LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Thursday, June 30, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Railway Traffic Safety
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Karen Campbell, Gordon Campbell, Janice Scott and others requesting the
Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Findlay) to enhance and promote a greater degree of safety in the vicinity of
railway trackage with particular reference to small children.
READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS
ACCESS Program Funding
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
The Clerk will read.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:
WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from
disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education
and training; and
WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers
in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers,
engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support
of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11
percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to
roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and
WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting
support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also
turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS
program.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative
Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to
consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
WHEREAS under the ACCESS
program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to
get post‑secondary education and training; and
WHEREAS these students
have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including
nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal
government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in
1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment
has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts;
and
WHEREAS the provincial
government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2
million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program
which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of
Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to
ACCESS program.
* (1005)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
WHEREAS under the ACCESS
program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to
get post‑secondary education and training; and
WHEREAS these students
have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including
nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal
government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in
1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment
has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts;
and
WHEREAS the provincial
government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2
million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program
which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of
Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to
ACCESS program.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table the report of amounts paid to members of the Assembly for the
year ended March 31, 1994.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Winnipeg Jets
Interim Agreement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) for providing us with a copy of the letter from the
president of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of paragraphs in the letter
that allow us to raise some questions today in terms of the implications for
the public of the agreement. We are not
aware of who the private investors are, what conditions the private investors have
participated with the private owners of the team, the majority owners of the
team, and what that means for the operating‑loss agreement signed in
November 1991 by the provincial government, the city government and the
majority owners.
I would ask the government, when will they be tabling the
new interim loss agreement that is in place?
Has it been amended, and will they be tabling the amended copy of that
agreement in this Chamber?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I
returned home late last night from Finance ministers meetings, and I have not
had an opportunity to discuss this at length with the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
I will take the specifics of the request for tabling of
additional information as notice at this time.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier and lead minister, I would assume, on the matter dealing with the
agreement, because the Auditor reported to the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Downey) in the Auditor's report which we received in this Chamber
on June 7, I believe, of this year.
The private owners asked that the interim agreement be
amended to delete the reference to the year 1997 in terms of the ability to
sell the team.
My question to the Deputy Premier is, the provisions that
allow and provide for the public of Manitoba, through the Province of Manitoba,
to be responsible for the operating losses in the years '96 and '97, do they
still exist in the operating agreement, or have those provisions been amended
in terms of the taxpayers of Manitoba?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, once again to the best of my
knowledge, the same provisions exist as is currently in the agreement. This is an extension by one year of the
aspect of the agreement whereby the owners of the hockey club would be provided
the opportunity to sell it effective July 1 of this year, but the remaining
aspects of the agreement, to the best of my knowledge, remain as currently in
the agreement.
But, again, I am sure the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will provide
any additional information to the Leader of the Opposition.
* (1010)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the owners of the team asked for
a change to the operating agreement in terms of the ability to come to a
decision point on May 1, '95, and that requires an amendment to the operating‑loss
agreement entered into between the province, the city and the majority
shareholders.
I would like to ask the government, did they ask for a
change on the operating‑loss provisions for the year '96 and '97 in the
negotiations with the majority shareholders of the Winnipeg Jets and have the
situation where the operating losses would be potentially responsible by the
taxpayers? Did they ask for that section
to be deleted in the negotiations with the majority shareholders?
Mr. Stefanson: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take the specifics
as notice.
I know the Leader of the Opposition has sat in on at least
one meeting on this very important issue with owners of the Jets Hockey Club,
with members of the Burns committee and so on.
I know the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been keeping both
Leaders of the two opposition parties informed on this issue, and we will
continue to do so, because that is in the best interest of this issue and of
the public's understanding of this very sensitive and very important issue for
the economy of Manitoba.
Seven Oaks General Hospital
Private Home Care Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, the
minister refused to reveal the details of the We Care contract, a private
nursing contract that has been given by this government. It is paradoxical because these friends of
the minister are being paid to provide private nursing services, while the
hospital where their private nursing services are being provided is forced to close
for eight days over the summer because of budget cuts from the government.
Will the minister outline for us today how much they are
paying We Care health services to undertake their private nursing contract, and
will he table the contract?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member seems to
have some problem with improving services for the patients at Seven Oaks
Hospital. I wish he would take the time
to find out who some of those patients are, because I am sure they would have
some very harsh words for the honourable member, because all of the indications
that we have to this point are that the patients are the main beneficiaries of
the program.
I understand, for example, that because of this project,
they have saved 254 patient days at Seven Oaks Hospital. That is 254 days that people have not had to
languish in a hospital bed, because they can access more appropriate services
at home. On an average cost of about
$500 a day, which I understand is the cost at Seven Oaks Hospital, that is a
saving, over the term of this agreement, of $127,000 or so. These numbers are approximate. When I am able to, I will make exact figures
available to the honourable member.
The contract for We Care I expect to amount to some $25,000
to $35,000. So that means, with an
expenditure of that kind of money, we can either save $127,000 or,
alternatively, make beds available at Seven Oaks Hospital for people who need
them.
Mr. Chomiak: It is funny, we nationalize the Jets' losses,
but we privatize home care.
My supplementary to the minister is: How does the minister explain that on
December 23, the president of We Care wrote to the department, outlining that
the cost of the contract would be in the range of $30,000 to $100,000 for an
eight‑week period, and now the contract has been extended to 12 weeks and
the minister says it is only $30,000?
How does he reconcile those figures, and will he table the contract?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if the contract
amount bothers the honourable member, that it is lower than it was initially
expected to be. I really do not know how
I can explain that today. I guess we
just have to plead guilty that we did not spend as much as the honourable
member would like us to spend.
The fact that is so troublesome for me is that the
honourable member puts the views of his union boss friends ahead of the views
of the patients of this province, and that, to me, is not something I would do.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could
explain the massive advertising contract of We Care and how come‑‑and
I will table some government documents on the Year of the Family that has We
Care advertising on these documents.
Can the minister explain what the relationship is between
this government and We Care, and will he table the contract that he has between
We Care and this government?
* (1015)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what it is that
causes the honourable member to want to be on a vendetta against a company that
has its base in the city of Brandon. I
wish he would talk to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and I
wish he and some of the other members who are constantly against jobs in this
place would get together and maybe adopt a new policy.
The fact is, with its very humble beginnings, We Care has
grown to something like 30 franchises from a very small two‑person
operation in Brandon. They provide jobs
for over 300 Manitobans, and those Manitobans are people such as nurses and
home care attendants and people who provide services to other people.
Across Canada, they have something like 3,000
employees. They are looking at expansion
into the United States and the United Kingdom.
I suspect this growth is because people like their services.
Winnipeg Jets
Interim Agreement
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I
noticed that the Minister of Finance was reviewing the correspondence to the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) from Mr. Shenkarow dated yesterday, and I want to ask the
Minister of Finance a question specific to the third paragraph of that letter,
where Mr. Shenkarow specifically recommends that the November 1991 agreement be
amended to delete the reference to the team remaining until 1997, and that it
be amended to May 1, 1995.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Finance: Does that recommendation include a release of
the government from all responsibilities for that further two‑year
period, and secondly, if, in fact, that is the case, what has been the trade‑off
in the discussions between the government and Mr. Shenkarow which has led to
that recommendation?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): I thank the Leader
of the second opposition party for that question. Once again, I will have to take the specifics
as notice on behalf of the Premier.
My understanding is in light of the events that have
unfolded over the last week, that there is a great deal of momentum to address
the many outstanding significant issues that can be addressed within the realm
of Manitobans and that this is the objective, to work towards that March 1,
1995, date in terms of resolving what is the June 30 deadline this year and
obviously the fundamental issue of a facility here in Manitoba.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a further
detailed response from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on that issue, because it is an
extremely important one, specifically the issue of what the government's
continuing responsibility is going to be under this recommendation.
My further question is to the Minister of Finance, and it
is a simple one, Mr. Speaker.
To his knowledge, is the government going to be accepting
this recommendation, because it is just that, a recommendation by Mr.
Shenkarow. Has the government, has the
cabinet had any discussions about this?
Is the government going to be accepting this recommendation?
Mr. Stefanson: Once again, the letter dated June 29,
addressed to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), has just arrived. My understanding is the direction that is
outlined in this letter is something that we are certainly inclined to support
in terms of our due process. It will
follow our due process for approval and so on, and once again, the Premier will
respond in greater detail, as he has done throughout and as we intend to do on
this issue.
I think significant improvement has occurred over the last
week in terms of everybody attempting to pull in a similar direction here. That is very healthy and positive, and we
will continue to share the maximum amount of information on this issue.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, obviously, that is true. There have been a lot of developments in the
last week.
This particular aspect is brand new. The recommendation in the third paragraph of
Mr. Shenkarow's letter is not something which has been the subject of debate in
this Chamber or certainly at the meeting that I attended.
My final question for the Minister of Finance: The critical date of May 1, 1995, is the date
on which the long‑term viability of the team is going to be
assessed. Has the government had any
discussions as to how they will make that assessment, how that assessment will
be made by the levels of government to determine that long‑term economic
viability?
Specifically, has the government made any decisions as to
what they would consider a proper commitment for a long‑term lease that
would be entered into by the Winnipeg Jets hockey team to evidence the long‑term
economic viability of the team?
* (1020)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I think, as the Leader of the
second opposition party knows, during this particular time frame up to May 1 of
'95, there are some very fundamental issues that have to be addressed.
I know he is well aware of them, the issues relating to the
league itself in terms of compensation of players and the issue of a player
salary cap or a maximum amount of money for players' salaries, the fundamental
issue of the arena here in Winnipeg and the involvement of the private sector
in the development of an arena and/or any other vehicles for the
financing. Many have been suggested over
the last period of time.
Those are some fundamental issues, as well as now that
whole initiative that I know the Leader of the second opposition party was
privy to, the whole issue of a marketing approach to determine what kind of
support there is for Manitobans to come forward to make a contribution towards
having a seat in a new facility and the significant increase that Manitobans
will incur in terms of making that commitment to the Jets.
