House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have several items of House business.
Firstly, for the Committee on Economic Development that is meeting on Tuesday, October 24, at 10 a.m., I would like to refer the 1993 Annual Report of A.E. McKenzie Co. Ltd.
I would also like to refer the 1993 Report of the Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd. to that committee as well. I am not sure if the 1994 Report of Manitoba Mineral Resources has yet been tabled, but, should it be tabled, then I would have it referred as well. So that deals with Economic Development for Tuesday, October 24 at 10 a.m.
Next, Madam Speaker, I advise the House that the Standing Committee on Economic Development will sit again this afternoon at 1:30 p.m. to continue consideration of Bill 2 and, in the event that work is not concluded in that committee this afternoon at 1:30 p.m., I would call the committee again for nine o'clock on Monday morning, the Standing Committee on Economic Development, to continue consideration of Bill 2.
For Tuesday, October 24 at 7 p.m., I would call the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to consider Bills 4, 9, 11, 12 and 25.
Then, Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, October 25, at 7 p.m., we will call the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs to consider Bills 5, 6, 17 and 22.
* (1100)
Madam Speaker, would you call bills as listed in the Order Paper.
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), and the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 8--The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay), The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non routier) standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Speaker: Stand. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Yes or no. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? Yes? Agreed? Leave?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): There is no leave.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. Leave has been denied.
The honourable member for The Pas. [interjection] Flin Flon.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, it was indeed close enough. Thank you for allowing me to speak very briefly on Bill 8, The Off-Road Vehicles Amendment Act.
I am happy to note that the minister and the government are aware of both the positive and the negative aspects posed by The Off-Road Vehicles Act as we see more and more off-road vehicles being used in this province. As more and more of these vehicles come into use, more and more young people will be tempted to use them. Many of these people are underage, certainly far below the age of 16.
This is an area that was not well regulated in the past. In fact, in the North, it was not uncommon to see children as young as four and five on off-road vehicles. I do not see that as much any more, but still it is quite often the case that six-year-olds and eight-year-olds are driving off-road vehicles.
That, of course, gives everybody some concern because often these children drive these vehicles at excessive speeds, and it is very dangerous. We all know that there are many, many accidents, and we would like to reduce that figure as much as possible. Therefore, I personally do not have serious difficulty with this bill and give it my cautious and conditional support.
I suppose, when one is concerned with recreational driving, we want to keep it recreational and not put too many roadblocks in the way. We do not want too many laws that are onerous and burdensome on the recreational driver. In the North, for example, off-road vehicles are not primarily recreational. I would say they are more functional than recreational.
In many of the northern communities, few roads or no roads exist, and off-road vehicles are absolutely a necessity now that dog teams are not used anymore. In fact, often now they are the only mode of travel because roads do not exist or there are very few roads.
These vehicles are extremely useful for trappers, for hunters, for fishermen and so on. Our concern is that very young children often use them, and this leads to problems.
I could not help noticing, when I visited Churchill about a month ago with some of my honourable colleagues, there was a four-wheeler or an off-road vehicle in front of every apartment, in front of every house. So they are considered the regular vehicle of the North where roads do not exist.
They are not primarily recreational. That is why I feel some tension about this bill. On the one hand, it is certainly addressing safety and registration concerns, and I agree with that but, on the other hand, it might be construed as interference with the more freewheeling lifestyle that is characteristic of northern Manitoba.
In those isolated northern communities, even young children use the so-called off-road vehicles. They use them for going to school, for going shopping, for visiting, for fishing, for hunting chicken whatever. They are the vehicle of choice.
In many ways, the off-road vehicles in northern Manitoba have replaced the dog team, as I mentioned earlier. In the southern portion of this province, the off-road vehicle is more purely a recreational vehicle, and these laws certainly apply 100 percent. I believe that was probably the reason why off-road vehicles were invented in the first place, for the kind of conditions that exist in southern Manitoba. But it so happens that off-road vehicles are being used in northern Manitoba, not primarily as recreational vehicles but as functional vehicles.
