Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Monday, July 5, 1999, at 10 a.m. be amended as follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey). This substitution had been moved, by leave, during the committee held this morning and is now being moved in the House to update the official records.

I move, seconded by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs (for this evening at 7 p.m.) be amended as follows: the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, if you would bear with me, we have quite a number of bits of House information to announce this afternoon.

First of all, I would like to ask if you could canvass the House to see if there is a will to waive private members' hour today.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour today? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, the second area in which we will seek unanimous consent of the House is to have two sections of the Committee of Supply, that being the committees sitting in Room 254 and 255, sit while the House will also continue to sit in session.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow two sections of Committee of Supply to sit while the House is considering bills, those committees sitting in Rooms 254 and 255? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: I would ask that in the Committee of Supply sitting in Room 254 this afternoon it be the Department of Natural Resources and in Room 255 that it be the Department of Government Services.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to have the Estimates of the Department of Government Services considered in Room 255 and the Estimates of the Department of Natural Resources considered in Room 254? [agreed]

* (1430)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would also ask for leave that, following the completion of the work in the House this afternoon, the Committee of Supply for the Chamber begin to sit under the same motion that I would be reading later. I am asking for agreement of the House now because I will be moving the motion to move into Committee of Supply, that motion being, following the work of the House this afternoon, that the Chamber section of the Committee of Supply begin its work on the Department of Justice.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the House to move into the Committee of Supply upon completion of House business and the Estimates of the Department of Justice to be considered at that time? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, just to recap, the Department of Natural Resources will sit concurrently with the Chamber in Room 254; the Committee of Supply will sit in session in Room 255 for the Department of Government Services. Following the business in the Chamber, the Chamber will resolve into a section of the Committee of Supply for the consideration of the Department of Justice.

Madam Speaker, with respect to business in the House this afternoon, I would ask, following the movement of the motion to resolve into Committee of Supply, if you could please call for second readings bills in the following order: 35, 43, 40, then followed by 26, 36, 37, 38 and 39.

Following that, I would ask if you could then call for continuation of debate on second readings Bills 29 and 34.

Should those debates either be adjourned or be completed this afternoon, I would then ask if you could call, for report stage, bills in the following order: 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 18, 5, 6, 19, 7, 13, 8, 9 and 15. I am trying to batch those into ministers and critics so that we can be as convenient and I think as efficient as possible for those who have business when those are called.

Madam Speaker, I just look to you now, following the completion of that work, that the House, by agreement, will resolve itself into the proper section of the Committee of Supply. I would then move to be sitting concurrently with the House until it finishes its business, and then on its own. The Committee of Supply, I would move then, to sit concurrently with this House, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair concurrently with her being in the Chair for the House.

Am I doing this right, Madam Speaker?

Madam Speaker, with respect to the concurrent section or the Committee of Supply that will be sitting concurrently with the House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Most Gracious Majesty.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 35, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, for many years now this government has been a leader in the provincial fight against impaired driving. Accordingly, I consider it a great privilege to introduce this bill which continues to put Manitoba at the forefront of passing effective laws to deal with people who abuse the privilege of driving on our highways by driving drunk. Although we currently have some of the strongest driving legislation in the country, Manitobans are still falling victim to drunk drivers. We are still seeing a large number of first offenders who apparently have not yet got the message. This bill introduces two changes to further enhance Manitoba's response to the continuing problems caused by impaired driving.

In what is a first in Canada, drivers who drive over .08 and who refuse to supply a sample of their breath or blood will have their vehicles impounded for 30 days. This is in addition to the licence suspension these drivers already face, an administrative licence suspension. Moreover, if it happens twice in two years, the vehicle will be impounded for 90 days.

We want to send a very clear message that Manitobans will simply not tolerate drunk drivers who threaten the safety of others on our roads and highways. The bill would retain the existing review process relating to impoundments in order to protect innocent registered owners. A registered owner can apply to have the vehicle returned if he or she was not driving the vehicle at the time and could not reasonably have known that the vehicle would be driven by a drunk driver.

The second change relates to licence suspensions for those who refuse to provide a sample of breath or blood. For first offenders, the suspension will double from one year to two years, while the suspension for a second offender will be increased from five years to seven years.