So those are some very fundamental issues that will all
form part of the ultimate decision by May 1 of '95.
The Real Property Act
Amendments
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the government has known for
some time about the problems for people who sell their homes and have the
purchaser assume the mortgage.
I want to ask the Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) why
the government has not amended The Real Property Act in the last couple of
sessions and when they plan to do that.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, the question of personal covenants on mortgages has been a troubling
matter for some individuals over the past period of time. I concur with the interests of the member for
Radisson with respect to this matter. It
is, in my view, unfair that those kinds of occurrences should take place.
However, Mr. Speaker, the matter is not quite as simple as
simply implementing carte blanche legislation.
There are a number of issues surrounding this matter. Do we go with Alberta, for instance, or
Saskatchewan, where they have introduced in the 1930s, as a result of
occurrences of that time period, one kind of legislation? Do we go with British Columbia which has a
much more restrictive kind of legislation?
What happens to the mortgage market? Do corporations receive the same benefit as
individuals? Do rental properties
receive the same benefit as owner‑occupied properties? What happens to commercial mortgages? There is a whole series of things.
What I have done is I have asked the Manitoba Securities
Commission to conduct consultations and hearings with respect to these
matters. They have, in fact, issued a
paper with respect to the matter of mortgage personal liability or personal
covenants under mortgages. They will
conduct that survey over the next two or three months and then, once we have
that report, we will be able to deal with the matter further.
R vs Baker
Justice Department Review
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Justice.
Last week, a Queen's Bench judge rejected the testimony of
a complainant in an incest and sexual abuse case, apparently on the basis that
she was suffering from delusions induced by her psychiatrist; yet, Mr. Speaker,
I am advised there was no expert psychiatric evidence before the court to
suggest the complainant was suffering from false memory syndrome.
Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are concerned about the chilling
effect this decision will likely have on survivors of abuse, especially those
who have recovered memories of this trauma.
My question for the minister is, given that this involves
an important matter of public policy, can she assure Manitobans that the
decision in the Queen vs Baker will be appealed immediately?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
As the member knows, my department reviews all cases. We make decisions towards appeal based on
facts and on criteria which are of long standing.
Judges also make decisions based on fact. So, Mr. Speaker, we will be following the
process which we follow regularly within the Department of Justice.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister be appealing this case
immediately?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, there is a process which the
Department of Justice goes through routinely in terms of reviewing decisions,
and decisions to make appeal are then made based upon those criteria. The member knows this very well, and he asks
a question which he knows is simply one which will follow the normal course.
* (1025)
Mr. Mackintosh: It is a straightforward question.
Given that the Crown surely anticipated that the defence of
false memory syndrome would be raised at the trial and yet I understand that
the Crown failed to prepare evidence to refute it, would the minister now
ensure that a policy is put in place so experts do testify in appropriate
cases, and will the minister confirm that cost was not a factor in the Crown's
decision not to call expert evidence in this case?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well we
have very professional Crown attorneys.
Those professional Crown attorneys conduct cases, I believe, in a very
professional way. Judges also make
decisions based upon facts of the case.
If the member has some other way to do justice which is
outside of that normal process, then perhaps he should say.
Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council
Funding of Police Force
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice.
This is concerning the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council. There has been a letter or there were letters
sent to this government on February 3, March 14 and the latest one on May 27 to
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province concerning the 1993‑94 funding
contribution to the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council police force to provide
policing services in the DOTC area. The
funding contribution was for $150,000.
My question to the minister is: Would she communicate directly with the DOTC
chiefs whether the response will be positive or negative from the province with
respect to this request?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member to table the documents that he
referred to in the House today so that I can also see them.
I would also like to remind him that the Dakota Ojibway
Tribal Council police was a 100 percent federally funded police service‑‑one
hundred percent federally funded. It was
a police service which operated as a bilateral agreement between the federal
government and the DOTC communities. The
federal government, the federal Liberal government, made a decision that they
would not come forward and supplement the $500,000 overrun of the DOTC
communities. Consequently, the DOTC
collapsed their police force.
This province and this government came forward, went to see
the Solicitor General and indicated that we were prepared to enter into First
Nations policing agreements, and those are tripartite agreements in which we
would then assume a portion of the funding, but the funding for the DOTC police
services before November was totally the responsibility of the federal
government.
ACCESS Programs
Statement of Claim
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy
Premier.
The ACCESS program students are intending to file a
statement of claim today against the minister and this government because of
claimed unfairness with the ACCESS program.
The statement of claim will probably ask for the government to honour
the contractual arrangement they have had with the students, so that, in fact,
these students can finish their education.
I would ask the Deputy Premier if he could table a legal
opinion as to the contractual arrangement regarding the ACCESS program, and is
he prepared to do anything before they actually have to put this statement of
claim in the courts today?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let us just review the history
of the ACCESS program and the commitment of this government to the ACCESS
program, where we have continued to support it when, in fact, the federal
government has been reducing its funds to that program. For the past few years, it has been our
effort that has maintained it at the level that it has been.
As far as the member's question as it relates to the filing
of a statement of claim, I believe, if that takes place, it would be
inappropriate to answer a court‑related‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member says it has not taken place yet. I mean, is it going to take place? Is it not going to take place? I think she should get her information
accurate when she comes to the Legislature.
If she is going to ask a question, I think the rules state that she
should have the facts prior to asking that question.
I will take any specifics as it relates to that for the
Minister of Education (Mr. Manness).
* (1030)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, this government has been told
for weeks that, in fact, there will be a statement of claim filed. It has not been filed yet, which is why we
are asking the question.
I would ask the Deputy Premier‑‑he has an
opportunity to stop this court action and to actually ensure that ACCESS
students have an opportunity to finish their education.
Can the Deputy Premier tell us, is he prepared to allow a
court action to go ahead and have the government have to defend their actions,
spend money, rather than allowing these ACCESS students to complete their
education?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite understand the
context in which the member is asking the question. She is suggesting that I should try and deter
somebody from taking court action if they feel that is necessary. It is not my place to do that.
I would suggest that she should encourage the federal
government to live up to their responsibility as it relates to the ACCESS
program.
As far as any details as to what flows from today's action,
we will leave that for the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) to deal with
next Question Period.
Hikel Report
Tabling Request
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the
Deputy Premier.
Can the Deputy Premier indicate to us today, is he prepared
to speak with the Minister of Education and ensure that before the day is out,
because it is the end of June, he will, in fact, table the Hikel report, which
will have pertinent information relating to this particular court case?
We were promised it by the end of June. It is June 30. Will he ensure that the Minister of Education
tables that report today?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would take the specifics of
the question as notice for the Minister of Education.
I would also have to review what the minister has said as
it relates to that report and would be prepared to report back next week.
Goods and Services Tax
Replacement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Finance.
We noted this week that there was no, quote, scrapping of
the GST at the federal Finance ministers meeting. The GST has risen out of the ashes like a
phoenix to be a proposed 10 percent tax.
The Finance ministers from some provinces were quoted as saying‑‑[interjection]
I remember the Liberals used to ask questions about the old GST, but maybe they
want to ask questions about the new GST.
Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister from B.C. was quoted as
saying, it is a $400 increase per family, and therefore she was opposed to the
tax. The provincial minister of Manitoba
raised some concerns. The Premier of
Newfoundland indicated they were in favour of the proposal.
Can the Minister of Finance indicate today, what will this
proposal cost the consumers of Manitoba, please?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, that is
a difficult question to answer, because every time you make a different
assumption in the economic model, it affects what the costs are.
We have been running various comparisons at different
income tax levels, because what would happen under this 10 percent proposal is
that there would be a shift, because both the provincial government and the
federal government would be losing money from their sales tax sources.
The proposal is to shift that to personal income taxes
through a flat tax at the federal level and at the provincial level. We have some information that shows the
impact at various income levels, and the preliminary information‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official
opposition asked a question, and I believe he is trying to hear the answer.
Mr. Stefanson: In terms of some of the information we have
to date‑‑and we will continue, Mr. Speaker, to be updating and
adjusting and revising some of the information, but those people earning over
$30,000, under the information we have so far, will be paying more taxes,
because they will pay more taxes on their personal income taxes than they will
under the sales tax.
There are other concerns we have as well, that, as the
Leader of the Opposition indicated, we did put on the table during these
meetings. We continue to be concerned
about the base broadening, because it would mean moving into areas that
currently do not have a provincial sales tax.
But probably even a greater concern is the potential short‑term
impact on our economy. Consumer
confidence across Canada has been growing lately. We are seeing retail sales tax revenues
growing. We are seeing our housing
industry in Manitoba having better years the last two years, but consumer
confidence across Canada is still quite fragile, and some of the shifts on
consumption in terms of broadening that base are areas of great concern for us.
So, over all, we have put all these concerns on the record,
and we expect that they will be addressed over the weeks ahead, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: I was a little surprised when the federal
Finance minister, yesterday at the end of the meeting, indicated that the
Finance ministers had agreed that they would now have their officials working
on variations of the 10 percent theme and the proposals of the federal and
provincial governments.
I believe that the first promise was to scrap the tax, not
to refine the tax. I would have hoped
out of that meeting that we would have had a resolution that the provinces
would not go along with anything else except scrapping the GST which was the
original promise.
Why have we agreed to participate with officials in the
back rooms, with the federal government, on this proposal? Why are we not just saying, no, full stop, in
terms of the federal proposal?
Mr. Stefanson: I should indicate quite clearly that all
provinces have agreed to at least participate in the process, and that
represents all three major political parties across Canada representing various
provinces within Canada.
The reason we are prepared to participate is because,
whether it is a replacement or whether it is the GST under another name or
whether it is a complete shift, the federal government does need that amount of
money. There is no doubt. They have made no secret about that fact that
they intend to still retain that amount of tax dollars somewhere.
