware of this‑‑for the government to be able to set
whatever single rate will be set for the province. I want to point to the track record of this
government of only a year ago, to give you some idea, Madam Deputy Speaker, of
what we are afraid will happen in this particular case, and I am referring to
what happened with Bill 59 last year with Workers Compensation rates. There
were significant changes to the setting of benefits, and one of the most
significant was in terms of the shift from gross to net income. What happened was that a few people
benefitted by the changes, but the vast majority of the people lost, as much as
$2,000 and $3,000 a year. That is what
happened last year on Bill 59.
Let us look at the scenario on this bill. There are various rates that the government
could choose, Madam Deputy Speaker, to provide a single rate to the province. In terms of rates, there are differing rates
in different municipalities. Many rural municipalities
are significantly lower, for example, than the city of
Madam Deputy Speaker, there would be a very
simple way for this government to obtain the support of members of the Legislature
on that particular aspect of the bill.
All the minister has to do is stand on this debate on third reading and introduce
an amendment, as is his right, that says that no welfare recipient, no matter
where they live in this province, will receive reduced rates as a result of
this bill.
I want to restate that, Madam Deputy Speaker,
because it is a very simple way for the government to allay the fears of the poor. They can simply state that when they talk
about a single‑tier rate, that this single tier will bring those who are receiving
less than other jurisdictions in this province to the level of the highest jurisdiction,
rather than bringing the rates down, down and down to the lowest common
denominator. The fact that this
government has not introduced such a provision in the bill is clearly
indicative to my mind that they have no intention of doing that, that they have
every intention of providing lower rates to some recipients in this province,
and that this bill is a way of getting a so‑called single‑tier
system but doing it at the expense of many of the people on social assistance.
Who does speak for the poor? As was pointed out earlier by the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer), some people did come forward. There were a number of private citizens, a
St. Matthews‑Maryland Community Ministry, the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization, the Winnipeg Child and Family Services Central, CUPE Manitoba,
the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, the West Broadway Community Ministry,
and the City of
I am pleased with that because at least
someone was there to argue on behalf of the poor. But you know, the government has not
listened. The government had the
opportunity in committee to bring in amendments to deal with the concerns that
have arisen about this bill. That should
come as no surprise because one of the first significant policy moves of this
government when they came to government in 1988 was to prevent the initiatives
that were in place to move to a true single‑tier system in
I have said, and I have been saying this for
10 years, we should not have delivery of social assistance by differing levels of
government. We should have a single‑tier
system provided by a single level of government, the provincial
government. That is the way to ensure
fairness for all Manitobans who are on social assistance.
This government has not been happy with that,
Madam Deputy Speaker. They have played
around with this. They have delayed moving. They are now moving in a way which is far
away from what the intent was in terms of moving to a single‑tier system.
Let us be very clear. If we move to a single‑tier system, there
will be additional cost to the province.
Lest anyone throw that back, I say to the government, there will be an
additional cost to the province. What
will that cost result from? It will result
from those who are currently receiving lower rates than other Manitobans,
families, single parents, children, the disabled.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it will bring them up to
the level of other Manitobans. When one
looks at what is happening in
I ask the reverse. What will happen if we end up with lowered
rates as a result of this bill? It was
pointed out in committee very eloquently the other day by Greg Selinger. I missed many of the presentations, but I
heard the presentation on behalf of the City of
The most vulnerable group, particularly in the
jurisdictions such as the city of
* (1120)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know the answer to
that question. There is a great deal of pressure on property tax rates. The property taxpayers of the city of
Once again, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said on
second reading, very few people who are on social assistance were able to come
to the committee. That is no
surprise. People living on social
assistance living in poverty in this province are too busy just trying to break
even, to get by, to feed their families, to survive. That is where it is a double responsibility
on members of this Legislature, to speak out on behalf of one of the most ignored
groups in society‑‑the poor.
It is an increasing group, Madam Deputy
Speaker, as more and more people who never thought they would be on social
assistance find that due to the economy, due to the cuts in terms of UIC eligibility,
they are now living on welfare. So it is
up to us. I can say one thing. The New
Democratic Party will speak out for the poor. [interjection! Indeed it will,
says the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
We are a party that has its roots in fighting
for social justice for all Canadians and most particularly for the poor. We are a party that is set in one of the
countries that is the wealthiest countries in the world. We have the best quality of life in the
world. It is not acceptable when we have
people living in hunger, when we have people living in disgusting slum conditions,
when we have people who are more and more ending up in the situation where they
may never have the realistic prospects of employment or education.
It is unacceptable, Madam Deputy Speaker, just
as it was when the origins of our party were formed across this country, but particularly
in the north end of Winnipeg, J.S. Woodsworth, the independent socialist, and
labour parties founded in the north end, the CCF which was established in 1933
and later the establishment of the NDP.
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was struck
in looking at some of the presentations.
In a way, the social consciousness is still there, the social
conscience, the ministries that made presentation. I really congratulate them, in many ways
echoing the message of J.S. Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and others in the '20s
and '30s and '40s, who pioneered the fight for fairness for all Manitobans and
all Canadians and particularly for those‑‑the poor‑‑particularly
those living in poverty.
So their message continues, and we will
continue to raise that. The
Conservatives have shown once again that the more things change, the more they
stay the same. Just as Conservatives in
the 1920s and '30s, the 1930 depression, turned a deaf ear to the concerns of
the poor and the unemployed, so they are doing it in 1992. This bill is one of the clearest examples of
that. If this government was concerned
about the poor, they would say right now they will not reduce rates to the lowest
common denominator. They have not done
that.
They are now going to set by Order‑in‑Council
those rates, and I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that once it gets in their Treasury
Board and once it gets into the hands of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), I have no doubt that they will use this bill as
an excuse to control costs, to reduce costs, to make sure there is no increase
in costs to provide fair benefits. So
the more things change, the more they stay the same. The Conservatives of the 1930s in the
depression are the same Conservatives of the 1990s. They are the same party. They may represent the interests of certain
people in society‑‑certain privileged people. I always get some amusement when I hear the
Premier, representing the constituency of Tuxedo, lecturing us on what is
happening out there in the real world.
Perhaps the Premier should‑‑[interjection!