In the North, they have been adapted to very practical uses. So, while I give my conditional support to this bill, I am aware that in some parts of this province the bill may be viewed as too stringent and onerous. However, I am aware that we cannot have two sets of laws regarding off-road vehicles; one for the North and one for the South. As much as I might want that, I do not think it is practical, and therefore we support this bill.
There is nothing really contentious about other aspects of the bill and even northerners I think will eventually give it their grudging approval.
The bill does put more responsibility on the owners of off-road vehicles. The bill also attempts to make the rules for off-road vehicles similar to those for regular vehicles. The long-promised staggered registration for regular vehicles which finally came into effect with the 1995-1996 season will be extended to off-road vehicles under Bill 8. As well, owners of off-road vehicles will become legally responsible for ensuring that there is current and valid registration on their off-road vehicles and use of such vehicles by anyone.
Another section of the bill raises the amount of the property damage threshold required to be reported to the police from $500 to $1,000. Apparently, most of the damage done in off-road vehicle accidents is well in excess of $1,000. In fact, I believe the minister pointed out that this figure exceeds that of regular vehicles in most cases.
As the minister noted in his speech, this makes the reporting of off-road vehicle accidents consistent with reporting of automobile accidents. It puts Manitoba in line with most of the other provinces.
Other sections give the registrar the power to suspend registration for a reasonable cause and to deny registration to owners who issue NSF cheques or where full payment was not made.
Now, the bill was first brought forward in 1994 and is being brought forward again. We give it our cautious support, Madam Speaker. I know it will not be popular in the North, but I think it is one of those bills that is necessary. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Very briefly, Madam Speaker, we support the bill and understand that the legislation responds to requests from MPIC for further amendments. The registrant of a motor vehicle now will be given the power to cancel the registration of an off-road vehicle in the event of the indebtedness by the owner to MPIC or the registrant.
Secondly, the amendment provides for a staggered renewal of registration for off-road vehicles and, as I indicated, we do not have any problems supporting the bill.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 8. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, rather than call the bills as listed in the Order Paper, if you would call Bills 10, 21 and 28, then the balance of the bills as listed on the Order Paper, it would facilitate the business of the House.
Bill 10--The Development Corporation Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), Bill 10, The Development Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de développement), standing in the name of the honourable member for Crescentwood, who has 12 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
* (1110)
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson? Leave? [interjection] I am aware the honourable member for Crescentwood wants to complete probably a portion or all of his 12 minutes remaining. What I need to clarify first is if the bill should remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson.
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: Thank you. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, as I said, I will be the final speaker on this bill on our side of the House, and we are prepared to, at the conclusion of my remarks, pass the bill through for the public to make comments on the legislation if they so desire.
In concluding our comments on this motion, we are concerned that the effect of the amendment is to place civil servants entirely in charge of the Manitoba Development Corporation and its function on behalf of government. We are concerned that the corporation is not audited by the Provincial Auditor when it will be operated entirely within departmental ambit and within the direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
We believe that it should not be discretionary to allow the audit of this important corporation to be in the hands of a private auditor.
So, Madam Speaker, those are our concerns. We will look forward to hearing from the public and to clause-by-clause debate. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Just very briefly, Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Development Corporation is mandated to encourage the development of industry in the province by providing financial assistance to the existing or newly forming industrial enterprises as well as advise technical assistance and assistance in the cultivation of export markets.
Under the current legislation there must be seven to 12 members on the board, all but one operating at arm's length from the government. The Development Corporation Act exclusively, as an agent of government, its activity is subject to the direction and approval of government through Orders-in-Council. Because of this it is felt that the size of the composition of the board no longer reflects the realities of the operations of the corporation.
Accordingly, an amendment provides that the board now will comprise of from three to five members with no restrictions on the characteristics of the members save that they shall not be elected members of the Legislative Assembly nor members of the House of Commons or the Senate.
Another amendment will preclude the general manager or the chair of the board being the same person. Additional civil servants will now be allowed to act as officers of and perform services for the corporation.
This is something that has been provided for me in terms of as a further explanation for my benefits. Having reported that, Madam Speaker, we have no problem in terms of passing it to committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading, Bill 10, The Development Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de développement).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 21--The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act.
Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les obligations de développement rural), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been denied.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I just want to put a few words on the record related to this particular piece of legislation, Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act.
There are two major changes that were brought about by this particular piece of legislation. One is that the bond corporations will be obligated to have a young director under the age of 30 on their board. There are also some changes which will call for the streamlining of the application process.
We support the changes put forward, and we would just like to go on record as once again demonstrating our support for the Grow Bond Program as we have expressed on past occasions in this Chamber. We are concerned, however, about some of the actions of the minister when it comes to the approval process and the political interference by this minister.
However, I do want to speak about a particular project in Selkirk, and that was the Sterling crests. I want to commend the area residents who set up the Grow Bond committee and who purchased the bonds which were able to produce an additional 18 jobs in our community. I understand that was so successful that the company is considering, or I believe they are at the moment seeking additional funds under the program so they can once again expand their operation, creating more employment for area residents, and we do support that concept.
A few years ago the community leaders in Selkirk approached the provincial Grow Bond Program to fund the development on the Selkirk docks. They were calling it at the time the Robinson Harbour development proposal. They approached the government to see if there would be funding, Grow Bond support for that particular project. At that time, they did not receive the support, and that would have been a true asset to our community to have the docks in Selkirk further developed.
There is a project there now sponsored by the Kiwanis Club seniors housing which is enhancing that area, an area that we are quite proud of in our community, an area that has great potential for tourism development.
This community group at that time was pushing a project that would develop a hotel complex, a convention complex in this very important area. The problem is that the bond did not receive the support of the government, but a similar project in Steinbach was eligible for Grow Bond support and we were very disappointed with that particular decision of the government.
However, overall, as we said before, we do support the concept and we support the changes brought forward by the government to allow younger individuals to sit on the boards. We know that the future of Manitoba rests with our young people and it is important to have their being active participants in the decisions of our economy, and this would allow them to do so.
We understand that this is a program that has been copied or designed after one that has been in Saskatchewan, that has been fairly successful, so we do support that.
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, there are some success stories, and we do support that, but the concept of the Grow Bond Program, we realize that there were some cases that we disagreed with. We hope that the minister has listened to our concerns in the past and we hope that this particular piece of legislation will address some of those concerns, but I believe that it is a good program and the government does have our support to continue with this program throughout Manitoba. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise today and make some comments on Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act.
* (1120)
I think, as my colleague has indicated, the Grow Bond issue here in the province in certain aspects has been fairly successful in the way that it has given opportunity to certain communities that have the ability to be able to form a group to provide a corporation that would be eligible in obtaining Grow Bonds to support an industry or support a project within its community, Madam Speaker, and looking over the Annual Report of Rural Development, it is interesting that we see the Grow Bond issues that have been put through already, some many million dollars this year alone, I see it is almost $3 million, and it has been a tremendous boost for certain communities in certain areas.
I would wish and I would say that I would like to see perhaps the Grow Bond issues themselves be perhaps a little easier to obtain for communities, Madam Speaker, that perhaps do not have the resources available to provide for a large corporation or a large industry. There are many communities in rural Manitoba, in northern Manitoba, that could in fact use something like a Grow Bond issue to improve their economic resources and development in their communities and do not have the resources to be able to tie in.
The Rural Development Bond Act has a few changes and amendments put forth, No. 1, which I feel is a great opportunity for Grow Bond corporations to be able to stay on with the viability of a Grow Bond issue and that is that a corporation is obliged to have a young director under the age of 30. I feel that that is a promising scope of the Grow Bond corporations. I think that is probably where we have to look towards the future, and that is getting our younger people in our communities involved in providing economic development and providing sustainable development in a community, and that is having the younger people not only obligated to support the communities, Madam Speaker, but the opportunity so that we are not seeing the same old thing happen in a community, the same people doing things and eventually burning out.
I think that this amendment, this one, is a promising one. I think it will be very favourable and provide, as I have said, that opportunity for the young people, the young entrepreneur to get involved in putting together some sort of feasible project that will benefit not only the area but will benefit many throughout, whether it be through jobs, whether it be through economic growth.