I think it is incumbent on all of us to be sure that in any
way we can impact, being sure that whatever the solution is, it is in the best
interests of individual Manitobans, of Manitoba businesses, that we should be
there to represent Manitobans in terms of our views and put forward our
concerns. We have to be a part of that
process to hopefully work towards, ultimately, the fairest solution, that we
can be a part of providing information on it.
So we should be there.
We disagree with what has been proposed to date. We do not think that is the solution. We do not support the kind of shift to the
personal income tax basis being proposed.
We have not seen a viable alternative so far. We have not seen a replacement of the GST,
but we will be a part of the review process, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: Well, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)
is criticizing Ed Schreyer, Mr. Speaker.
When the member for Inkster has the kind of record Ed Schreyer has,
maybe he can start criticizing Ed Schreyer.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Not only does the member have a right to
speak, but he has the right to be listened to.
Now, the honourable Leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, what concerns us now is how are
the public going to be involved in these various proposals.
Prior to the federal Finance committee, the Liberal‑dominated
committee reporting, with their majority report on replacing the GST and leaving
it open to food and drugs, some provinces presented briefs and had public
debate about what would be in that brief, and other provinces did not. Manitoba chose not to present a position to
Ottawa and said they would wait till the Finance ministers meeting.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Finance. How is he going to allow the
public of Manitoba to be involved in decisions that are very, very vital to
families here in Manitoba, rather than just having officials meeting? How can we open up the windows and doors for
the people to participate in their consumer taxes, rather than just officials
in the back rooms?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
raises a legitimate concern and one that we share, because we are merely at the
point where we had a Commons committee report that we adamantly opposed. I know the opposition party adamantly opposed
that. I guess the good news to date has
been now there is no discussion about broadening the base into food and
prescription drugs and medical supplies.
That is progress.
We now have another proposal come forward by the Minister
of Finance of the federal government that we do not support, but at this
particular point in time there is not a focus to go forward to the public for
input and response to.
So over the course of the next several weeks, we will have
officials work to see if there is any basis for finding anything that provinces
collectively can agree to, and then we will be looking for an avenue to get the
feedback from Manitobans, absolutely, because it is an important issue.
We will develop an avenue to get input on whatever decision
we finally make on this very important issue.
* (1040)
CT Scanner
Parkland Region
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health.
The government has recently lifted the ban on the operation
of CT scanners at the Concordia, Grace and Misericordia Hospitals, yet the
people of the Parkland continue to wait for the decision of the government with
regard to the purchase of a CT scanner that would serve some 40,000 residents
of the Parkland region and save thousands of dollars in travel costs every year
for these residents. They still have
received no word from the minister.
I want to ask the Minister of Health today whether he has
received the final report from the provincial scanning committee that will be
making recommendations to the government.
Has he received that report, and, in fact, does it include a
recommendation that the Parkland will receive or will be allowed to go ahead
and purchase a CT scanner?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): When the so‑called moratorium was
lifted, Mr. Speaker, that was on the advice of that imaging committee. As yet, the imaging committee has not made
recommendations respecting further installations in Manitoba. When they do, we will look very seriously at
their recommendations.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, that is not very reassuring for
the residents who have raised some $550,000 for the purchase of a scanner.
In light of the fact that the costs are escalating to some
$1 million for the purchase of a scanner from only $500,000 a couple of years
ago, will the minister now intervene to ensure that, in fact, this purchase can
be made before the costs escalate to a level that is impossible for the
residents to afford, Mr. Speaker? They
need the decision now.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, we know costs escalate, but the
honourable member is certainly very wrong in what he is saying.
These machines cost a million dollars several years ago, so
I do not know what he is talking about in that regard, but, certainly, as I
travel throughout Manitoba, there are people who express an interest in this
kind of diagnostic technology being available in their communities.
I do not want to discourage anybody from contributing to
local efforts, but I would ask the honourable member to understand that the
imaging committee's work is very important, and its decisions are based on
health outcomes and population health needs, its recommendations, and we would
be looking to their recommendations in the future.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that an exception
was made for the three hospitals that received permission to go ahead and
operate the scanners, which was a correct decision, will this minister now
intervene and make an exception and get this on the way, so that the purchase
can be made and the operations can begin to save money and provide the service
for residents of the Parkland who have to travel to Brandon and Winnipeg for
this service now?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons the Pawley
government had such a hard time in 1988 is that they just went around
intervening all the time and making decisions that ultimately did not turn out
to be in the public interest.
It is important to look at the scientific evidence with
respect to population health needs and to use the health care dollar
wisely. That is what we intend to
do. I hope it means what the honourable
member wants it to mean, but if that is not the case, we will address that when
the time comes.
R vs Baker
Justice Department Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Justice.
As the minister knows, I hand delivered to her office
yesterday a request for an appeal in the Baker case, and I was particularly
interested in her comments to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) today.
She said the judges made their decision based on facts, but
there is no factual evidence that such a syndrome known as false memory
exists. It exists in no documented
psychological or scientific research in this nation or in any other nation.
Since that seems to be the basis upon which the decision in
the court case will be made, and it is the first time such a syndrome has been
used, will the minister personally review this case for the potential of an
appeal?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, my answer remains the same as the earlier answer that I
gave.
All cases are reviewed by the Department of Justice against
a criterion to look at whether or not there are grounds for appeal. That will happen in this case also.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice tell
the House today if one of the criteria that is used to evaluate a case is a
decision based on misinformation and misfact?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I would want to be very careful
about any comments that I make. Should
this case go before appeal, any of my comments could jeopardize a case, so the
member at this point will have to deal with the facts I can give her at the
moment, and that is that all cases are reviewed for appeal against a criterion.
Any comments that I would make outside of that would
certainly jeopardize a case. I do not
think that is what the honourable member is asking for. I certainly hope not.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect to the
Minister of Justice, I asked nothing in my second question about a case. I asked her what the criteria was and if that
criteria included an examination of misinformation.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, my answers remain the
same. We review all cases according to
criteria. I will not make any statement
today in this House which may even be close to this case, because it would
jeopardize this case before the courts.
The member continues to insist. It seems that she would prefer to have the
case brought before this House instead of before a Court of Appeal.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Fort Rouge School Graduation
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Osborne have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, last evening I attended a
celebration to honour the Grade 6 graduates of Fort Rouge School hosted by
their parents and teachers.
It was a wonderful evening for a number of reasons. First, it honoured nine students whose class
represent a real United Nations. The
names give evidence of the rich and various heritages they represent: Aaron Bruce, Tyson Creeley, Geraldine Duran,
Roxandra Ioanovici, Calvin Nelson, Raeleen Nepinak, Kristen Osborne, Philip
Starr and Helena Tewalde.
Mr. Speaker, it was a special evening in another way. There was a very touching moment, unannounced
on the program, when Tyson Creeley announced a special tribute to teachers Jack
King and Nick Devine, and a beautiful child with an enchanting voice, Reeshema
Daniels, sang "Wind Beneath My Wings."
Finally, I had the opportunity to present an award to
someone who has made a special contribution to the community. When the school determined the criteria I had
established for the award, the teachers, parents and students chose to honour
the school's Principal, Barbara Sarson.
Barbara Sarson is a remarkable woman. She values family, child and community safety
and empowerment, and she readily takes up the causes for her children. She is the cook at camp, the last one to
leave the school in the evening and is often back in the evening to participate
and support the community's efforts to ensure that their voices are heard. She is a member of the Norwood Bridge
Committee and has participated in the Mayfair Resource Group. Barbara Sarson embodies the determination and
spirit of the Fort Rouge community‑‑proud, hardworking, resourceful
and unfailingingly dedicated to the children of her community.
I ask members of the Legislature to join me in
congratulating the Fort Rouge School graduates, their teachers and their
principal. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bills 25, 27 and 31.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 25‑‑The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1994
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 25, The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1994; Loi de 1994 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives
en matière de fiscalité, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid). Stand? No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, Bill 25 is the usual statute law
taxation amendment bill that we receive every year which contains a
miscellaneous bag of changes to taxes and various other items that I often
refer to in the budget document itself.
This particular bill essentially puts into law many of the items
referred to in the budget, many of the tax adjustments referred to in the
budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).
I would like to take a little time to discuss some of these
changes and what they mean for the Manitoba economy, because the minister has
stated in his explanation of this particular bill that many of these measures
were geared to increasing employment, to stimulating the economy and generally
were being put into place for economic growth reasons, although they have other
impacts as well. Appreciate also that
there are other elements of the bill that have very little to do with economic
growth, but are more concerned with health matters, such as tobacco taxes and
importation of tobacco which is covered in this bill in a later section.
One of the references in the bill, one of the tax
adjustments in the bill relates to first‑time home buyers whereby they
will be given a rebate of $2,500 from the retail sales tax if they are a first‑time
buyer and if they purchase a new house.
There are some other conditions.
Presumably, the intent of this is to stimulate housing
construction in the province, and we have no problem with that intention, that
desire to increase the housing industry or increase the level of activity, but,
unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we do not believe that this worthy intention is
going to amount to much in terms of actual additional construction.
As a matter of fact, I note that in the summary of tax
changes included in the minister's own budget document, he is estimating for a
full year of a $9.6‑million cost, although I see there are some footnotes
on it, so that may not be the total or accurate picture, but the point I am
making, Mr. Speaker, without using that reference, is that we will have to do
an awful lot more to get housing starts up to a level that we had some years
ago.
* (1050)
It is rather sad that housing starts in this province have
declined seriously over the last few years and are indicating a rather major
weakness in our economy, because a housing start really reflects an increase in
a household. You set up a new household,
a family usually, and that new household does have a stimulating effect on the
economy, because people usually go out and buy new furniture, appliances and so
on, and generally stimulate the economy through increased purchases, and that
is fine.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that the impact of
this particular item will be relatively minor and, in my view, not provide the
results that we would like to see‑‑I am sure I would like to see‑‑in
terms of stimulating the housing industry.
I was looking at the figures supplied by the minister
himself in his budget document where he has some economic statistics in budget
paper A and he relates to investment in housing. There are figures on housing investment, and
you can see housing investment down.