The Minister of Finance says that is unfair, that we all have to represent something. I say that the Premier should be representing
far more than the privileged few in
But you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say that
very clearly, because it is not just the minister, it is the Premier of this province
who has put his stamp on the policies of this government in regards to the poor
and unemployed. This is the step‑aside
Premier. We know that he is one; he will
not even listen to his own caucus. We
know that, as evidenced by the resignation of the member for
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
It is fine to go off to
But, you know, we all know the story of the
emperor with no clothes, Mr. Speaker.
Well, yesterday the member for
So where do we end up today? I say in this Legislature on this bill, we
say again from the NDP caucus, that this emperor has no clothes; this
government has no policies to deal with fairness for the poor and the unemployed.
Bill 70 is the best example of that, Mr.
Speaker. So just as we, decades ago,
fought against then‑Conservative governments, whose policies victimized
the poor and created unemployment of an unparalleled degree, just as we did
then, in 1992, we are going to strip aside the veneer of Bill 70 and point to
exactly what it is. This bill is a bill
that represents Conservative bias, that does nothing for the poor, does nothing
for the unemployed in this province, that targets the poor and the unemployed. That is why we will categorically vote
against this bill when it comes to a vote later today. We will speak out for the poor; we will speak
out for the unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I want to take this
final opportunity to put a few points on the record with regard to this legislation. We have had a lot of miscellaneous,
irrelevant legislation before this House this session, but this is one of the
more important ones, Mr. Speaker, because it involves thousands upon thousands
of people, and among those are the most vulnerable in our society.
I want to make the point that this
legislation, Bill 70, does not eliminate the one‑tier system. The one‑tier system is being entrenched
by this particular legislation. Do not
think for one moment, members should not think for one moment that this bill is
some kind of progressive legislation that eliminates the one‑tier system. What it does, it entrenches the two‑tier
system because it continues to involve two levels of government, the provincial
and the municipal levels of government.
We will continue, therefore, to be in the
minority in
* (1130)
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is also backward
because it does not address the one‑way‑ticket phenomenon. It does not address all the problems of
administration that occur at the municipal level. It does not address the problem of stigmatization
that occurs at the rural municipal level.
It does not address the problem where many municipalities can still urge
their would‑be recipients to accept a one‑way ticket to Winnipeg or
a one‑way ticket to Brandon just to get them out of the rural municipality
or out of the village or out of the small town, out of their hair, so that they
will not have to deal with it. That problem
will continue to exist.
Those who do stay have to go on bended knee to
the local council asking for some welfare assistance. That is not going to change one iota from
this bill. There is nothing requiring a changed
administration by the municipality in this bill. Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out by the Ryant
Task Force on Social Assistance 1983 that spent considerable time discussing
this with all components of Manitoba society, including social agencies, it is
quite obvious that the social agencies were not involved in the review by this
government, its own Social Assistance Review Committee, the SARC committee that
was set up by Mrs. Oleson a few years ago.
There was no consultation with social agencies.
Mr. Speaker, I note that this is an important
point made by the Ryant Task Force, the problem of stigmatization. I quote just a couple of sentences from that
particular report.
Page 44:
However, in
Mr. Speaker, further, on pages 62 and 63, the
Ryant committee very well describes this essential problem that exists in the two‑tier
system, particularly outside of the urban areas, and that is the problem of
stigmatization.
I am quoting from a couple of sentences on
pages 62 and 63: Many recipients are demoralized by the fact that they must
have permission in order to be able to buy sheets for their bed or to attend
courses for which they have been accepted.
They report feeling belittled and demeaned by the need to make these
requests and more so when they are denied.
Many are embarrassed when they cannot share food or lodging with
visiting family members for fear that they will be deemed to have received
income in exchange. However, perhaps the
negative effects of stigmatization are most alarming on the children of
recipients.
We heard this from one recipient. I will not quote that particular recipient,
but she goes on to describe how her children are being stigmatized in the
school system because of the way the municipality doled out welfare to her and
her family which would not have occurred, I believe, under a provincial setup
and does not occur under a provincial setup.
In conclusion, on page 63 the report
says: We conclude that the social
assistance system in
Mr. Speaker, this is not going to change
because of this legislation. This
legislation is totally silent on this failure of the municipal systems in
They do not go on bended knee to the City
Council of Winnipeg. [interjection! Should they? Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) is saying they should. That shows you
his mind set and where this government is coming from, because they are
prejudiced against the people of this province who, unfortunately, are
unemployed and have no other means of income and must seek welfare which is
under national regulation, which is under federal legislation.
Mr. Speaker, my point is that the
municipalities do not have the capacity to deal with this. They do not have the capacity to offer jobs
and training programs. The day and age
of saying here is a pick and shovel, you can earn a few dollars, is long gone by. There is just not that opportunity. What do you do to women who are employable
and have no children who have to seek municipal welfare? Do you give them a pick and shovel and say, you
do this in order to get a few dollars of municipal welfare. Of course, that
does not happen.
What we propose‑‑we did it in
previous governments, and we are proposing now that what we need is an
employment program, a training program for people who are on municipal welfare,
and that training could occur and will occur through a provincial employment
agency. This provincial employment
agency could provide the training.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) says, who should provide the money, and so forth and so on. I want to remind him again that the
I say that is the kind of approach we need,
but it will never happen when you involve tiny municipalities, as we have in
this province. We have almost 200 small
municipalities which could potentially be involved in the administration of
welfare.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is
backward. It entrenches the two‑tier
system. It does not get rid of it. It is backward because the problem of
stigmatization remains. It does not
address the one‑way ticket phenomenon, and thirdly, it is backward
because there is no tie‑in with employment and training programs.
Fourthly, it is backward because it threatens
to lower, in the future, in real terms, the rates for municipal recipients in the
city of
So, Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my
mind that unless there are some major changes made by this government, that
what we are going to have in the future, in real terms, when you take out any
calculation for inflation, when you calculate for inflation and deal with it in
real terms and constant 1992 dollars, that in the future, the rates paid in
Winnipeg will be lower because of the heavy hand of a right‑wing
government that does not really believe in municipal welfare. It does not really want a welfare system.
Mr. Speaker, we have, therefore, a very
serious threat to thousands of people who do not want to be on welfare, who
want to get jobs but because of the economic policies of this government are
not able to get jobs because of the policies of this government. [interjection!
Whatever policies. The government's policies
are not working.