Perhaps, Madam Speaker, with this in place it will provide the opportunity for not only just one, not only for one board member or director to be under the age of 30 or have a specific age that he or she would be obligated or would be available to enter into such a corporation, I think when we are talking about bringing the younger people or younger people into corporations such as this and into situations such as a Grow Bond issue, it would open up the scope in the community to see that the younger people or those who are starting out in some business at a younger age than some others in the area, it would open the eyes up of other younger people, and say, well, let us get involved more then. Let us get involved with this, let us get a corporation together, let us pick a specific issue, let us pick a specific project and let us go on with it.
Madam Speaker, the bill also has other changes which the minister has indicated will streamline the efficiency of the Grow Bond issues. I tend to, in one way, agree that, yes, we should streamline something that has been in place for a couple of years now, something that has the potential to grow, something that has the potential to make it easier for communities and people in the communities who are wanting to get involved with Grow Bond issues, much simpler.
But making it simpler and having certain control over the Grow Bond issue are two different things, I think. You make something easier to obtain on one hand, and on the other hand, perhaps, you have too much control and too much say as to how you can get this Grow Bond issue. So I worry about that, and I say that because, even though the minister indicates that this amendment to Bill 21 is going to be easier and there is too much red tape, too much bureaucracy, we are going to have more control right at the senior level, the senior level being the minister himself.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Reading through the act and reading through the summaries of the act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that the minister's name has been included upwards of over 10 times, 10 to 20 times more in this amendment do we see that certain parts of the applications, of the issue itself, of the use of the bonds, are going to be under the specific control of the minister.
Now, some aspects, perhaps, yes, we could say, okay, let us get on with it, it is a good Grow Bond issue, it needs to go ahead much quicker, the community is involved. Then I can understand something going ahead without the red tape, without too much bureaucracy, without having to cross the t's and dot the i's in the application forms and in the process of applying. But we also have to consider--and I hope that the minister is considering this--we must also be careful about how much power and how much control a specific signature or specific person, cabinet minister, would have in deciding what is a good Grow Bond issue, what is not a good Grow Bond issue, where it is, who it is, and I have a problem with that.
We tend to have too much control about a certain particular issue, and if the power lies too, too much in the hands of one person, I think that that could create a problem. It may not, but the potential is there. We have to consider that. We have to consider that fact, that perhaps with the minister's stroke of the pen, an issue might not even reach the process stage as far as application.
Now, yes, there may be too many steps in between the initial start of the issue and the community itself and the minister. But I wonder what will determine the minister's decision. How will it be determined, whether he accepts or denies a certain application for a certain area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I fear that we may see communities being denied Grow Bond issues for reasons only known to the minister. We may see communities having to go through the process even more by trying to convince the minister that the proposed issue that they want does satisfy the minister's conditions. Now, on the other hand, we may see someone coming flying through the back door and on the way from the back door to the front door, the stroke of the minister's pen crosses the application and away we go, and they get the issue, they get the Grow Bond. Now, that is what I have a problem with.
So I say to the minister that now with all this control that he is going to have with this--and, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say control--I say that I remember a bill that the honourable member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) put in some years ago and on just about every page of the amendment on the act, it said, the minister will be able to do this, the minister will be able to do that, the minister will be able to control that, the minister will control the sunset, daylight, nighttime hour. I remember that.
* (1130)
I remember the Minister of Natural Resources at that time, the member for Lakeside, I said to him, how can the minister have so much control over one issue. At that time we gave him the little nickname of King Harry. It just seemed like everything that was going to be done in that act was going to be controlled by the minister.
I certainly hope that this minister is not going to become King Len. I certainly hope that this minister considers the importance, and I am sure he does, I am sure he knows the importance that in his department the Grow Bond issue is an important part, is providing the resources for rural communities to invest in their own areas and invest with entrepreneurs and is an economic boost for their area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I also wanted to indicate here today that the Grow Bond issue, since its inception and also that this program was basically copied from Saskatchewan's program in that it has been able to provide that extra little boost for certain communities, certain communities again, to rebuild their certain powers in certain communities.