Oh, yes, here we are, the number of housing starts. Back in 1989, when this government was first
elected, more or less, or the year after it was first elected, there were 4,084
housing starts in Manitoba. In 1993, the
last year for which we have numbers, we were down to 2,425. As a matter of fact, the worst year was 1991
when we were down to 1,950.
The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that housing starts
have taken a nose dive, and we have to do something more than this particular
measure to increase housing construction in the province.
I appreciate that there are other factors at work, such as
interest rates. Mortgage rates obviously
have an important impact on the demand for housing. Those factors go beyond the interest rate
factor, go beyond Manitoba, and therefore it is appropriate to look at what is
going on in Manitoba in comparison with the other provinces.
The sad fact of the matter is that, while there has been
some dampening of housing by excessively high mortgage rates in other parts of
the country, in Manitoba we have suffered the most. In fact, in many years, we are usually
ranking eight or nine out of 10 provinces in terms of housing start increases.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
For 1989, 1990, 1991, there were major declines in the
level; '90‑92 saw some increase, but we had a decline again in '93. At any rate, when you look at some of the
other provinces, you will see that they have done much better. So the question is, why is housing construction
lagging so much in the province of Manitoba?
We say that this measure which we support is fine, but it does not go
far enough. I would submit, however,
there are other programs that the Manitoba government could engage in to
stimulate the economy that would stimulate housing as well.
I notice that there is a reference here to reducing
electricity rates for electricity used in manufacturing. It is being reduced from 7 percent to 2.35
for the period June 1, 1994, to March 31, 1995.
Again, I do not know how significant that will be to assist in
manufacturing in the province. I do not
know how‑‑this is the difficulty that we are labouring under here,
is that while the minister has made various proposals here, presumably to
stimulate the economy, there is no information as to the impact of these
proposals. What is this going to do to
manufacturers in that sector, that is, manufacturers that use a lot of
electricity?
There are other changes as well. I notice there is some provision for mining
tax relief. There will be a credit equal
to 7 percent of the investment in new mines and processing facilities which
will be provided for the period April 21, 1994, to December 31 for the year
2003. This credit is to be deducted
against a maximum of 30 percent of the mining taxes otherwise payable by a
corporation for a year. Then there is,
in addition to that, a processing allowance of 10 percent of the capital costs
for processing assets. This is being
doubled now to 20 percent of assets for new mines or expansions after April 21,
1994. Again, we wonder, how effective is
this? We have no information from the
minister, from the government, as to the impact, and surely we do need to
stimulate the mining industry because, again I note, in the budget document
tabled by the minister, that the mining industry has fallen on very tough
times.
Back in 1989, the year after this government took office,
mineral production was $1,668 million, and by 1993, it had fallen to $912
million. There has been a serious drop,
a very significant drop in mining output in the province of Manitoba. The question remains as to whether this
particular stimulus will be able to offset this decline and bring about a
greater activity. Comparable or parallel
to the declines in output, of course, are declines in employment; the amount of
employment in the industry is negatively affected as well.
At any rate, there is a summary of all these tax changes
shown in the book, and on balance, they are relatively modest. Under sales taxes, the government estimates
giving up $9.6 million; fuel taxes $4.8 million‑‑this relates
primarily to locomotive diesel fuel‑‑a loss of $3.1 million for a
change in the small business income tax rate, fine; and also a loss of $1.9
million in changes in corporation capital tax exemptions.
On the other hand, the government has decided, in its
wisdom, to apply the corporation capital tax to our major publicly owned
utilities, namely, Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Telephone System, and
expects to get an additional $15‑million credit there.
On balance, the point I am making, these tax changes are
not very significant in terms of the total expenditure of this government. They are very, very minor, and I do not think
they will have much impact on the various sectors of the economy. Goodness knows, the governments have to do
something to stimulate the economy because all the information we have is that
the economy continues to languish.
As a matter of fact, the latest information we have of the
13 current economic indicators that are available, provided by Statistics
Canada, shows that 10 out of 13, we are performing below the national
average. That includes retail trade, the
rate of growth, the inflation situation, average weekly earnings, the increase
in employment, population change, capital investment, farm cash receipts,
construction work and building permits.
In all of those areas, we are performing below the national average.
* (1100)
When we talk about sluggish investment spending, we should
become very, very concerned because investment in Manitoba has not
increased. In fact, there have been
decreases. Again, looking at the budget
document, between 1993 and 1989, the minister shows in these figures a decrease
in total investment from $3,751 million in 1989 to $3,414 million in 1993, and
this also applies particularly to private investment. Private investment is down as well over that
period of time.
What is very disturbing as well is that the forecast for
this coming year shows a decline in private capital investment, again, in 1994
over '93. As a matter of fact, the
private capital investment situation in Manitoba ranks as 10 out of 10. Our situation is the worst in the country.
I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we in this House have to
be extremely concerned as to where the Manitoba economy is heading and whether
this particular budget document and the information and the changes now being
proposed in this legislation, which comes out of the budget document in large
measure, whether these are adequate, whether the budget has indeed addressed‑‑and
therefore has this legislation addressed‑‑the problem of sluggish
economic growth, the problem of insufficient jobs for the people of Manitoba.
Without investment, without public investment and without
private investment, you cannot have economic growth. That is the basis of growth; that is the
basis of increasing jobs. If you want to
increase jobs, generally, economic studies will show you have to have an
increasing level of investment. That is
the key. We are not getting that. We are getting declines in the level of
private capital investment. We are
getting declines, in some years at least, even in public capital investment.
You could argue, while these figures were forecasted before
the federal government's infrastructure program, and indeed they were, the
private capital investment, I submit, will not be changed very much by this,
maybe some of the public figures because we are talking mainly about public
works in the public sector, public investment.
We are not talking private capital investment, which involves everything
you can imagine in the private sector, from manufacturing to retail to other
categories, farming, mining and so on.
So I do not see the federal program having much
impact. In fact, my main complaint with
the federal program of infrastructure, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that it is
relatively small in comparison with the problem. When you look at the Canadian economy, with
unemployment exceeding 10 percent‑‑and in Manitoba we are not much
better off, just slightly better off with unemployment rates ranging in the
nine percent area‑‑we have just too many people unemployed, and
government, in my view, has a responsibility to be more aggressive, more active
in stimulating the economy. So I refer
to investment spending.
One could refer to other statistics, other dimensions of
the economy and become very concerned. I
notice, for example, in the value of building permits, for the information we
have, the latest information at least I have, it shows that we rank 10 out of
10. Of course, building permits is an
indication of how much construction activity we are going to have in the
future, and for the life of me, I do not understand why we have to continue to
be so sluggish in this area. As a matter
of fact, building permits have been declining since 1989. We have shown a decline in 1990, '91, '92,
'93 and now, again, even a worse decline in the value of building permits.
So I say, the Minister of Finance, the government should be
very concerned about this situation and ask themselves whether their economic
policies and their fiscal policies and their financial policies are addressing
the question that faces Manitoba, in fact, the No. 1 question that faces Manitoba
today, and that is the lack of jobs which results from the lack of economic
growth and a sufficiently high level of economic activity.
There are other areas‑‑retail trade. The retail trade information we have for this
year is not overly encouraging. There is
some increase in it, but our ranking leaves much to be desired. I think we are ranking eight out of 10
provinces. Ten is the worst
position. We are third from the lowest,
being No. 8 out of 10. So that is
something we should be concerned about as well, when we are looking at the
statistics.
Manufacturing has increased somewhat over the previous
year, but we have had a rather sluggish manufacturing‑shipment
performance in some of the previous years.
So all in all, Madam Deputy Speaker, the basic economic
figures that we have had provided to us in the budget document and in the
various reports that come out of the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics and
Statistics Canada show an economy that has not grown, in fact, in some ways,
has shrunk. I guess, overall, this is
reflected in our population change because the population change is virtually
stagnant.
In 1989, our population as of July was 1,000,106; as of
July 1993, it was 1,000,116. It had only
increased by 10,000 people in five years, and I submit that is tantamount to a
stagnating population situation. Of
course, most of that stagnation, in fact, depopulation is occurring in rural
Manitoba, and that is a reflection of changes that have been occurring in the
agricultural‑industrial sector.
So all and all, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have some measures
suggested in this legislation that we can support. They make some type of effort to stimulate
the economy, mining, manufacturing, small business and so on. As I have said before, they are relatively
minor, relatively modest and almost in the form of tokenism.
Another area, leaving the economy aside for a moment, that
this bill touches on, another important area, is the tobacco tax. It is being amended, I see, The Tobacco Tax
Act, by this legislation, to strengthen collection and enforcement provisions
as well as facilitating joint enforcement agreements with the other provinces. This we can commend the government for, and
there are some other minor changes in the act as well.
I note, in order to effect a better control of illegal
imports to the province, the department, the minister is redefining or clearing
up the definition of extraprovincial marked tobacco products, and further, I
note, is reducing the importation limits for tobacco products from 900 grams to
400 grams. So in effect it will be
illegal now to import more than 400 grams at one time, I think, in addition to‑‑I
should check the numbers here‑‑but I think that is in addition to
200 cigarettes per time.
* (1110)
This is a very serious matter. In many ways, we could criticize the federal
government for caving in on this particular matter. It has caused a lot of grief in this country. The federal government actions have forced,
literally, along with Quebec, other provinces to the east of us to reduce
tobacco taxes, leaving Manitoba and other western provinces to carry on the
fight against excessive use of tobacco which we all know is detrimental to the
health of our people. Surely, what we
are talking about here is strictly taxation not to necessarily raise money
although it does that, but taxation to discourage people from smoking so that
they may live longer, particularly young children and young people whom I know,
because they are on relatively low income usually going on allowances or
whatever monies they might earn on a part‑time basis as students,
nevertheless they are among the low‑income groups that we have. Young people are relatively short of cash
usually, and they are particularly impacted by taxation changes and by prices
of cigarettes.