We have over 50,000 people unemployed, and,
unfortunately, a great number of them are exhausting their UI benefits. They can no longer obtain any more unemployment
insurance. So thanks very much, we
cannot get a job in
* (1140)
People are leaving for those three provinces
in particular,
So I am saying we have four reasons to
describe this as backward legislation, regressive Conservative
legislation. It entrenches the two‑tier
system. It does not get rid of it. Secondly,
it does not do anything about the problem of stigmatization and the inadequacy
of small municipal governments to deal with the administration of it so that
people are treated fairly and equitably.
Thirdly, it threatens to lower the real rates of welfare assistance in
the future. Fourthly, there is no tie‑in
with employment and training programs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say as I wind up my
brief remarks, that I do regret that this committee that was set up by this government,
the committee of Social Assistance Review, did not consult with social agencies
in this province. They did not consult
with the various groups, with churches and the various people who are directly
affected working with the poor people or the people themselves. What you have is a very biased report that
was presented to them.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, even this committee
pointed out a failure of continuing to involve municipalities in the welfare
system, and that is, they noted‑‑and this is the Conservative
Committee, not the NDP setup committee‑‑the committee noted that
social assistance costs at the municipal level are financed through municipal
property taxes, but does not believe‑‑the committee, the Tory‑appointed
committee, does not believe that property taxes are the most appropriate
mechanism for funding social assistance‑‑quote, unquote, page 23.
There is your own committee telling you that
real property taxes should not be the source of funding an important social service
such as social assistance, such as welfare.
So, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, this legislation is absolutely inadequate.
It is totally unacceptable to members on this side of the House, and I would
urge the minister to reconsider, withdraw this bill.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I urge the
minister to‑‑[interjection! If you want me to talk longer, I can
talk longer. Well, I thought we were
trying to keep this short. [interjection! Okay.
This is a subject that is very close to my heart, and I would like to
speak about it longer, but I appreciate the time constraints. I know some other members want to participate
in the debate on this bill which is probably one of the more important bills,
one of the most important bills before this Legislature because it affects tens
of thousands of people.
Mr. Speaker, I again ask this government to do
what the bulk of provincial governments are doing, what the bulk of Canadian people
are privileged or experienced in, and that is to experience a system in seven
out of 10 provinces where you have a truly one‑tier system, where the
provincial government of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick,
Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia‑‑seven out of 10
provinces, I am sure the Northwest Territories and the Yukon as well, where
their senior level of government is administering a system, where the
municipalities are not involved for very good reason, because they are not set
up to administer social programs.
They are set up to do local
administration. They are set up very
well for cleaning streets, picking up garbage, maintaining local services,
local administration, water, sewer and so on. They are not set up to deliver
social programs. Yet, this government is
continuing to entrench a system that comes out of the 19th Century.
I say let us get into‑‑we are
almost into the 21st Century. Let us get on with it, Mr. Speaker. Let us have some progressive moves in terms
of this very, very important area of social assistance.
I urge the minister to reconsider this,
withdraw the bill, come back next year with legislation that will give us a
truly one‑tier system.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by my
honourable friend for
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call Bill 76, third reading.
Bill 76‑The Pension Benefits
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave.
It is agreed.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Bill 76 has many elements to it. The official Labour critic will be speaking
later on more of the general elements of the bill, but I would like to address
my remarks specifically to Section 31(6) which deals with splitting of
pensions.
There has been debate for years about this
regulation or this section of pension legislation. Some concerns have been raised about the fact
that while the current legislation requires mandatory splitting of pensions
upon marriage breakdown with the recently enacted caveat that if pensions of
the two partners are within 20 percent of each other as far as their value is concerned,
the mandatory splitting can be waived, there have been some concerns raised
about situations where this has meant an unfair splitting because one partner
had, for example, a federal pension that could not be split and the other
partner had a Manitoba pension that was required to be split. So, Mr. Speaker, this section is proposed to
be amended to, in part, deal with that concern.
While we are concerned, as well, that all
legislation, and particularly as it deals with individuals and families and as
it deals with situations such as marriage breakdown, be as fair and as
equitable as possible, we do have some serious concerns which we raised in our
public hearings and which many presenters raised, as well.
Particularly, the amendments to Bill 76, in
this regard, would treat in effect pensions as marital assets similar to other marital
assets that are split upon marriage breakdown, such as real and personal
property, houses, boats, mortgages, home ownership, cottages, that sort of
thing.
* (1150)
We feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is attempting
to address a real problem by abrogating one of the basic, fundamental principles
of pensions, and that is that they are deferred income. They are not in any other avenue than this
suggested amendment incorporated in Bill 76 treated as other financial assets
are. If an individual wished to access
additional funds because of personal financial difficulties, such as a personal
or a corporate bankruptcy, or for any other reason of choice, the pension
legislation is very clear‑‑and no one in any of the discussions
around Bill 76 has stated that any change should be made in this‑‑that
this asset is not accessible. It is
vested, and it cannot be divested in order to assist a person out of a temporary
or even a permanent financial difficulty, because it is agreed, as a basic
premise of all pension legislation, that pensions are deferred income.
They are deferred income to a time when the
individual has no or has much‑reduced access to income. It is a recognition on the part of society
that people, as they retire, usually from getting older, but at other times
from other reasons, need additional funding, that it is the responsibility of
the individual, through the pension system, to provide for their retirement
times.
It is agreed, in all pension legislation in
this context, that individuals give up their individual rights, their individual
ability to choose in this context, because of the greater good, if you will,
Mr. Speaker, of saving for their retirement, the greater good for not only the individual,
but also the greater good of society, which then has a better sense that people
in their productive years will be helping to maintain themselves in their
retirement years so that they will not be forced to live in poverty or be a
drain on the coffers of the state.
Nobody is arguing that basic premise, Mr.
Speaker, except in this one particular instance upon marriage breakdown, where
it appears that the government is saying, in this context and in this context
only, pensions are not necessary to be vested.
They are not necessarily treated as pension income but can be put in the
mix when partners are splitting their assets.
Mr. Speaker, we had some very good
presentations on this issue. I am going
to refer basically in my few remarks to the presentation, because I believe it
summarizes quite nicely the concerns that we have raised in this debate. I am summarizing the presentation that was
made by Mona Brown. She was representing
the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law.