When I look at the Grow Bond issues and where they have specifically gone--
An Honourable Member: Where have they gone? Tell me where they have gone. I want to know.
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, in the report for '94-95, eight bond corporations were formed, Angusville, Southport, Killarney, Souris, Waskada and Elie, but I also say, and I am proud to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Gilbert International in Arborg and Westman Plastics in Dauphin.
So it has provided not all but some rural communities with the availability to get a Grow Bond issue, and also, in the previous year, I might want to add, 3,400,000 were approved for Rivers, for Russell, for Portage la Prairie, for Morris and three in Winkler and one in Selkirk.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say, what I am trying to get to is the fact that, with this specific control now, the minister wants to improve the bureaucracy, to get things moving, to be able to provide for the communities, certainly--and I do not have the percentage here, but if you look at eight and eight, say 16, about 19, I believe, issues were put out. Nineteen Grow Bond projects have been approved, and they have raised $7.1 million and have generated over $21 million more.
Now, that indicates that the program can and will and should work. The member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) says it does. Perhaps it does. My other problem that I have--the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) is interestingly trying to listen in on this--is the problem that out of the 19 Grow Bonds--and I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is up to the communities or up to the entrepreneurs to put the application in, up to the certain areas to do it, but approved out of 19, I would say somewhere only about four are from any--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the honourable member. There is an awful lot of sidebar conversations going on. Could they be held either in the loge or out in the hall, please.
Mr. Clif Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Clif Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to finish my comments on Bill 21, and I would certainly ask you to call the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and to call the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) to quit jabbering while we are trying to debate this bill, so we can get it done and on to committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does have a point of order. If the honourable member for Elmwood and the honourable member for Gimli want to carry on a conversation, they can do so in the loge.
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans: You know, it is at times very difficult for members on this side to sometimes support something that they feel is a good thing for this province and a Grow Bond Program is a good thing. I think you will not hear any complaints from our rule members on this side about the Grow Bond issue, its reality, and that it is there and that it is good.
However, again I am trying to say--[interjection]
The member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) says, how come not in Riverton. I know the community of Riverton is trying to work towards a Grow Bond issue and trying to find a good project to deal with. Hopefully we will be coming to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) in the next few weeks to discuss certain projects that might be available under the Grow Bond issue.
If the minister, once he has all this control, with the stroke of a pen sees fit to allow the community of Riverton or the community of Gypsumville or the community of Fisher Branch--[interjection]
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): For you, anything.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Minister of Rural Development says, for me, anything. That is very pleasing to know that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is pleasing. But I want to indicate to honourable members here the situation with the Grow Bond issues. I certainly hope that we will be able to have provided to the communities in rural Manitoba a better open-door policy with this minister when it comes to Grow Bond issues or the REDI or any of the other programs that we see in the Rural Development Department.
The Rural Development Department has increased substantially in finances, in budget. We know that the big increase in the budget of the Rural Development Department has come of course from the VLT revenues. So on that side of it I say, when VLTs were brought in they were going to go back to rural Manitoba; not southern rural Manitoba; not western rural Manitoba but to rural Manitoba.
* (1140)
The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says what do I have against southern Manitoba. Absolutely nothing. What I am trying to indicate is the monies that are in the Rural Development budget come from rural Manitoba.
I would say that it would be in the best interest of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) to always seriously consider where the money that he is providing as backup, if you call it, for Grow Bond issues is coming from other areas and all areas of rural Manitoba. So if there is a Grow Bond issue that hopefully can be provided or used in northern Manitoba that the minister seriously consider that issue and seriously consider the fact that there are those people that want to bring this in and want to have something in their community that is going to benefit them for the future.
I certainly hope that. And I certainly hope that under this amendment that the younger people get involved, the younger entrepreneurs in our communities, because that availability of the younger people and the younger entrepreneurs in certain areas of rural Manitoba is diminishing. It is diminishing. The communities in my constituency are gripping at the doors of opportunity, wanting to be able to develop something in their communities.
An Honourable Member: Ho-hum, ho-hum.
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) says, ho-hum, but the Minister of Natural Resources, I do not see him getting up and saying anything about how he is not getting anything in his area through any department. They just finished building a highway through his constituency that he initiated.