We have already done a great deal in Manitoba to reduce the carnage on our highways that is caused by drunk drivers, but there is more that needs to be done. We hope that these new measures, combined with new federal measures, will be stronger deterrents, making it more difficult for impaired drivers to abuse the privilege of driving and thereby reducing the number of tragedies caused by drunk driving in Manitoba.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words on this particular bill. One of the things that has become very abundantly clear, I believe, for politicians of all political stripes is the need to address our roads. I can recall being given briefings on where in any given year, in some cases in some of those years we have seen all fatalities, traffic fatalities, attributed in some fashion or another to alcohol being in someone's bloodstream.

Madam Speaker, it is a very serious issue. The billboard campaigns, TV advertisements and so forth have all played a significant role in reducing the number of individuals drinking and driving.

This particular bill is yet one of a series which we have seen in terms of trying to encourage Manitobans to recognize the importance of not driving if they have been drinking, and, to that extent, we do support it in terms of going to committee and ultimately through its passage. Thank you.

* (1440)

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 43, The Highway Traffic Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les poursuites sommaires), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Toews: The amendments to this act are intended to provide for the ability to refuse to renew drivers' licences as an additional enforcement tool to assist in the collection of unpaid fines and on behalf of victims' unpaid restitution.

In respect of the unpaid fines, Madam Speaker, the province has always had the ability to refuse to renew drivers' licences for unpaid highway traffic fines. These amendments will allow the province to refuse to renew drivers' licences for all unpaid provincial statute and Criminal Code fines. The tool will be used in conjunction with other collection options, including the use of collection agencies and other civil enforcement options.

Madam Speaker, as a result of amendments to the federal Criminal Code, it has become increasingly more difficult to collect on fines that have been imposed by the courts, and I think it is essential in order to maintain respect for the administration of justice that the collection of fines be continued and that every available mechanism be enforced. Past experience with refusing to renew drivers' licences for unpaid fines would indicate that a substantial number of those who default on payment would pay if we used the refusal to renew as an enforcement tool.

The second aspect of the bill, Madam Speaker, deals with restitution. In 1996, changes to the federal Criminal Code resulted in victims who were eligible for restitution having to proceed through civil enforcement directly against the offender. Many victims, given those circumstances, choose not to collect because they want no further contact with the offender.

Madam Speaker, the ability to withhold the driver's licence will provide an additional tool to assist in forcing offenders to pay outstanding restitution to victims. The actual process of requesting the withholding of the licence and removing the hold on a licence will be administered by court staff.

We are continuing to work with the federal government. I have drawn to the federal minister's attention the difficulties that the 1996 amendments have caused in this respect. We look forward to working together with the federal government to put additional mechanisms or indeed re-establish old mechanisms in order to ensure that victims are not left out in the cold when it comes to collecting restitution orders.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Bill 40, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide B l'emploi et au revenu), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.

Mrs. Mitchelson: I am pleased to stand here today and make comments on Bill 40, that has just been introduced for second reading, which amends The Employment and Income Assistance Act.

I am especially pleased to speak to this bill, which builds on our government's successful welfare reform initiatives. This proposed legislation will enable us to continue the important work of getting welfare clients the help they need to be successful and independent. These legislative amendments will promote personal responsibility, financial independence, employment and community service, while ensuring that Manitobans in need continue to receive assistance and support.

Disabled Manitobans will not be affected by the new amendments. We will be examining our income assistance program for disabled clients in the coming months through an extensive community consultation process to determine how we can improve the current program to better meet the needs of clients with disabilities.

Our government believes that participation in the workforce is the key to economic independence. Our income assistance system now promotes independence. The system now has the supports and incentives to enable clients to leave the program and prevent generation after generation of families remaining on welfare.

As we know, a lifetime on welfare is a commitment to a lifetime of poverty. We believe that most Manitobans would rather work to support families than be dependent on government assistance for survival. Thus our government is committed to a welfare system that encourages independence and self-reliance.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a member of a government that believes in giving families in need a hand up, not a handout. As a result of the welfare reform initiatives we have implemented, thousands of clients have made the transition from welfare to work. Although the previous reforms have been successful, more remains to be done. We know that Manitobans want to work, and we are taking additional steps to help them to achieve their goals. Income assistance is a last resort. It should not be easier to get welfare than to work.