I am choosing this presentation as the basis of my remarks, not just because
the effects of this Section 31(6) will be felt, we feel, disproportionately by
women in this province, but because the remarks Ms. Brown made are made by a
lawyer on behalf of and using the perspective of the legal profession or at
least one segment of the legal perspective.
I believe they have a degree of legitimacy that recommends them to the
House.
Mr. Speaker, when marriage breaks down, it is
a very emotional time. I do not care how
amicable the split is. It does not
matter. The idea that you are severing a
relationship that you felt, that the partners felt, was going to be for life or
a very extended period of time is a very emotional time. It is a negative time. People do not make good informed decisions necessarily
at this time. When people are counselled
for any individual problem that they have of an emotional nature, or if they
are in a period of great stress in their life, they are often told: Do not make any major decisions that you do
not have to make at this time, because you are not focused properly. You will not be able to make a good, well‑reasoned,
well‑thought‑out decision.
There are very few things that we go through,
Mr. Speaker, in our lives that have the potential for more stress than a
marriage breakdown. There are a
multitude of short‑term problems that have to be decided on short notice
when the partners and the parties to this marriage breakdown are not dealing
with these issues with clarity and lack of emotion. They are not as rational as they normally
would be.
As Ms. Brown, in representation, says on
behalf of the Manitoba Association of Women and the Law, it is not the time to force
the parties into decisions on long‑term financial planning. People sometimes do not make the best
decisions under such stress. Allowing
the spouses to trade pension benefits for other assets encourages bargaining
and the potential of duress. This concept was brought up several times by
people who made presentations to the hearings on Bill 76.
Most pensions are held by men because of the
way our society is still skewed toward men having longer work force
participation and being more likely to be in jobs where there are
pensions. In situations where there are
pensions, both partners have pensions, men have generally more. Their pensions are larger. In many instances, for a variety of reasons,
the man is in the controlling position when it comes to dealing with the disposition
of assets. We have case after case,
where the woman in the marriage breakdown has been told, if you do not give me
my pension in exchange for the house, the car or certain other assets, I will
take you to court and make your life miserable over the maintenance of the
children, over who gets custody of the children.
In many situations, Mr. Speaker, pensions are
used as a bargaining chip by one partner to the marriage breakdown and has a
very negative emotional effect on the other partner. As well, it can have a very long‑term
negative financial impact, particularly in a real estate climate like
Let us, for example, say a husband says, I
will give you the title to the house, which is valued at $100,000, if you waive
your rights to half my pension. The
woman might say fine, that is $100,000 I have, but in 20 or 30 years, when the
husband's pension comes to fruition, that financial asset most likely, and statistically
and actuarially speaking, will be worth far more than the increased value of
that home that she used in splitting the pension benefits. There are, Mr. Speaker, also other avenues dealing
with the splitting of pensions that will allow for a fair and equitable
distribution of assets, such as The Marital Property Act. To use this bill to try and make more fair
the disposition of assets acquired during marriage is a very inappropriate use
of the pension legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, one of the other major
concerns that we have with this aspect of Section 31(6) of Bill 76 is that in
the long run, it will increase and lead to the further exacerbation of female
poverty. Women continue to have less
access to the financial benefits of our society. They continue to have consequently less
access to the financial benefits of our society as they age. Women, as they age, become poorer and poorer
in our society, and those figures and trends are not decreasing. They are continuing to escalate. It is vital in this context that we continue
to protect the availability of pension assets for women upon marriage
breakdown.
There are administrative problems with the
situation as it occurs today. One of the
major problems with the current pension legislation as it deals with marital
breakdown is that it is separate from, in a large degree, the federal pension
legislation which does not allow currently for mandatory pension splitting or even
voluntary pension splitting.
Mr. Speaker, currently before the House of
Commons is Bill C‑55, which is at third reading, which the federal
government is supporting and, one would assume, with a majority, they will be able
to pass through. Bill C‑55 will
put federal pensions in line with our current pension legislation. Therefore, a major obstacle that has been
identified by people in
* (1200)
We would suggest that they withdraw this
section, wait for the disposition of Bill C‑55, and even if Bill C‑55
does not pass this session of the federal House, we would strongly urge that they
go back to the drawing table and figure out other administrative, or other
technical ways of alleviating the concern and the personal problems of spouses
who do have concerns over the potential unfairness of their pension division.
We feel that the vast majority of the cases of
pensions in this province, the long‑term requirements of all pension legislation
which is to provide for financial support upon retirement and for the long‑term
continued, at least, the beginning of a progress towards equity, particularly
for older women, would lead this government to remove this section of Bill 76,
and to maintain the principles of fairness and equity of all pension
legislation and the concerns for all Manitobans, particularly those who are
historically and statistically going to be the worst off in their senior years,
that is women.
Mr.
Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mr.
Bob Rose (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs): By
leave, I beg to present the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Municipal
Affairs.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? Leave?
It is agreed?
Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs
presents the following as its Fifth Report.
Your committee met on Monday, June 22, 1992,
at 10 a.m., Tuesday, June 23, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the
At the June 23, 1992, 2:30 p.m. meeting, your
committee elected Mr. Rose as Chairperson.
On June 23, 1992, Bills 93, 96 and 98 were
transferred from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to your committee for
consideration.
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale
John Buhler ‑ Private Citizen William
Klym ‑ Western Chapter of the Canadian Property Tax Association Bill Roth
‑ The
Written Submission:
Ed Scrapneck ‑ Kildonan Tennis and Canoe
Club
Bill 49‑The Environment Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement
Bill 82‑The Farm Practices Protection
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la protection des pratiques agricoles
et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Larry Walker ‑ Union of Manitoba
Municipalities Alfred J. Poetker ‑ Oakville Colony,
Written submission:
Earl Geddes ‑ Keystone Agricultural
Producers
Bill 96‑The Special Operating Agencies
Financing Authority Act; Loi sur l'Office de financement des organismes de
service special
Peter Olfert ‑
Bill 98‑The Manitoba Multiculturalism
Act; Loi sur le multiculturalisme au
Sidney Green ‑ Manitoba Progressive
Party Bal Kapoor ‑ Private Citizen Paul Kammerloch ‑ Private
Citizen Wade Williams ‑ National Black Coalition of Canada Lena Anderson ‑
Immigrant Womens' Association of Manitoba Arnold Eddy ‑ Private Citizen Osmond
Anderson ‑ Manitoba Multicultural Resources Centre Done Tole ‑
Manitoba Association for the Promotion of Ancestral Languages Ijaz Qamar ‑
Private Citizen Joseph Reza Fanai ‑ Private Citizen Ron Schuler ‑
Manitoba Intercultural Council Mary Richard ‑ Manitoba Association for
Native Languages Murray Trachtenberg ‑ The League for Human Rights, B'nai
Brith Canada Norma Walker ‑ The Congress of Black Women Art Miki ‑
Private Citizen Mohinder Singh Dhillon ‑ Private Citizen Amar Singh
Dhalliwal ‑ Punjabi Seniors Association Irene Frigo ‑ Private
Citizen Mike Maendel ‑ Hutterian Education Committee John Jack ‑
The Council of Caribbean Organizations of Manitoba Pandey ‑ Private
Citizen Prag Naik ‑ Hindu Seniors Club of Manitoba Inc.