An Honourable Member: That is the difference between government and being in opposition.
Mr. Clif Evans: I want to quote that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister of Natural Resources says that is the difference between being in government and being in opposition. This is the attitude of this minister and some members of this government, not all, but some who say, if you are not government your constituency is going to get nothing. Shame. That is absolute shame and that is going to be on record that this minister and any other minister that wants to say that, we will make sure that everybody is aware of this. This minister who does not even know how to control his own department tells me that if I am not in government I do not get anything for my constituents. He cannot run his own department.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am saying I have been trying here to provide some encouragement for the bill and what am I getting? Abuse from the Minister of Natural Resources. I do not hear any abuse from the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), even though he is going to have a lot of control over the Grow Bond issues and taking away the bureaucracy and everything else. Well, that may be well and fine for the Minister of Rural Development and it may be fine for the Minister of Natural Resources or anybody else, but I think it is reprehensible that anyone makes comments like the Minister of Natural Resources made, comments that are on record.
I will always listen to other comments that other ministers or backbenchers want to say about things like that. We are all one province and we are all, 57 members of this Assembly, trying to do what is best for the people of Manitoba, all of Manitoba, rural or urban, Interlake or Dauphin, Pembina or Morris. It does not matter.
Through the Rural Development department I think is an opportunity to work together with the rural members along with the Minister of Rural Development, to work together with all rural members and the communities to be able to provide that economic boost that we so need in northern and rural areas so that we can--whether it be the Grow Bond issue or whether it be any other resource that the department has--come to this government and come to this minister, whether it be through their elected officials, not having to worry that they are not going to get a Grow Bond issue or they are not going to get something from the REDI program because the government says if you are not Tory blue, you are not going to get anything.
That is garbage, and I have heard too much of that from certain members across the way.
An Honourable Member: Remember when Downey said, you did not vote right. Remember that?
Mr. Clif Evans: I want to make a comment. Yes, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) made a comment that we are not--check the boundaries, because if it is not Tory country, it is not getting anything. We do not know how to vote in rural and northern areas. Well, I say, shame to that, too.
The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) again--and I am going to visit his constituency tomorrow. Unfortunately, it is Friday but I will certainly be sending copies of Hansard to the people in his constituency about the comments that he has made, and tomorrow I will also be expressing my concerns about how that minister, how that representative represents the province of Manitoba as the Natural Resources minister when he says, if you do not vote for me, you do not get anything.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am just wanting to say--
An Honourable Member: Then say it.
Mr. Clif Evans: I think I have said it. I can say more if you would like to hear it about the actions of your government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have allowed a little bit of discrepancy here, but the honourable member should relate to the bill which is before the House at this time. We would ask that you be relevant.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought I was. We were talking about rural Manitoba and Grow Bond issues and the attitude of a certain minister when it comes to this. Maybe this minister does not believe in Grow Bonds. Maybe we should ask the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) whether his cabinet colleague does not believe in Grow Bonds or does not believe in the REDI program.
Let us just say, looking at some of the Grow Bond issues that have already been put out, it seems like this minister and others are knocking at the Rural Development minister's door saying, we voted Tory, let us get it. I am sure that minister and others have been doing it because I do feel--and I have said it to the Minister of Rural Development--very strongly about some of the programs and projects the Department of Rural Development has within its resources. I am saying that we should improve on that for all of Manitoba, for all of the rural areas. If it is available, then make it available. [interjection] Well, the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) likes to, again, chirp off about nothing, does not know anything, does not know how to get out of the Perimeter.
I just want to say that certain amendments to this bill I do have a problem with, not a very serious problem but a problem, and I will want to work with the Minister of Rural Development to make sure that he does not have too much control. I worry about this word "control."
I do want to say that the other aspects of the bill, the under age--under 30, I am sorry, availability to young people to get involved, the fact that perhaps streamlining the application process and getting everything in place for a Grow Bond issue and a project, I think we can live with.