While we believe in providing for those in need we also believe in mutual responsibility. You only take out if you put in. Every month hundreds of able-bodied people walk through the door looking for welfare assistance. We want to connect these individuals with the jobs that are available. The Manitoba economy is growing rapidly. The labour market is ripe for opportunities for both skilled and unskilled workers. Employment should be the first option for people rather than relying on welfare.

Bill 40 is consistent with our commitment to a welfare system that is designed to help people build skills and maintain a connection with the community. This proposed legislation has been developed to strengthen and reinforce the message that finding a job is the No. 1 priority. Welfare is a program of last resort and clients are personally responsible for ensuring their own health and well-being.

To build on these trends, we will be implementing new measures to help ensure young people are ready for the labour market. The amendments proposed in Bill 40 will enable us to make sure that people do not make the mistake of pursuing welfare as a lifestyle choice. As part of our Employment First strategy, we are strengthening our efforts to ensure people who are ready to work make the connection with the labour market.

When employable clients apply for assistance, they will first be referred to potential employment opportunities. We will provide employment referrals and other supports to help ensure that clients are successful in landing a job. Clients will be required to independently job search and use all available resources to help maintain their independence. During this period, assistance will be provided in emergency situations.

* (1450)

We believe that everyone capable of working must make a contribution to the community, therefore as a condition of receiving welfare, all employable welfare clients must agree to work in the community, completing up to 35 hours of community service per week. Participation will be mandatory, with contributions varying on capacity to work and availability of placements. Single parents with children under six years, disabled persons and the aged will be exempted from participation.

Community organizations and municipalities will provide supervision and direction for the projects. Activities may include repairing dilapidated homes, painting over graffiti and unsightly buildings, neighbourhood crime patrols and school patrols, sidewalk and street cleaning, grass cutting and snow clearing, tree banding and trimming, riverbank cleanup, clerical tasks for nonprofit groups and services to seniors. I would like to indicate clearly, Madam Speaker, that clients will only be assigned to school and seniors projects after background checks are conducted.

I am very pleased to indicate that our Premier (Mr. Filmon) will be personally writing to community and business leaders to request a voluntary commitment from them and their staff to act as advisors and mentors to people on welfare. As mentors, they will be able to provide welfare clients with valuable advice on resume writing, interview preparation and then making business contacts. In addition, our Premier will be asking for volunteers to work on community projects along with welfare recipients.

Madam Speaker, we have over 17,300 clients who are expected to work. Many of these people will participate in community projects. The experience welfare clients gain through participation in community service will help them to connect with the community, develop positive work habits and obtain jobs. As a result, welfare caseloads and costs will continue to drop. To help people to make the transition from welfare to work, Manitoba currently offers drug, dental and optical benefits to single parents and disabled clients who leave welfare for employment. Coverage is currently available for up to one year. To make sure people can keep on working under this initiative, benefits will be extended from 12 months to 18 months.

Ensuring that people have the resources to help support themselves has been a priority for our government. We are also committed to ensuring that the assistance we provide gets to those persons in genuine need. Abuse of the welfare system is not acceptable. The vast majority of clients abide by the rules and regulations. However, even a small amount of abuse and fraud in a large program can be costly. We have successfully reduced fraud and abuse by introducing proactive measures such as the welfare fraud line, specialized investigators, pre-intake orientation sessions and expanded information-sharing agreements.

To ensure that benefits continue to get to those in need, we will strengthen this effort by focusing on further areas requiring attention. We will be adding a housing investigator, enhanced enrollment investigations and income and asset investigators to the measures that are already in place.

One area we will be intensifying our efforts is in helping single parents get maintenance orders to support their children. Parents have a responsibility to care for their children, and a financial contribution is the critical factor in ensuring the health and well-being of kids. We will actively work with single parents to get the financial support their children deserve.

A parental support unit will be established that will help single parents get new maintenance orders or increase existing orders. The unit will help these clients find the noncustodial parent, establish a voluntary agreement or guide clients through the legal system to establish a court-ordered agreement. We will be actively assisting single parents to get this support. We will be sensitive to the potential for family violence and take steps to ensure that parents and children are not put at risk.

Madam Speaker, parenting is the most important responsibility in our society. Those parents with addictions face great challenges in meeting this responsibility. When parents on welfare have addictions, how can they support their children when they are also supporting an addiction? We want to ensure we are doing everything possible to get support and treatment services to these parents to help them to help themselves, which ultimately helps their children.