Written Submissions:
Leo Liu ‑ Private Citizen Stuart
Greenfield ‑ Private Citizen Casimiro Rodrigues ‑ Private Citizen Hemant
Shah ‑ Private Citizen Prem Bhalla ‑ Private Citizen Jonathon Kroft
and Mira Thow ‑
Your committee has considered:
Bill 34‑The Surveys Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage
Bill 79‑The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la protection des voies publiques et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 93‑The Mental Health Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante mentale
Bill 96‑The Special Operating Agencies
Financing Authority Act; Loi sur l'Office de financement des organismes de
service special
and has agreed to report the same without
amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT the proposed Section 9, as set out in
Section 4 of the bill, be amended
(a) by
striking out he proposed subsection (2) and substituting the following:
When general assessment to be made 9(2) A
general assessment shall be made in 1994 and in every third year thereafter.
(b) in
proposed subsection (2.1), by striking out "A general assessment" and
substituting "Subject to section 13, a general assessment"; and
(c) in
proposed subsection (2.2) by striking out "The general assessment"
and substituting "Subject to section 13, the general assessment".
MOTION:
THAT Section 6 of the bill be amended
(a) by
renumbering it as subsection 6(1); and
(b) by
adding the following as subsection 6(2):
6(2)
Clause 22(1)(i) is amended by striking out ", but not including a residence
owned or used by a college named in subclauses (i) to (v)".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 49‑The Environment Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 13(2), as set out
in Section 4 of the bill, be amended
(a) in
that part preceding clause (a), by adding "referred to in subsection
10(1), 11(1) or 12(1) after "a series of licences"; and
(b) in
clause (a), by striking out "is known, is minor or is" and by
substituting "is known and is either insignificant or".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 14(2), as set out
in subsection 5(2) of the bill, be amended
(a) in
clause (b), by striking out "of a minor nature, or" and substituting
"insignificant";
(b) in
clause (b), by striking out "or on the advice of other affected
departments"; and
(c) in
clause (c), by striking out "no alteration is required to any limit, term
or condition that was the subject" and substituting "the proposed
alteration is not an alteration to any limit, term or condition that was
amended as a result".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 27(1), as set out
in Section 6 of the bill, be amended
(a) in
clause (f), by striking out ", other than a limit, term or condition
described in clause (g)." and
(b) in
clause (g), by striking out "period commencing on that date" and
substituting "specified period".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed clause 41(1)(dd), as set out
in subsection 7(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "the review of
that person's obligation to monitor" and by substituting "the monitoring
of, or the review of that person's obligation to monitor,".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 41(6), as set out
in subsection 7(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "a
judgment" and substituting "an order".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 82‑The Farm Practices Protection
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la protection des pratiques agricoles
et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendments:
Your committee voted to defeat Section 2(3) of
the bill.
MOTION:
THAT subsection 9(5) of the bill be amended by
striking out "60 days" and substituting "90 days".
MOTION:
THAT Section 11 of the bill be amended by
renumbering it as subsection 11(1) and by adding the following as subsection
11(2):
Decision given to parties 11(2) The board shall notify the parties of its
refusal to consider an application or to make a decision under subsection (1),
and give them written reasons for its action.
MOTION:
THAT subsection 12(2) of the bill be amended
by striking out "and shall, at the request of a party, give" and
substituting "together with".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 98‑The Manitoba Multiculturalism
Act; Loi sur le multiculturalisme au
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT Section 1 be amended by striking out the
definition "council".
MOTION:
THAT clause 2(c) of the bill be amended by
inserting the word "all" before "cultural communities" the
first time it occurs.
MOTION:
THAT clause 5(a) be amended by striking out
"Manitoban" and substituting "
MOTION:
THAT Sections 7 to 13 of the bill be struck
out.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments
adopted by this committee.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion
agreed to.
Mr.
Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): By
leave, I would like to present the report of the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? It is agreed.
Madam
Deputy Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents
the following as its Seventh Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 23, 1992,
at 7 p.m. and on Wednesday, June 24, at 10 a.m. in room 255 of the Legislative Assembly
to consider bills referred.
Your committee heard representation on Bill 86‑‑The
Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur la Surete du
Marvin Samphir ‑ City of Winnipeg Law
Department
Your committee has considered:
Bill 86‑The Provincial Police Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Surete du
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT subsection 26(5), as set out in
subsection 11(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
Right to appeal 26(5) Where an order or determination is made by
a police commission respecting the conduct of a member of a police force or any
matter relating to the maintenance and operation of the police force, any
person who is aggrieved by the order or determination or who is a party to any
related inquiry or investigation may, within 30 days after the date of the
order or determination, appeal the order or determination to a provincial judge.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 87‑The Law Enforcement Review
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquetes relatives a l'application
de la loi
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT clause (d) in Section 2 of the bill be
struck out and the following substituted:
(d) in
the definition "member", by adding ", and includes any person
employed as a peace officer by a law enforcement body that is designated by
regulation" after "
MOTION:
THAT subsection 13(1), as set out in
subsection 5(1) of the bill, be amended by striking out "or" at the
end of a clause (a), by adding "or" at the end of clause (b), and by
adding the following as clause (c):
(c) that there is insufficient evidence
supporting the complaint to justify a public hearing;
MOTION:
THAT Section 5 of the bill be amended by
adding the following as subsection 5(2.1):
5(2.1)
The following is added after subsection 13(4):
Ban on publication 13(4.1) Notwithstanding that all or part of a hearing
under this section is public, the provincial judge hearing the matter shall, unless
satisfied that such an order would be ineffectual.