It is regrettable that the federal government‑‑and
I appreciate the situation that arose out of what was happening in Quebec,
illegal smuggling and all that, but nevertheless it is sad that actions had to
be taken by the federal government in conjunction with Quebec, and, as I said,
causing the other eastern provinces to virtually capitulate and reduce their
taxes.
So Manitoba has a great challenge. I would think, therefore, that this
particular section will make it better or easier, rather, for the province to
maintain the level of control that it tries to maintain with respect to the
purchase of tobacco products. I understand,
also, there are some amendments here that are going to make it easier for the
province to co‑operate with the other western provinces to fight the good
fight in this respect.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those are a few remarks I would like
to put on the record. As I said, our
major concern with the bill is that it is a reflection of the budget which does
not go far enough to stimulate the Manitoba economy.
I just might say just before closing that I appreciate that
we have to continue our fight against the GST, because not only politically is it
bad because the people of Canada and the people of Manitoba hate the GST‑‑they
do not want another GST with a different name‑‑but the people of
Canada, the people of Manitoba want the GST to go. I believe it should go, and I believe it can
go. I believe that there are other kinds
of taxes that the federal government could collect to easily make up for the
loss of revenue from the elimination of the GST, including taxes on family
trusts, including loopholes that still exist for certain business practices
such as meals and entertainment and so on, and other areas where we could
legitimately and rationally increase revenue to make up for the loss of $18
billion or $19 billion that the GST collects.
As a matter of fact, I note that a good chunk of the GST, I
think about $5 billion of it, if memory serves me correctly, is simply
administrative costs or credits back to certain sectors of the economy such as
hospitals, municipalities and so on. It
is referred to as the mush sector, m‑u‑s‑h, the mush sector. Monies are just forwarded and returned to
these institutions and to these governments and to these agencies so that on a
net basis the GST is only bringing in about $13 billion or $14 billion, at
least this was the estimate of a year or two ago.
So I say if we eliminated the GST and looked at some other
forms of taxes, you would find that the economy would be stimulated, because in
my mind, I do not think there is any question that the GST as a national sales
tax has had a dampening impact on retail consumption, and that, of course, has
had a dampening impact on production, of course, resulting in less employment
than we would have otherwise. So there
is some good reason to oppose the GST, many good reasons to oppose the GST, but
I will not take time to go into that at this time.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are prepared to see this bill
go to committee, and of course, in committee any member of the Legislature can
discuss any particular part of the bill, whether it be changes to these various
taxes or whether it be credits or whether it be the issue of tobacco
consumption and tobacco taxes. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to put a few
words on the record on this particular piece of legislation.
I think one of the things that you will notice in this
budget is that the Manitoba Telephone and Manitoba Hydro are now going to be
subject to a corporate tax, and this is a government that has taken great pride
in telling Manitobans that they do not increase taxes. I think this one particular example
illustrates fairly clearly how the government uses its numbers and uses its
tools to be able to increase taxes either at different levels or in different
forms, whether it is the form of offloading to a school board or a municipality
or, in this case, to corporations.
By putting a capital tax, for example, or a corporate
capital tax to MTS or Manitoba Hydro, what is going to result as a direct
result of that will be an increase in utility rates to Manitobans, to the
users, and all of us require telephones and require hydro power.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we go before the Public
Utilities Board or when these corporations go before the Public Utilities
Board, they will now make a presentation, saying, look, we now have to pay this
additional tax. As a result of this, we
are going to have to charge the consumers of these products an increase in
their rates.
So, in a roundabout way, the government has created
additional revenues for provincial general revenue, while at the same time
telling the corporations that they are going to have to make up for the
additional revenue by charging their clients an additional fee to compensate
the new tax that has been formed. Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that if you take a look over the last six or seven
budgets from this particular administration that you will see a number of those
types of examples.
I did want to make mention of other things that this
particular piece of legislation does basically.
It gives legislative authority to the provisions contained in the
budget. It provides for a sales tax
rebate for the first‑time buyers of new homes which can be perceived as a
very progressive measure and incentive for first‑time home buyers,
because we do want to provide individuals the opportunity to be able to own
their homes, and this might be the added incentive for those individuals to do
just that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when you provide incentives for
individuals to start acquiring their first homes, hopefully what we will see is
an increase in demand to a certain degree which will lead to additional
construction work, whether it is on new homes or, in fact, renovations of older
homes, which I would argue would create some jobs. So this is what I would argue is a very
positive aspect of the budget.
It also provides for the research and development tax
credit which will be available to research performers doing contract research
for any other company which cannot make use of this particular tax credit,
which is perceived by many as making it more fair. Direct agents' items which are consumed in
the manufacturing process will be sales tax exempt. Retail sales tax on 80 percent of the
electricity used in mining and manufacturing will be reduced to 3.5 percent
from June 1, '94, to March 31, 1995, and will be completely eliminated after that. In reading the minister's comments and
information provided to me from the research, I am able to make that particular
comment, along with that the small business tax rate will be reduced from 10
percent to 9.5 percent for '94 and 9 percent for 1995 and subsequent years.
* (1120)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that you would virtually find
a consensus, at least I believe from a majority of the members inside this
Chamber, surely from the Liberal caucus, that the small businesses, in fact,
are the greatest potential for job creation well into the future, and what we
can do to assist the small‑business person, we should at the very least
attempt to be doing, and hopefully, we will see a decision from government that
will alleviate or allow more small businesses the opportunity to provide
opportunities for Manitobans.
This bill also contains amendments to the Manitoba tax
reduction and the cost‑of‑living tax credit program. The cost of living tax credit is no longer
available to persons under the age of 18, unless they are married, the parents
of a child or eligible for a property tax credit. The government is saying that this is to
avoid benefiting parents whose income is too high to benefit. Will this catch other 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds
who rightly deserve the credit? This is
a concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we do have within our caucus.
There is another positive aspect in terms of the mining tax
credit. These are good because they
promote the mining business. We should,
however, be accompanying this with an educational opportunity in Manitoba. Currently there are mining and metallurgy
courses at the Manitoba universities and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think one of
the things that has to be taken into account when we start giving some tax
incentives is providing opportunities for training wherever it is possible.
I wanted also to comment on what the member for Brandon
(Mr. Leonard Evans) was talking about, and we saw earlier today, in terms of
different forms of taxation. I know in
the past that members of the Chamber have talked about the GST and what it is
the federal Liberal government has said, and they make reference to the red
book.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that in fact they
have read or are aware in terms of what the national Liberal party's campaign
commitment was, because I believe if they were aware of it that in fact they
would see that our federal counterparts or our national government is in fact
living up to its commitments. For those
members I wanted to read in terms of what the commitment was for the GST. The public already knows about it, and I
would like, you know, members of the Chamber to be aware, because I do not
believe that in fact they have read the red book.
This is quoted right from the red book, Madam Deputy
Speaker. In the first session of a new
Parliament, a Liberal government will give an all‑party finance committee
of the House of Commons a 12‑month mandate to consult fully with
Canadians and provincial governments and to report on ways to achieve tax
fairness, simplicity and harmonization.
In particular, the committee will be mandated to report on all options
for alternatives to the current GST. A
Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that minimizes disruption
to small business and promotes federal‑provincial fiscal co‑operation
and harmonization.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe if you look at what the
current federal government is doing that you will find that it is consistent in
terms of what the red book is saying. I
would like to believe that there will be a lot of input. I know I personally will be giving input in
terms of what I believe is what my constituents would like to see dealt with
with respect to what the future of the GST should be.
I have consistently argued, even when the GST was
implemented, that the GST is, by being a consumption tax, not necessarily a
fair nor appropriate tax, and, I argued, so is the provincial sales tax. The provincial sales tax, I would argue, is
more regressive than the current GST. I
argue it now, and I argued that to my constituents in the last provincial
election, which I did because I think it is important that, yes, it is easy for
us, as I did, as I am sure that all members of this Chamber did, to argue that
the GST is a tax that has to be replaced.
Hopefully, it will be replaced.
But it is also important for us to indicate to the constituents that we
represent that the PST is no more progressive; in fact, it is more regressive
than the GST in many different aspects.
So it will be interesting to see the type of debate over
the next number of months on this particular issue. I look forward to it.
I see that the national government has come forward to the
committee, their Finance committee, as they had made a commitment in terms of
bringing something forward, consulting with the provincial counterparts and
Canadians, and I am going to do what I can to ensure that the consulting is, in
fact, taking place.
I think that the arguments have to be consistent, and if
you argue why it is that the GST is a bad tax, many of those very same
arguments could be used with the PST. We
do have a federal government that is being receptive to listening in terms of
what problems of taxation, different forms of taxation that the provinces are
having across Canada and addressing all of those tax unfairnesses, that it is
not just going to be left to a consumption tax of the PST or the GST, that this
is something that is going to be broadened.
I was listening to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) when he made reference to other forms of taxation, and I trust that
those are the sorts of presentations that we will be hearing, and the only
thing that I would caution is that, what is in fact applicable to taxation
policies at the national level is also applicable in many cases to the
provincial level, and that is why it is quite easy to say that this is bad in
terms of the national government and this is bad what they are doing here and
there and here but, Madam Deputy Speaker, many of those here‑and‑theres
are applicable on the provincial scene, and it would be interesting to see the
sorts and forms of presentations, because I do trust that members of all three
political parties will be commenting extensively on taxation policy, not to
take the narrow approach of, this is the GST, and all I have to do is say that
I oppose the GST and that will see me elevated possibly another vote or two in
my own personal riding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that you have to take the
broader picture of fairer taxation. The
member for Brandon East made reference to food exemptions and so forth. I believe in the last federal budget that, in
fact, some of those concerns were addressed, that there were some limitations
that were put on. There is no doubt, we
can point out numerous loopholes within the taxation, and I do not think those
are things that can be closed virtually overnight.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do believe it is important
that we see both national and provincial governments moving in a more fair way
in dealing in taxation and taking away some of the exemptions, some of those
excessive exemptions that maybe the business elite have used in the past, can
be a very positive one. But there are
many forms of taxation, and all of those taxations, I would argue, need to have
the debate.