Bill 40 will enable us to make sure that welfare clients with substance dependencies avail themselves of an appropriate treatment program. Currently, employable single adults and childless couples on welfare must go to addiction treatment programs if they want to collect benefits. If clients are frequently drunk or high during normal contact with staff, they are referred to an addiction treatment program such as the St. Norbert Foundation or the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba residential and day treatment programs. Seeking treatment for these clients is mandatory. We will be expanding this effort by making all single parents and adults in two-parent families with addictions get help. Welfare provides only temporary assistance while people prepare themselves to work. Addiction treatment is the first step in getting ready for employment.

Depending on the needs of each client and the severity of the dependency, the treatment may include residential detoxification, day programming follow-up to address the addictions and ongoing support services to help clients improve their life skills, prepare to look for a job and find work. This comprehensive approach will help ensure that these parents are able to overcome their addictions and become more fully integrated into society.

Madam Speaker, parenting is an enormous responsibility, and our government knows that being a teen parent is especially difficult. We also know that dropping out of school increases the risk of falling into the trap of welfare dependency. Youth have tremendous potential. Manitoba's youth unemployment rate is the lowest in the country and has been falling for a decade. Literacy among youth in Manitoba is the highest in Canada. More Manitobans are returning to complete high school studies. Grade 12 and university graduation rates are rising, so in order to be successful in today's world, young parents on welfare need support to gain the skills necessary to raise their children and complete their education.

Young parents 16 and 17 years of age will be required to participate in services which promote positive parenting. Those with a child over six months of age will be required to demonstrate that they are continuing their schooling. Where there are no family supports, government will provide assistance for such things as child care and transportation. While there will be progressive sanctions for young parents who refuse to comply with the new provisions, measures will be in place to ensure that their children are not being put at risk.

The amendments we are proposing will enable welfare benefits deducted as a result of noncompliance to be placed in a special fund to be administered by a special support unit. The unit will ensure that these funds are used to the benefit of the child and will ensure that his or her needs are being met. The unit will also work with young parents to encourage continuation of their schooling. By reaching out to these young people and by putting supports in place to help them stay in school and gain an education, we believe that we can help more Manitobans stay on the road to self-sufficiency and out of the trap of welfare dependency.

Madam Speaker, the amendments we are proposing will greatly strengthen our ability to help individuals and families who depend on government assistance for support to become independent, contributing members of society. By strengthening our ability to ensure that welfare clients are doing everything they can possibly do to become self-supporting, the proposed amendments will ensure that welfare remains a temporary last-resort program for those in genuine need.

By strengthening our ability to make clients enter treatment or parenting programs, these amendments will ensure that clients get the help they need and that their children are not being placed at risk. By strengthening our ability to ensure that young people stay in school or go to work, these amendments will ensure that they are on the road to a brighter future.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be the Minister of Family Services sponsoring this bill. I think it builds on the important direction that we have already started to take in the area of welfare reform. I would urge that all members of this House seriously consider giving Bill 40 their full and unequivocal support. Thank you.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to briefly put some remarks on the record regarding this bill, beginning with expressing my disappointment with the record of this government in moving people from welfare to work.

* (1500)

We know that, looking at annual reports, there were 12,000 more people on welfare in 1998 than there were in 1988, after this government had been in office for 10 years. So we think that this government waited a long time before taking some action on this problem. Also, we know that the cuts of this Conservative government have made things worse. For example, this is the government that eliminated the student social allowance program, which allowed students to stay in high school. At the time that that bill was introduced, we called it the kicking-students-out-of-school bill, which the government did not like and the Free Press had an editorial about. We do not know what happened to those students, but we do know that the more education that people have, the more likely they are to get a job. So when you eliminate supports for students to get an education, it means that they are probably less likely to get a job.

You know, students and individuals will go to great lengths in order to finish their education. Just the other day, on July 1, on my way to The Forks to listen to the Winnipeg Symphony Orchestra, I ran into a friend in a restaurant. His name is Tim Henderson. He used to work as one of the support staff at North End Community Ministry in the children's program. At that time he was attending high school and he was having an extremely difficult time even surviving on a day-to-day basis. To his credit, he continued, he persevered, he got more education. Eventually he took a training program in computers and now he is working on a contract basis for a computer company. He dropped by my office and left his business card. I commend individuals like Tim for the great lengths to which they are willing to go in order to make themselves employable. He is a success story because of his individual perseverance.