(a)
order that no person shall cause the respondent's name to be published
in a newspaper or other periodical publication, or broadcast on radio or
television, until the judge has determined the merits of the application;
(b) if
the application is dismissed, order that the ban on publication of the
respondent's name continue; and
(c) if
the application is successful, order that the ban on publication of the
respondent's name continue until the complaint has been disposed of in
accordance with this act.
MOTION:
THAT Section 8 of the bill be amended by
renumbering it as subsection 8(1) and by adding the following as subsection
8(2):
8(2)
Subsection 18(2) is repealed and the following is substituted:
Question of privilege 18(2) Where the Commissioner believes that a
question of privilege arises in respect of any documents or statements in his or
her possession, or that release of the information will unduly harm the
interests of a third party, or would otherwise harm the interests of a third
party, or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest, the Commissioner
may deny access to such materials to any of the parties.
Review by Court of Queen's Bench 18(3) A decision of the Commissioner to grant or
refuse access to material referred to in subsection (2) is reviewable on application
to the Court of Queen's Bench.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 24(10), as set
out in subsection 11(8) of the bill, be struck out and the following
substituted:
Respondent not compellable 24(10) The respondent is not compellable as a
witness at a hearing before a provincial judge.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed Section 25, as set out in
Section 12 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
Ban on publication 25 Notwithstanding that all or part of a hearing
is public, the provincial judge hearing the matter shall, unless satisfied that
such an order would be ineffectual,
(a)
order that no person shall cause the respondent's name to be published
in a newspaper or other periodical publication, or broadcast on radio or
television, until the judge has determined the merits of the complaint or the respondent
admits having committed a disciplinary default; and
(b) if
the complain is dismissed, order that the ban on publication of the
respondent's name continue.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 27(2), as set out
in subsection 14(2) of the bill, be amended by striking out "a balance or probabilities"
and substituting "clear and convincing evidence".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 30(2), as set out
in Section 16 of the bill, be amended by striking out everything after
"loss" and substituting "of property or damage to property
sustained by the complainant as a result of the disciplinary default, if
(a) the
amount of the loss or damage is readily ascertainable; and
(b) the provincial judge is satisfied that
recovery would not be more appropriately
dealt with by a civil action."
MOTION:
THAT subsection 30(3), as set out in Section
16 of the bill, be amended by renumbering it as subsection 30(4), and
THAT the following be added as subsection
30(3):
Right to indemnification not affected 30(3) Nothing in subsection (2) precludes the
respondent from securing indemnification for the amount of any restitution ordered
from his or her employer pursuant to a collective agreement or other legal
obligation.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change
all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments
adopted by this committee.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 101‑The Statute Law Amendment Act,
1992; Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives
and has agreed to report the same with the
following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT the English version of clause 60(5)(f),
as set out in subsection 27(4) of the bill, be amended by adding "or"
at the end of subclause (i).
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am
proposing to call concurrence motions, report stage, I should say. Would you call first of all, in this order,
86, 87, and 101?
Mr.
Speaker: No. 86, 87 and 101?
Mr.
Manness: Correct, with leave, Mr. Speaker.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 86‑The Provincial Police
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 86, The
Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act? Leave?
It is agreed to.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), that Bill 86, The Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Surete du Manitoba et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), as amended and reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 87‑The Law Enforcement Review
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 87, The Law Enforcement
Review Amendment Act? Leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed to.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 87, The Law Enforcement
Review Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquetes relatives a l'application
de la loi), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 101‑The Statute Law Amendment
Act, 1992
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 101, The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992? Leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed to.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 101, The Statute Law
Amendment Act, 1992, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments, be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Attorney General,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 101, The Statute Law
Amendment Act, 1992; Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives,
as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred
in. Agreed?
An
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Speaker: On division?
An
Honourable Member: On division.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I propose to call report stage, Bills 20, 34, 49, 79, 82, 93, 96,
and the Minister of Culture (Mrs. Mitchelson) will propose a report stage
amendment on Bill 98.
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 20, The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act?
Leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale), as amended
and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 34‑The Surveys Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 34, The Surveys
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage? Leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with the
leave of the House, I move, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns), seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 34, The
Surveys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage), reported from the
Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
* (1210)
Bill 49‑The Environment Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 49, The
Environment Amendment Act? Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move (by
leave), seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger),
that Bill 49, The Environment Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'environnement), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on
Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): No.
Mr.
Speaker: No. On
division?
Mr.
Ashton: On division.
Bill 79‑The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 79, The
Highways Protection and Consequential Amendment Act? Leave.
It is agreed.
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I move (by leave), seconded
by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 79, The Highways Protection
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la protection des voies publiques et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autre lois), reported from the
Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 82‑The Farm Practices Protection
and Consequential Amendmen ts Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 82, The Farm Practices
Protection and Consequential Amendments Act?
Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I move (by leave), seconded
by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 82, The Farm Practices
Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la protection des
pratiques agricoles et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autre
lois), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal
Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 93‑The Mental Health Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 93, The Mental
Health Amendment Act? Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Monsieur le president, I
move (by leave), seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), that Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la sante mentale, reported from the Standing Committee on Municipal
Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 96‑The Special Operating
Agencies Financing Authority Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 96, The Special
Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act?
Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
that Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act (Loi sur
l'Office de financement des organismes de service special), reported from the
Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we are
going to have to delay Bill 98 to call for report stage on Bill 98, because
there is an amendment that, as I indicated, is coming in. It is just not quite here yet in the Chamber‑‑so
within the next few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would then propose, with
leave of the House, to go into third readings of the bills that we have just
provided concurrence.
I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), with the leave of the House, that Bill 86, The Provincial
Police Amendment and Consequential‑‑just hold it one second. I will change that bill number.
THIRD
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment
Amendment Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), with the leave of the House, that Bill
20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale), be now read a third time and passed.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for third reading of Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment
Act? Is there leave? Leave.
It is agreed.
Motion
presented.
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
They felt that this was breaking a commitment
and also that the delay of the reassessment was going to have an impact on many
people‑‑being assessed at 1985 values was going to have a detrimental
effect. They were concerned. Some of the groups who did present said that
they would go along with this, but they also would be very concerned if the
government chose again next year to further delay the reassessment and would be
speaking out very loudly against it.