* (1130)
Point of Order
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): I am not sure if it is a point of order, but
I would like to ask the member for Inkster if he would take a question, a brief
question from myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order, but is the
honourable member for Inkster prepared to entertain a question from the
honourable member for Wellington?
Mr. Lamoureux: Not being one to ever turn down a question, I
would be more than happy to as long as I can get through with my speech.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the member
for Inkster's willingness to take a question from myself. The question is very specifically and very
simply, the member has been talking about fair taxation and I am wondering if
he could share with us his position and the position of his provincial party on
the whole issue of revisiting the tax loopholes as a part of the family trusts.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that I am
making it fairly clear in terms of what the provincial Liberal Party is
committed to doing, and that is to take a look at all forms of taxation and to
look at areas where we can make sure that individuals are in fact being taxed
appropriately. Not necessarily being the
minister or the critic of Finance, the details of that specific question I
could not really give an accurate answer in terms of the Liberal Party policy.
I can say that the Liberal Party, provincially, has made
commitments consistently that we will be seeking to ensure that all forms of
taxation are fair. Not only are we going
to focus attention just on the GST, the federal government or family taxes, we
want Manitobans to take advantage of what the national government is
offering. They are offering a wide
spectrum of debate, not only on the GST but on all forms of taxation. They have provided the opportunity for the
Minister of Finance to look at the different forms of taxation in ways in which
the federal government might be able to assist, and vice versa. I think that is a positive step.
Hopefully, we will in fact see positive contributions from
all three political parties, because it is very easy to say that this is a tax
we want to see disappear. It is very
important that we have to recognize that the levels of revenue are likely going
to be at the same level or, if not, pressures put on governments to increase
the levels of revenue that governments both provincial and federal have, and
what we have to be pushing for is fairer taxation.
You know, one would ask, does the NDP believe in a
consumption tax as a progressive way of taxation? I think that is in fact a fair question to
ask, and I look forward to hearing from the members. The members from the New Democratic Party say
that they are against the GST. They say
they are against the GST, and Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to read into
the reasons why. It is a consumption
tax. Okay, so they say they are against
the GST, but does that same principle of a consumption tax hold true for the
provincial sales tax?
I recall comments to the effect that Ed Schreyer, for
example, campaigned that he would get rid of the provincial sales tax. Well, if Ed Schreyer did what it is said that
he was promoting, we would not have a provincial sales tax, which was in fact a
commitment made by the NDP then. But as
the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) has pointed out, the New
Democratic Party raised it. Not once but
twice they raised the provincial sales tax.
So if in fact the New Democrats were opposed to a consumption tax, then
how can they, with any character or any credibility, say that we oppose a
consumption tax when, not only did they renege on their own promise, Madam
Deputy Speaker, they increased a consumption tax, or is the New Democratic
Party saying, we oppose only a consumption tax at the federal level, but we are
in favour of a consumption tax at the provincial level? I hope that the New Democrats will answer
that particular question, as the provincial Tories.
I trust that the discussions that are going to be ongoing
will be at a higher level as opposed to what has been happening inside this
Legislature on the whole debate of the GST.
I want to see the debate on consumption tax, and let us look in terms of
if there is agreement that a consumption tax is necessary in Canada‑‑and
when I say in Canada, I am combining provincial and federal governments‑‑then
how do we best ensure that a consumption tax is going to be as progressive as
possible and fair. That means that there
might be a requirement to have a rebate system for those that are paying a
provincial consumption tax. Would the
New Democrats oppose a rebate system for those who cannot afford some of those
basics, who are having to pay that now, currently, under the provincial sales
tax?
We have not had that particular debate inside the
Chamber. Should there be a rebate on the
provincial sales tax? Maybe there are
some things that the current GST could be crossed over. If the GST is completely abandoned and there
is no federal consumption tax, well, is there a need then to revisit and to
look at the provincial sales tax? Maybe
Ed Schreyer or the NDP were wrong when they said that we want everyone to pay
this particular tax. Not only do we want
them to pay the five percent, but we increased it to six, to seven, in fact,
that there is merit that there should be a rebate system. To the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I
think that he would find that the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Lloyd
Axworthy, has been fairly clear and consistent in terms of what it is that is
being changed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is only the New Democrats, and we
saw it earlier today, that want to live today in the past. Today we see everyone in the New Democratic
caucus worshipping Ed Schreyer. Well, Ed
Schreyer is one of the individuals that‑‑sure he did a lot of
wonderful things for Manitobans, but he has also caused a number of the
problems that we are facing here today, and some of the things‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says, name one. I can name a lot more than just one of the
things that the former Premier of the Province of Manitoba has done, and I have
just been talking about one for the last 10, 15 minutes, that being the
provincial sales tax.
The New Democratic Party really and truly, Madam Deputy
Speaker, can be cut into two parties.
You can have the New Democratic Party in office versus the New
Democratic Party that is out of office with no opportunity of forming office,
because when they have no opportunity to form office, they will say and do
absolutely anything, anything, in order to get themselves into office. Once they get themselves into office, then
they become Liberals.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, on a point of order, I did just walk in, and I was trying to determine
what bill we are talking about here. I
realize the member for Inkster is somewhat sensitive about the NDP, particularly
in his own riding. I also realize he is
somewhat sensitive about the federal position on sales taxes, but the last I
read in terms of the Order Paper, we were debating The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1994. So I am asking
whether his comments are relevant on this particular bill.
* (1140)
Mr. Lamoureux: On the same point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think the NDP House leader is, in fact, quite wrong in his
assessment. If he takes a look and
possibly reads the bill, he will find that it is dealing with taxation. For the last 20 minutes I have been dealing
strictly with taxation, so I would argue that this is, in fact, quite relevant
and possibly a bit of an irritant for the New Democratic caucus to be listening
to what is actually happening, the real world.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), in my opinion, indeed did have a point of order. The point of order is relevancy. Debate on second reading of bill is supposed
to be relevant to the principles of the bill.
This bill deals exclusively with provincial taxation not federal
taxation, and I would ask for the co‑operation of the honourable member
for Inkster to keep his comments relevant.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would question in
terms of some rulings of the Chamber, I would argue that to talk about GST, to
talk about PST forms of taxation and what the federal government is proposing
to do in terms of meeting and talking with the Minister of Finance and talking
about provincial forms of taxation and how the federal government might be able
to co‑operate taxation changes is, in fact, quite relevant.
Having said that, I see that the member for Thompson wants
me to talk strictly about provincial taxation even though I do believe that it
is fairly consistent with speaking of the bill.
One can take it as you want.
Madam Deputy Speaker, having said those few words on this
particular piece of legislation, I would look forward to see a level of debate,
if not inside the Chamber, outside of the Chamber, with members of Parliament,
with Canadians talking about fairer taxation.
I can assure you that the provincial Liberal caucus will be leading the
debate within the different communities, because we believe that this is an
issue of fairness, and we are going to strive to accomplish it. Thank you.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I presume debate is concluded.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 25, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1994. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? [agreed]
Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bill 31.
Bill 31‑‑The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment a nd Income Tax Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 31
(The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment and Income Tax
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de
participation des travailleurs du Manitoba et la Loi de L'impôt sur le revenu),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Downey), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie). Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing? No?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, the order was changed for the Liberal Leader to be able to speak, so I
would ask that it remain standing in the member for Flin Flon's name, who will
be up shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave? [agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): I want to thank the
opposition party for their accommodation so that I can put a few words on the
record today about The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment
Act. I do not intend to speak at length
on this.
I have had the opportunity to meet with representatives of
the Employee Ownership Fund Corporation and to discuss and review these
amendments. They are primarily designed
to clear up some of the inefficiencies which have resulted in the first years
of operation of this fund. As in many
cases, when the act was originally passed, some of the problems could not have
been foreseen. Now that we have had the
benefit of some experience and hindsight and the benefit of advice from those
administering this fund, the position taken by the corporation, and these
amendments are at the request of the corporation itself, revolve around how
they assess the value of the shares and stocks and assets that they have, with
what regularity and on what basis.
Specifically, the fund wants to value these at par rather
than at the fluctuating bond market price, because the fund apparently does not
intend to sell them, and this, to us, having had that discussion, appears to
make good sense. I did express a concern
to the fund operators who I met with that the Securities Commission had been
solicited for its advice on this because of course they are the primary
regulators of this type of fund in the province of Manitoba.
I wonder if at committee there will be some letter or some
advice from the Securities Commission or others in the government, and that I
think would satisfy us, to give us some comfort with respect to the
shareholders and just ensuring that there is no compromising of the duty to
inform shareholders of the value of their shares and to report to the board of
the fund itself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are pleased to support passage of
this bill to committee with those comments having been made and look forward to
some further discussion at the committee stage.
Thank you.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): I want to first of all thank members for
allowing this to remain standing in my name.
Our caucus has discussed this bill.
We have met with a number of people, representatives of the Crocus Fund
and have received the background information provided by the minister
responsible. As my colleague for St.
James has suggested, we too are prepared to let this proceed to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think Manitobans will know that the
fund itself is doing quite well, that in the last number of months it has
received some major boosts in terms of the investments in the fund, and we know
that in the not too distant future there are going to be a number of new
investments made by the fund in ventures in Manitoba.
That is what we believed was the rationale for creating
this fund. It is the kind of fund that
has worked very well in other provinces, perhaps most notably in the province
of Quebec. These amendments are to
facilitate the work of the board and to ensure that they are not encumbered by
rules and guidelines that are perhaps more stringent than the rules and
regulations which guide the investment decisions in other funds.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know there have been a couple of
minor amendments in the last few years, and that is to be expected, given that
this is the province's first experience with employee ownership funds. This idea, which came about as a result of a
lot of work between the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the previous government,
is now finally coming to fruition, that individuals and other institutional
investors are now finding the fund an attractive place to put money to spur
economic development in the province of Manitoba, and that is to be commended
as well.