I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as long as we do get the co-operation in all rural areas from this government, we do not have a problem. I just certainly hope that we do not get this problem that the Minister of Natural Resources has when it comes to where you are from and who you are and how you vote. Areas in rural Manitoba south, west, east and north are very important to this province, and as long as members on that side remember that--and I know, and I say this on the record, I am sure the Minister of Rural Development will always consider that when he decides or provides resources for areas in our province.
* (1150)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, unless someone else wants to debate this, I feel that we should continue with the Grow Bond issues and make an effort to make everything available for rural Manitobans.
Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as a rural member, I am pleased to be able to be able to stand for a few minutes and talk a little bit about a program that directly affects my constituents in the Dauphin area and, indeed, throughout the Parkland.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do have a couple of worries about Bill 21. On the surface, I think that the Grow Bond issue can be very positive for rural Manitoba. I think it has, in fact, produced some good results for those of our constituency who do live in rural Manitoba.
Just the one example that I could think of that has a direct bearing in my constituency is the announcement that was made at Westman Plastics earlier this year in which this government did show support for one venture within my own riding. I want to make sure that is acknowledged right off the bat so that people do know that I am aware that some progress has been made within the constituency of Dauphin in terms of Westman Plastics. I think that was a very positive move on the part of this government; I think it does show some support for our area. I am sure that I would join with many members of both the farm community and business community in Dauphin in congratulating the minister and his government for that move in Dauphin in terms of Westman Plastics.
I do not want to seem like I am ungrateful or anything, but it did happen in the middle of a provincial election and I really do wonder what the motivation was behind the announcement. Thank heavens that we do have elections every now and then in this province or maybe Dauphin would be totally left out in the cold by this government.
That aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to make sure that we know that there are some pitfalls involved in Bill 21 that the minister has to be aware of and that we have to try to get around. I am sure the minister is aware of the amount of control that is being shifted in Bill 21 away from a process and putting more power in the hands of the minister, enabling him to go a lot further in deciding where these projects will go and deciding what parts of the province will end up getting money from the taxpayers to support different ventures throughout the province.
There are certain buzzwords that come from this government that sound alarm bells within my brain. I get a little bit worried sometimes when I hear them. In the area of agriculture, whenever I hear this government talk about diversification, it means they are cutting in another area. Whenever this government talks about balance, when it talks about finance, you know that there are cuts coming and you know that there are going to be tax increases, but that they will be hidden somehow. When this government talks about supporting patient care, you know they are going to be cutting hospital beds, and you know that they are going to be closing emergency rooms.
In this legislation, the buzzword that set off the alarms for me was the word "streamline." Now, does that mean that everything is going to be streamlined now from the process that the minister says is there into his office so that everything comes out from the minister's office and the process is shunted to the side? That is something that I think this government has to worry about.
It is not like I am just making up this kind of a worry. I want everybody in this House to think back earlier today to a question posed by my colleague the MLA for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) having to do with some education grants that were handed out. Twenty-six grants handed out and 24 of them into Tory ridings.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to be relevant to the bill that is before us at this time, which is speaking about Rural Development bonds and not a general discussion on other grants. The honourable member, to continue.
Mr. Struthers: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the grants that were announced this morning were supposed to have been subject to some type of process, and my point is that the process, I would hope, would be along the same lines as what is supposed to be there for Bill 22 and Rural Development Bonds. It is the process that I am keying in on. It is the process that this government has used in all sorts of different areas, the process which is over and over and over again being circumvented by this government in favour of a partisan political agenda.
The other point that I want to make is that I have not seen too many political ads playing on the television or in the news media talking about all these developments that the Grow Bonds have been responsible for, and I think that is simply because we are six months on the other side of an election now and not leading up to a provincial election.
I find it disappointing, to use a weaker word, that the government would spend the amount of money that it has pushing Grow Bonds leading up to the provincial election, using them just to garner support in an election in which they figured they were in trouble. So these political ads having to do with Grow Bonds, I think the government has to question why they did them in the first place, and I think they have to look at doing a lot better job of getting the information out to rural Manitobans without taking this so clear of a political agenda.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, my concern rests with the word "streamlined" and the circumvention of the process by which the Grow Bonds are issued. Just before I conclude my remarks, I want to encourage the government to maintain their commitment to rural Manitoba through Grow Bonds. I want them to build on the positive success that the Grow Bonds can actually accomplish for rural Manitobans, but I want them to keep in mind as well that it is too important an issue to be playing political partisan politics with, as I think they have done in the past.