They did say also that they would accept the
reassessment begrudgingly because it was late in the year and they could not‑‑there
was concern that there was a possibility that the government would continue to
delay assessments from year to year. One
of the reasons for the delay in the assessment was that this was a transition
year and we would be getting a better quality assessment because of the new
funding formula and lack of information, but we got no information provided to
us as to how the quality of the assessment was going to improve if there was a delay.
We just see no benefit to this delay, and we
are opposed to it, Mr. Speaker. We
introduced an amendment to that effect, but of course, we did not succeed in
that area.
There were other areas of concern that were
raised, particularly from farm groups and business groups, which are concerned
that farmers and businesses do not have the same right to appeal as do
homeowners. Again, we raised that
issue. We tried to introduce an
amendment, but it was ruled out of order. Just on that point, Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a few comments.
We were disappointed in how that was
handled. When we brought in an
amendment, we were ruled out of order and were not able to give our comments
because that section of the act was not open.
However, a few minutes later, when the Minister of Rural Development
(Mr. Derkach) wanted to introduce an amendment that was not part of the act, we
co‑operated with him. Although our
amendments were out of order, we would expect that the same courtesy would be
extended, perhaps not to have the amendment agreed to, but to at least hear the
concerns, because we were expressing the concerns of the people who spoke at
the hearings. I think government should be willing to listen and not expect opposition
members to co‑operate when they have an amendment that is not part of the
bill but also listen to opposition members.
Mr. Speaker, the people were also concerned
about the consultation that had taken place before this bill was introduced. They had some serious concerns, and they
raised those. The minister has indicated
that he is willing to listen and deal with some of these things, so I hope,
when we deal with these issues again, he listens to those people who have had concerns
and that he takes into consideration the farm groups and the business groups
who have said that they are willing to sit down and work through the problems
that are in the bill right now. The
minister has given that indication, so we hope that we will have better co‑operation
and that people will listen.
* (1220)
Mr. Speaker, this delay in assessment is one
problem and also the right to appeal.
There are farmers and business people who have said that because of
external factors, businesses had to close.
Farmers have identified areas where they might be faced with serious
problems. The minister says he is
willing to accept and look into these concerns.
We look forward to dealing with that and to this bill being amended in a
way that will deal with those concerns.
In particular, we are very concerned that we
do not have another delay in assessment.
Now, the government moved forward on a bill that would address the
concern of the length of time between reassessment, but if they are lengthening
it now and we are still at 1985 values and they choose again to delay reassessment
for whatever reasons‑‑we have not quite figured out what the
reasons are for this delay. Even though
they tell us it is the funding formula for education that is the real concern,
we have some doubts about that, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I would like to say that we are
opposed to what the government is doing in this bill, that they are delaying
the reassessment. There are many
concerns with it. We would ask that the
government give very serious consideration to those people who have raised
concerns with the reassessment, but also sections of the bill that deal with
the right to appeal and the portioning section of it that are causing concern,
Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur l'evaluation municipale. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, now that we
have the amendment with respect to Bill 98, would you call report stage for
Bill 98.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 98‑The
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to report Bill 98, The
Manitoba Multiculturalism Act?
Leave? Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh),
THAT Bill 98 be amended by adding the
following after the third paragraph of the preamble:
AND WHEREAS the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba is committed to the promotion of racial harmony;
[French
version!
Il
est propose que le projet de loi 98 soit amende par adjonction, apres le
troisieme paragraphe du preambule, de ce qui suit:
ATTENDU
QUE l'Assemblee legislative du Manitoba s'engage a promouvoir la bonne entente
entre les groupes ethniques;
That is in both languages.
Motion
presented.
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I
understand that this is a debatable motion, and I could have up to 20 minutes
to speak to this motion. I would like to
do that and just clarify that I am not actually debating the bill right now but
just this amendment.
I would just like to say that I think this
amendment flows from an amendment that I made at committee last night, an amendment
which said that the Legislative Assembly was going to be committed to the
elimination of racial discrimination.
I just want to inform you and inform the House
that the government did not support that amendment, which I think anyone would
agree is a much stronger commitment to combatting racism, to seeing that racism
is a key part of any multicultural act.
In fact, one of the reasons that we have a multicultural policy is that
we are trying to find ways for government to develop policy and programs so
that we have a more harmonious, a more equitable and more just society for all
Manitobans and all individuals in our society.
I would suggest that the way the government
has changed the wording of this amendment makes it less proactive and makes it easy
for the government to have words on the paper to promote racial harmony. I do not think anyone would disagree with
that. But what about having a commitment to take a proactive and defiant stance
to combatting racism, and to take a proactive approach to ensuring that the
government has a commitment to take steps, that when incidents of racism occur
in the community, they are going to be there, that citizens can be comfortable
and confident that the government is going to do all it can to ensure that laws
are enforced, to ensure that it will send strong messages to the community that
these things are not acceptable, that it will do everything that it can to
bring people together in the community so that there is going to be a strong
response, so that people are going to be organized in a way so that they can
respond to racist incidents.
I would suggest that kind of thing is what is
necessary. That is the spirit and the intent from the amendment that I made last
night. I think this government's change
in the wording is an attempt to somewhat sugar coat the whole problem of
racism. I am concerned that there is an
element of denial on that side of the House of the extent of racism, that there
is some denial of how pervasive and how damaging it is.
In the past, when there have been problems in
the community, when there have been incidents that have arisen, the community has
been quite clear in saying that they felt the government has not done
enough. I really am concerned that this
is being brought in as an amendment in third reading, and that this was not
part of the original bill. That came out
loud and clear at the public hearings.
I am sure that many of the community
organizations that are advising the government or that the government consults
with would make a very strong case that this is the kind of part of the
preamble that should have been there from the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, a
kind of commitment to having multicultural policy that is going to eliminate
racism and that is going to be proactive.
* (1230)
As I said, I am not convinced that the
government has that kind of commitment to taking a proactive stand, and I think
that this is evident by the fact that they did not have this included at the
beginning of the act when it was first presented in the Legislature here and it
was sent out into the community. That causes
me great concern. I know that there has
been agreement that we would recess for 12:30, so I will not take up my full time,
use my full 20 minutes to debate this motion further.
I would just like to make it perfectly clear
that this is an amendment that has been, I think it is clear, adapted from an amendment
that I proposed in committee last night.