I want to conclude by saying that Manitoba investors and
people who are involved in payroll deductions to contribute to the fund, to
institutional investors, to individual Manitobans who want to invest in
something that is going to have a long‑term benefit for the province, is
going to keep capital in Manitoba and working for Manitobans, this is a
tremendous opportunity. If these small
amendments that we are making in this session assist in that, we will all have
done a good job.
With that, we are prepared to let this bill move to
committee, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 31 (The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment
and Income Tax Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation
le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba et la Loi de L'impôt sur
le revenu), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey). Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [agreed]
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, would you please call debate on Bill 27.
* (1150)
Bill 27‑‑The Highway Traffic
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 27
(The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise
today to add my comments to Bill 27, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act.
This piece of legislation was brought in by the Minister of
Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) on I believe it was June 22, just last week. While we have had just a few days to look at
this piece of legislation, we think that it goes part way towards addressing
what has developed into a very serious problem within the province in dealing
with auto thefts and auto vandalism.
This problem knows no bounds. It is occurring both in urban and in rural
centres. I have looked at some of the
reports that have come before us lately wherein we see, even in southwestern
Manitoba, incidents of vehicle thefts.
Of course, this is causing a loss not only for the people that own the
vehicles, but also for MPIC and other people that have their vehicles insured
through MPIC to pick up the costs associated with those losses. So society in general loses as a result of
the thefts.
I think before I get too far into that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I should put some information on the record pertaining to what has
been happening with respect to vehicle thefts and vandalism within the
province.
In my research on this subject, I have come across
information that shows that there has been a significant increase in the number
of automobile thefts within the province.
The information that has come to my attention indicates that a lot of
the thefts that are occurring have been as a result of actions by young people
of our province, in particular, young people between the ages of 12 and
19. That is not to say, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that some of the thefts are not occurring by others of our society
outside of that age group, but in particular the information that I have says
that 95 percent of all vehicle thefts are committed by young people between the
ages of 12 and 19.
That is a very serious indicator of what is happening
within our society, and I believe that this legislation, while it attempts to
address part of the problem, does not maybe in some senses address the total
problem as we see it. I will get into
that a bit further on.
In 1993, we had some 5,200 vehicles, I believe it was, that
were stolen within the province of Manitoba.
That is a significant number and a significant loss not only for the
owners but also for MPIC which has to pay to the owners any of the losses that
are incurred. It is my understanding
that is a 170 percent increase over the previous year, 1992. So we can see that there has been, obviously,
a history or a pattern developing where we had an increasing number of vehicle
thefts.
It is my understanding from comments that have been made by
members of I believe the Winnipeg police that the projected losses for 1994 are
in the range of some 7,200 vehicle thefts that are going to occur for this
year. When we take a look at the number
of vehicle thefts that have occurred to this point in time, I think it was to
the end of last week, Madam Deputy Speaker, the losses by vehicle thefts are
over 2,800 vehicles for this portion of 1994.
So it appears that there is going to be no change in the
pattern in the number of vehicles that have been stolen and there needs to be
some serious steps taken to address the problem. This bill I believe will address part of the
problem, and in a few moments I will indicate where we may be able to make some
other changes to address part of the problem as well.
It is my understanding that the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation sustained losses in 1993 of nearly $10 million due to vehicle
thefts and vandalism. That was nearly a
doubling of the figure of the previous year.
So you can see there has been a significant increase in the costs.
The question I have is if this problem has been growing in
its magnitude‑‑and looking at the figures that I have just placed
on the record‑‑if this problem has been growing in its magnitude
for the last two years, why is it that it took a year and a half for the
Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) to take the necessary steps and to bring
forward legislation in conjunction with her colleague the Minister of Highways
and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) to address the problem that we are facing?
I would think that if we had that indication that there was
going to be serious problems continuing, that we could have in the last session
which continued on into the summer of 1993 introduced legislation at that
time. There is no excuse, saying that we
were short of time to introduce that legislation.
The minister only just last week introduced the bill. So we can see that there has obviously been
just a short period of time that we are allowed to debate this piece of
legislation. The government could have
taken the steps a year and a half ago when it looked like there was going to be
a continuation of the number of thefts.
MPIC has indicated that for the average vehicle loss, they
incur some $2,000 per vehicle which is horrendous. I know that I have talked to some of my
colleagues in this House. In fact, my
colleagues on this side of the House have themselves had their vehicles stolen
in the last couple of years. So the
vehicle thefts know no bounds on those who are affected by it.
An Honourable Member: I have had a couple of computers stolen.
An Honourable Member: We are talking about cars.
Mr. Reid: Yes, we are talking about vehicle
thefts. There are other thefts, as
members opposite indicate. Possibly,
from my recollection, maybe their offices were broken into and some of their
equipment was stolen. The member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) indicates that his office was broken into on more
than one occasion and that he had some of his equipment stolen. So, obviously, there is a problem there as
well, but we are dealing in particular with vehicle thefts and vandalism with
this legislation here.
I look at some of the comments that have been made not only
by members of the public, the Winnipeg police force, but some of the media in
the city of Winnipeg here as well. One
editorial in particular made reference to the fact that they would like to see
some differential in the insurance premiums for protected versus nonprotected
vehicles. When we talk about that I
believe that they are referencing the fact that there may be opportunities for
the owners of vehicles to make purchases of certain equipment to protect their
vehicles from theft.
Now there are several devices on the market, whether it be
the locking steel bars with a cost range of $30 to $70 or steering wheel column
clamps that can cost upwards of $250.
There are other means like J‑bars for $30, and there are also
alarm systems, Madam Deputy Speaker, that can range anywhere from a little over
a hundred dollars to somewhere in the range of $2,000. So there are substantial costs that would
have to be borne by anyone wishing to put on antitheft devices on their
vehicles.
Now, there is the possibility that MPIC could give some
consideration by way of premium reductions for those that want to protect their
vehicles from theft. It may be something
that may be worthy of consideration.
I think, in referring to some of the information that has
come to my attention, we look at the type of vehicles that are being stolen
within the province, and it is my understanding that a large number of those
vehicles are from General Motors. That
might lead one to conclude that particular manufacturer is making vehicles that
are somewhat easier to tamper with and to bypass the ignition systems and
ignition lock systems that are in place.
It may be appropriate for the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Findlay), when he is meeting with his federal and
provincial colleagues and counterparts at the end of next week, Madam Deputy
Speaker, to raise at that meeting the possibility of the Government of Canada
communicating with the manufacturers of vehicles to have them take the
necessary steps to improve the security devices on the vehicles and make it
more difficult for vehicle thefts to occur by anyone that should tamper with
the vehicles by way of bypassing the ignition systems.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
It is my understanding that some of the young people have
learned the techniques, and others have learned the techniques of bypassing
this. If we were to make it more rigid
and to make it almost impossible for them to bypass, I think it would act as a
deterrent. So I ask the Minister of
Highways and Transportation to raise this issue with his colleagues at next week's
meeting.
The question I have‑‑also I guess it is another
way of possibly addressing the problem here‑‑is if MPIC is
incurring such large costs, and we saw that it was nearly $10 million in 1993,
and it appears that it is going to escalate from that point for 1994 as a
result of vehicle thefts, is it possible for MPIC to put in place premiums for
those convicted of automobile thefts or vandalisms to allow MPIC to recover
some of the costs that are associated with that? I do not think it is fair for honest, law‑abiding
citizens of our province to incur those costs by way of their premium
increases. It may be appropriate for
MPIC to look at putting in place increased premiums for those that are
convicted of vehicle thefts or vandalism at the point where they are eligible
to drive. It could be a step that the
government could take to move beyond just the suspension of the driving
privileges.
* (1200)
This bill changes The Highway Traffic Act to include
vehicle theft and vandalism offences as a reason for suspension of driving
privileges. As we all know, driving is a
privilege and not a right within our province.
It is able to be, for just cause, suspended by the Registrar of motor
vehicles. I think that is a move in the
right direction, to allow the Registrar to have those powers.
This legislation brings into place for a first offence,
which was a previous occurrence, that the licences could be suspended for six
months on a first offence of vehicle theft.
This legislation will now change that to one year. Of course, for any subsequent offences, the
suspension period remains at five years.
The difference now is that anyone who contravenes The Highway Traffic
Act and commits these offences and is under the legal driving age of our
province, the suspensions will take effect when the individual reaches the age
or attains the age of 16 years.
I do not believe that this piece of legislation will
totally address all of the problems for those, in particular, young people that
are committing these offences. I just
think back, Mr. Speaker, to the time when my colleague the member for St. Johns
raised in this House the issues relating to court delays for young people
charged with committing offences. My
colleague indicated at that time that the court delays were up to 11 months
before any of the young people were brought before the courts to have any
sentencing take place.
In fact, my colleague has indicated to me that there was
one case that he was dealing with, or was aware of in particular, where one
young person who had pled guilty to stealing cars had to wait up to nine months
for his sentencing. During that period
of time when he was waiting that nine months for sentencing, he went out and
stole another eight cars.
The delays within the court system are not acceptable in
that we need to make them more meaningful and more immediate in dealing with
the charges for anyone being charged with these offences.
We need to have the immediate and meaningful consequences
and not the delays, because I believe that young people in particular, but not
necessarily limited to them, need to be made aware of the consequences and need
to have the appropriate actions taken in as short a period of time as possible
and not wait for the nine months to allow more infractions to take place.
In fact, my colleague has indicated to me that some of the
young people appear to be thumbing their noses at the justice system in the
province when they realize that there are no consequences for their actions.
One of the ways that we can look at to make some improvements
with respect to the costs and improvements to this legislation so that we make
the consequences more meaningful is if we were to have restitution in full for
any of the costs or any of the hardships that might occur as a result of thefts
or vandalism, not just the suspensions themselves, because if the young people
see the suspensions not occurring for a period of time and the justice system
does not appear to be serious, maybe restitution in full to those who are
affected would be in order as well.