I hope that the minister would take into consideration the remarks that we have made from this side of the House, and I would encourage him to approach rural Manitoba as rural Manitoba and not be tempted into using the streamlined process, as he indicates in Bill 21, in any sort of political fashion. With that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would conclude my remarks and thank you for the opportunity of speaking on this bill.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Grow Bonds, the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) should be aware I even have farmland in Inkster. So there you go. [interjection]
Well, I am not too sure of that, but I do acknowledge that the Grow Bond ideas and concept is an excellent one. Many rural communities have benefitted and benefitted tremendously from this particular program. We do want to see the program be very successful in the future. It provides for many entrepreneurs and communities to be able to further diversify their communities through all sorts of different types of ventures and anything that can promote that sort of activity while at the same time be so economically feasible that we should be strongly encouraging and supportive of.
I think that the government has received actually a fairly sound support from all sides on this particular project. There is one interesting aspect to the Bill 21, and that is that it is making by law that you have to appoint someone under the age of 30. I found that somewhat interesting in the sense that I would have expected--you know, we have many different committees, boards, throughout the province dealing with all sorts of different issues--that in fact government would acknowledge the importance of our young people and what our young people have to offer to the province of Manitoba. I believe Manitobans have.
I can say with experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was 26 when I was elected. Under the age of 30. I think that it is widely known that young people do have a significant amount to be able to contribute to society.
I guess the minister is trying to say that through this particular piece of legislation. But I am surprised in the sense that it would even require legislation. I do not know. Maybe he is fearful that another administration or another minister might not appoint young people. But I would have expected that government would acknowledge the importance of young people and would not necessarily see that it is necessary to bring in legislation to that effect.
* (1200)
The minister explains it, so that if someone is 30 and they turn 31, that he is allowed to remain on the board. Well nothing would forbid him from not being on the board. In fact, if you had someone else retire you could always put in someone else.
What this is saying is that if you have one member of the board who is 29 years old and the board is filled in terms of its appointments and that 29-year-old then turns 30--Does it include the age of 30? Thirty-one, let us say that. Thirty. If that individual he or she is 30-years old and then when they turn 31, according to this legislation, that if there is no vacancies a vacancy then has to be created so that someone of 30 or under can in fact be appointed.
Many would applaud the efforts or at least the sentiments that the minister is trying to get across. But in terms of its being necessary for legislation I am not personally entirely convinced of it for the simple reason is I believe the Liberal Party, myself, believe very firmly that young people need to contribute to all sorts of our society, and we have a multitude of boards and different agencies that are scattered, as I say, throughout the province, and one would have expected that young people would be involved in all aspects of our decision-making process.
With those few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I say, the concept is an excellent one, that being the Grow Bond Program. We are always somewhat suspicious when government does some of its advertising, of course, in different areas. The Grow Bonds have been somewhat questionable in the past, but we anticipate that the next ad, if there is going to be anything coming from the government, maybe they will even include some token opposition members to give it some plugs. [interjection] The minister says that he is trying. I will extend services at least from our caucus to be able to contribute if he feels that it is necessary to have a politician actually doing some of the promotion in advertising direct in terms of faces on a screen. I am sure that we could find some decent individuals or individuals on print.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We look forward to the bill going to committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading, Bill 21, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les obligations de développement rural. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 28--The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995 (Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): We are prepared to put this through to committee. In fact, the member for Transcona specifically asked that I raise that on his behalf, No. 28.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 28, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1995 (Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité). Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a matter of House business, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Bill 10 passed through second reading today, and it will be referred to Law Amendments committee for October 24, at 7 p.m., and Bill 21 passed also today through second reading and will be referred to the Committee on Municipal Affairs for October 25 at 7 p.m.
I believe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is the will of the House to call it 12:30.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30? [agreed]
The hour being 12:30, this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.