I would urge the government to not water down, as they have watered down
this amendment, their commitment to eliminating racial discrimination, that
they will not continue to deny the very problem of intercultural conflict and
exploitation that a number of members of our society continue to suffer, and
that they will in fact develop multicultural policy and implement programs that
go along with that policy that will see that we have some social justice for
all members of our community. Thank you.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
I must say that in reading this whereas, I am
quite pleased with it. I think that the
minister has managed to put it in a very positive way. I think, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case,
the minister could be given some credit.
I go back to the committee meeting where we had heard from Dr. Qamar
with respect to the whole terminology of racial harmony. I think what it does is it demonstrates to
the people and to all of us that the public hearing process that we have
between second reading and report stage is well worth it when we get things of
this nature coming out of it.
Having said what I have said, I also believe
it would have been good to have seen more of a commitment to that racism, as has
been pointed out in a report that everyone in this Chamber is familiar with,
the Manitoba Intercultural Council on Combatting Racism, where it talks about,
if we want to combat racism, the most important thing that we need to do is
through education.
I guess, if there would have been some
inference to that in this WHEREAS, or some inference within the legislation,
that we have to accept, if we are ever going to get rid of racism, Mr. Speaker,
that we are going to have to recognize the importance of education and
tolerance and so forth.
This is something, no doubt, that we could
possibly see in the future in the multicultural act, at least some reference
made to that educational component.
Having said those few words, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this
amendment.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak on
this amendment for a few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as we heard during the
presentation on this bill, one of the presenters made those remarks, the
individual Dr. Qamar who has served
We have seen that we can give all the names
that we want as long as we are dealing with a positive approach for each and every
cultural value of individuals and groups.
In my view, that is the only way to achieve it, and that is a very good
start. We can give all the things we
want to, but unless you will be able to convince others to like you‑‑you
cannot just force anybody to like you.
You have to present what is best in you to make sure they come on the
same wavelength. It is a very, very slow
process. It is a very gradual process,
but that is the beginning. I think it is
very positive, because there is no country in the whole world which is not
without this problem. Racism is very relative.
It depends upon how you think, where you live, what kind of background
you have.
Mr. Speaker, it takes a long time. It has to start with the schools, the workplace
and all other places where we all work. In fact, even by my presence here, I
think I am promoting racial harmony which is a contribution I, in my being
here, am making because we are bringing out something positive from the various
communities here. We all do from our own
point of view because even in any given relationship, we cannot convince even a
personal relationship by force or by law or by just being superficial. You have to develop some positive
communications, some positive attitude.
That is human behaviour, whether you take it
at a personal level, at a society level or as a nation. I think it is very important to have that
kind of wording to put into the law that people can feel comfortable with,
because when you talk about giving it other names which may not be acceptable
to some individuals‑‑I am sure the time is going to come eventually
when people are going to be more open and have developed a better understanding,
but time will tell in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we could do‑‑we
cannot put that in the law, I am not suggesting that‑‑is set up a
day in Manitoba just to promote racial harmony and try to find some of the
similarities we have, try to find some of the cultural values we bring. I mean, we have Folklorama, but that deals
with only one aspect. It does not deal
with one of the main issues, the real issues of day‑to‑day living.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important because what
this kind of wording will help, in my view, is somebody who is a garment worker,
a factory worker, someone who is driving a cab or who has just arrived a few
days ago and does not know about this province.
It will help them to feel comfortable that we have something like this
in
If you look around the world, not many
countries have these things. These kinds
of things are happening everywhere and people are killing each other simply
because they do not understand or they do not want to. There are a number of factors which are
causing hatred and all kinds of things which drive people away from each other
and, in the long run, they are losing.
Countries are falling apart on the basis of religion.
The reason I am speaking again is because I
was being accused by a single party that I do not speak on the issues which are
affecting ethnic minorities. I thought
that at least I should mention that, that even by being present here, trying to
learn the behaviour of others and they are learning about my cultural background
and other things, that is a positive contribution.
I just want to end my remarks by saying that
we can only change people by convincing them but not forcing them, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks very brief. I do want to indicate that this amendment,
yes, I will say does flow from the amendment that was proposed last night by the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I
guess the reason last night in the wee hours of the morning that we could not
support the amendment that was introduced was, in fact, that it provided a
negative connotation.
We have a very positive piece of legislation,
Mr. Speaker, that is all inclusive. It
talks about who we are as Manitobans, and it defines the nature of our
province. It is to be a piece of
legislation that does unify our community.
I do not think that any one political party can stand up and say with conviction,
we are the only political party that is promoting racial harmony; we are the
only political party that can stand up and speak against racism.
I think every member of this Legislature‑‑and
it is their duty as elected members of the Legislature to go out and promote racial
harmony which I think we can do on a regular basis. It is important for us to stand up and say we
will not condone racism. We, Mr. Speaker, have put into place programs and
policies within government that deal with some of those issues.
* (1240)
I would like to refer to the comments made by
the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) when he indicated that it is a long, ongoing
process. It is not something that is
going to happen overnight. We have to
make personal commitments as members of the Legislature. All Manitobans have to make personal commitments
to try to effect change and positive change.
As we go through this process, as the years
evolve, and as our children from many different countries grow up together,
live next door to each other, go to school together, play together, in fact,
there will become more understanding, more respect for each other for our
differences, but what we can contribute to our similarities. We are, in fact, all human beings. We all have equal opportunities in this
wonderful country that we have, in our great
Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I want
to say that this amendment was introduced, and I would hope to have unanimous support
from the House, from all members of the Legislature and indeed all Manitobans
on the positive aspect of the amendment. Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
That is agreed and so ordered.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 98, The Manitoba
Multiculturalism Act (Loi sur le multiculturalisme au
Motion
agreed to.
Committee Change
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
I move, seconded by the member for The Maples
(Mr. Cheema), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs
be amended as follows:
House Business
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that there was a consensus of the House in discussions to
try to adjourn to allow members some opportunity for lunch and caucus before we
come back.
I would just indicate, I understand there is
some discussion going on between House leaders with respect to the Committee of
Privileges and Elections. I understand
those will be going on. There may be an announcement to that effect when the
House resumes, for that committee. I
understand discussions are going on now, so I will not formally make an
announcement.
I would move, seconded by the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that the House do now
adjourn.
Motion
agreed to.
Mr.
Speaker: The House now adjourns and stands adjourned
until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon (Wednesday).