Now, there may be other consequences as a result of calling
for restitution wherein some individuals may not be able to pay some of those
costs, but I think there may be an opportunity to have complete community
services to make that restitution. So it
may not necessarily take the form in financial ways, but maybe looked at in
community services to repay the debt that has occurred as a result of the
thefts.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we would have no free rides
for anyone who is charged and convicted of stealing vehicles or committing
vandalism to those vehicles.
I looked at some of the comments by the police forces
wherein they were saying that they want the Crown now to go to the maximum, to
enforce the laws of the province in dealing with car thieves so that there will
be no deals cut with the people who are involved in these.
In fact, one of the police officers says that this piece of
legislation is a good piece of legislation and that it will be the answer to
all of the concerns. I think that was
going a bit far. I think that there are
other steps that can be taken to take the necessary corrective action.
I talked a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, with my colleague
the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), and we talked about the possibility
of having wilderness camps where we have those young people in society who do
commit these infractions where they break the law, that it may be possible if
they are repeat offenders and they are not willing to listen to the justice
system of our province to remove them from interaction in society, not just to
send them to detention centres like Seven Oaks or the Macdonald Youth centres,
but to send them to wilderness camps to remove them from society and to
hopefully instill in them the need to have more respect for the property of
others and hopefully will cause them to have some more respect for themselves
at the same time. I think the wilderness
camps that were cut by this government in their past budgets would have been
one of the ways this problem could have been addressed.
It is my understanding that most of the vehicles are
recovered within 48 hours, although some vehicles are never recovered. I looked at comments that had been made in
public by some of the defence lawyers when they wanted us to take personal
circumstances of the person charged into account. I already spoke about that a few moments
ago. I see few if any exceptions where
we could take into consideration personal circumstances of individuals stealing
cars. I could understand if an
individual is stealing food to support themselves, to feed themselves or their
families or they are in need of clothing, Mr. Speaker, but I do not understand
how the theft of an automobile would fit into those categories of sustaining
life. I do not think there would be any
but maybe one or two exceptions in cases of emergency where it would be
warranted for a vehicle to be taken to address the needs of the emergency.
I believe this is an issue of public safety. I have looked at some of the events that have
taken place within our own city of Winnipeg where we have had, in the past,
high‑speed chases where there was a loss of life. In fact, I believe one of them was the
offender. The alleged offender died as a
result of the high‑speed chase.
That is unfortunate, but another circumstance or tragic event occurred
wherein an innocent person in another vehicle was struck by a vehicle that was
stolen and there was loss of life by an innocent member of the public, which is
obviously a hardship for the family but is also something that is unfortunate
and tragic. If we can avoid in some way
a repeat of those occurrences, I think it would be a good move.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
This bill I believe, while it may prevent some thefts and
it may hopefully reduce the number of high‑speed chases and if it saves a
life, I think it would be worth it. I
think there are other steps that can be taken as well to reduce the incidence
of vehicle thefts and vandalism.
The questions that I have, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I will
hopefully be raising these questions at committee stage, deal with certain
segments of the legislation itself. I am
not sure why the minister chose to go with three or more offences before the
person who has committed the offences has their licence suspended for the five‑year
period. I am not sure why the minister
chose to move in that direction with three or more offences. It is my understanding that the offences that
fall under this suspension, the ability of the registrar to suspend driving
privileges, deal with the dangerous driving of vehicles. It deals with alcohol‑related offences,
and it now deals with automobile theft and vandalism. So I am not sure why the minister chose to go
with three offences versus a repeat offence as grounds for this, and we will be
asking the minister that.
We think back, Mr. Acting Speaker, to a time not that long
ago, when we saw a TV program in this city where there was an individual who
had gone before one of the justices in this province, was found guilty and lost
driving privileges. In fact, I think the
program even went on to talk about an individual who had already been suspended
and went before the courts and had further suspension and fines levied. Then the TV cameras followed this individual
outside of the courts where the individual went back into their vehicle again
and drove that vehicle home.
Now, I think there needs to be some steps taken to‑‑[interjection]
Well, the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) indicates that the Criminal Code
deals with that, but I think that while the Criminal Code may have an effect on
that, it does not seem to have any effect on those who are committing the
infractions. There does not seem to be
an understanding or comprehension of the magnitude of the further infraction of
those who are leaving the courts after they are found guilty, pay the fine and
then go out and operate their vehicles.
* (1210)
I hope that this bill will in some way address that, but I
am not confident that it will go the full distance in addressing the causes
there. I am not sure how this is going
to stop the repeat offenders. Those who
may have some sense of honesty or dignity to themselves who want to operate
within the law, after they see this law being passed, may sense that they will
not go out and have repeat offences, but those who are now thumbing their nose
at the justice system, I am not sure how this bill is going to have any impact
upon them, how they are going to take this bill seriously and want to act
within the bounds of the law if we do not take the steps to deal with
that. I think we have to take some
further steps in dealing with that.
This piece of legislation will move through to committee
hearings and will give members of the public the opportunity to come forward
and, hopefully, put their thoughts on the record about how this bill is going
to impact on those who commit these offences.
This will give us the opportunity to ask further questions of the
minister relating to this piece of legislation.
Hopefully, at the same time, the minister will have the
opportunity to look at Hansard and the comments we have made here and will
hopefully listen to some of the suggestions about ways we can improve and
tighten up on the process where we deal with those who commit these crimes,
whether they be young offenders or whether they be others. Those who commit these infractions have to be
responsible for their actions, and I hope that the suggestions we have put on
the record here today will go some distance in helping the government to
understand that there are other actions they can take in dealing with these
matters, and that they will listen to members of the public at the same time.
I look forward to this bill going through to committee
stage, and hopefully, members of the public will come out and place their
concerns on the record as well.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, for the opportunity to place
these comments on the record.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to add a few
words before I recommend that this be passed on to the committee.
In the short time we have had to review this bill, I note
that it provides for automatic licence suspension for any person who has been
convicted of an offence in the Criminal Code which relates to auto theft or
auto vandalism, and I have no problem with that. It also dealt with the licence suspension
period for first‑time offenders from six months to one year. The Justice minister stated in the House that
this lengthening of the suspension period puts Manitoba more in line with
suspension periods in most other provinces.
For subsequent offences, the suspension period is still five years. Again, I have no problem with that provision
in this bill.
If the offence is committed when he or she is less than 16
years old, suspension does not take effect until the offender's 16th
birthday. This corrects a flaw in the
legislation which has the suspension starting from the date of their
conviction, when they are already ineligible to drive. If a person has committed three or more
offences which result in suspension of their driver's licence within a five‑year
period, they will not be eligible to apply to a licence suspension appeal board
until the suspension or disqualification period has expired. I am concerned about this section in that if
there may be a legitimate reason for an appeal, we are taking away the
privilege of due process for an appeal where there may be a legitimate reason
for that appeal. So I will be interested
in talking about that in committee.
This bill does not do very much to address the problem of
youth crime other than increasing punishment of young offenders. I do not know if there is any evidence that
suspending drivers' licences of young offenders who steal cars will discourage
them from stealing them. I do not know
if these young offenders think far enough ahead in the future to worry about
whether they can obtain a driver's licence at 16. Will they stop driving because they do not
have a licence? That did not stop them
in the first instance for those under 16.
Will the Justice department begin a promotional campaign to inform young
offenders of the consequences of a car theft or vandalism conviction? I think this harkens to a survey done by the
Winnipeg Police Service recently about young people's knowledge of their
responsibilities and consequences now. I
think an important element for the provision of this bill to work is that there
will have to be information going out in public to make sure everyone is aware
of the consequences.
This bill addresses the problem of youth crime by
increasing the punishment. Deterrence
has two different elements to it. One of
the elements is, if the penalty is severe, the offender also has to feel there
is a good chance of them being caught.
Now I was very cynical about the deterrent effect for young people until
we had the Listening to Youth conference here in the Legislature. I heard from a number of young people, and
although it was not unanimous, there were many young people who felt that the
deterrence of not being able to get their driver's licence would have an impact
and make them think twice about doing some actions. So for those few, this legislation may work,
but the other part of deterrence is, what are the chances of these young
people, or any person who is suspended, of being caught? Right now, we have thousands of suspended
drivers in Manitoba that drive every day.
I harken back to the campaign against impaired
driving. One of the elements that made
that campaign work was that with the ALERT and roadside enforcement program,
people were of the opinion that not only were the consequences severe, but
there was a good chance that if they did drive and they were impaired that they
would be caught. Well, I think with this
legislation we are going to have a lot more suspended drivers, but will those
suspended drivers continue to drive if they believe the chance of getting
caught is slim?
In some cases, we have suspended drivers driving to work
every day, we have suspended drivers on the road every night, because of
underresourcing of our police services in Manitoba. I do not know how much of a deterrent effect
this legislation will have.
Another element I am concerned about is parental
notification. Right now, for a young
person to get a Highway Traffic Act ticket or a series of tickets, they can
proceed with the matter, pay their fine, and the parents never be aware that
their child has received a common offence notice.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Although the parents, upon arrest, will be notified of the
charge of driving suspended, I do not know if parents right now‑‑we
do not have enough of them attending court with young offenders now. Will they be aware of the suspension, the
length and the different elements of it?
So I am wondering if in this legislation there should have
been stronger provisions for notification to parents and that parents would be
also responsible for the driving suspended of their charges.
In spite of those few concerns about this legislation, on
behalf of the Liberal caucus I recommend that this legislation be passed on to
committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 27, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de
la route. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion? [agreed]
Is it the will of the House to call it one o'clock?
House Business
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to give notice of a Standing Committee on Law Amendments
for Monday, July 4, 1994, at 10 a.m., to which Bills 22, 24, 27 and 31 will be
referred.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy
government House leader for that information.
Committee Changes
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments be amended as follows:
Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg); Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) for St. Johns (Mr. McIntosh).
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments be amended as follows:
The Maples (Kowalski) for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) effective
Monday, July 4, 10 a.m.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows:
the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach); the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); and the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for
the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh).
Motions agreed to.
* (1220)
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it one
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: One o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 1 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30.
Everybody have a great Canada Day.