This is the government that cut the SOSAR program, which was a program for single parents who could complete post-secondary education if they were on social assistance, which I think probably got the vast majority of them off social assistance. In fact, I probably should ask the minister for some statistics on the success of this program.

I know of an individual who lived in the constituency of The Maples who phoned me. I do not know why she phoned me and not her MLA, but sometimes that happens. She was being cut off the SOSAR program even though she was studying nursing at university. I intervened on her behalf, and, as often happens, we were successful because the government does not like stories like this on the front page of the Free Press.

In fact, I just had a call from someone today who said that the Residential Tenancies Branch made a positive decision in her favour, and she asked me: was it because you phoned them that they made a positive decision? I said of course it was, because there is going to be an election. They do not want negative stories on the front page of the Free Press. In fact, they gave her a decision sooner than what we thought they were going to make a decision. She told me that she was talking to Gordon Sinclair from the Free Press. I said, oh, you should have told me that or you should have told the department you were talking to Gordon Sinclair. They would have made the decision even faster than they did.

Anyway, because I intervened for this individual from The Maples, they continued. They actually grandfathered some individuals on the SOSAR program, and she got her university degree. I met her recently in the community at a consultation on a centre for excellence for children. She is working as a public health nurse. I am sure that the reason that she got off social assistance as a single parent was because of the SOSAR program. I am sure that all of the graduates who have got off social assistance would credit that program, but this is one of the programs the government eliminated except for one small exception, which I cannot remember.

This is the government that cut Access. This is the government that cut New Careers. This is the government that cut subsidized child care for job search from eight weeks to two. I remember that debate because I phoned the Employment Insurance program, and I said: do you have any statistics or research on how long people are on EI before they get a job? They said, yes, we track that kind of thing. The average person is unemployed for 28 weeks before they find a job. What did this government do? They cut the subsidy for child care while people are searching for work from eight weeks to two.

What else did they do that made it harder for people to stay in the workforce? They increased the parent fee from $1 a day to $2.40 a day per child, which is a considerable burden for people who are working but low income. They have made it harder for these people to stay in the paid workforce.

This is the government that failed to increase the minimum wage. Of course, we know that they recently increased it because there is going to be an election. They increased it before the 1995 election, but it has not kept up with inflation. At one time, people who were working at minimum wage were above the poverty line. Now I think they are at about 46 percent of the poverty line. So certainly the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. We know that if people can make decent wages that they are much more likely to get into the paid workforce. It is really kind of sad that they wait until there is going to be an election before they increase minimum wage.

This is the government that has failed to invest significantly in education and training. I believe that this government is last in Canada when it comes to per capita spending on education and training.

We are in favour of welfare to work, and we always have been. In fact, NDP governments in the '70s and '80s pioneered successful welfare to work initiatives. We helped fund programs that the City of Winnipeg ran, for example the Dutch elm disease control program. We criticized this government when they cut that. I remember reading in the media that the City of Winnipeg went through their caseload and they selected people for the Dutch Elm Disease Control Program who were heads of households. Those were the kind of people that they streamed into this program. One of the more interesting facts was that these people were actually making less money in the Dutch Elm Disease Control Program than they were on social assistance, which suggests to me that people want to work, that they would rather work, that there are many benefits to working.

Another story that I heard from the city is a rather interesting one about an individual who was on social assistance. He got hired at the sewage treatment facility on north Main Street. His job was to go into the sewage lagoon and unplug the drains when they were plugged. Now, I cannot remember whether he had a boat and a plunger or whether he was walking around, but a rather smelly job, hip waders, I am sure, if he was walking in the sewage.

The point of the story is that this person was happy to have this job, a terrible job, but happy to be working rather than on social assistance, and he stuck it out. He got promoted, and he got a better job. He got out of the sewage lagoon, and he got into something else. But it just shows how determined many people are to be working rather than on social assistance.

We know that there are reasons why this government has embarked on this two-page amendment bill at this time. One is that the Angus Reid poll from January 1999 showed that this issue is a critical weakness for the Tories. We know what their motivation is, that there is an election coming and this is a critical issue, so they have to take care of it just like they had a whole bunch of other issues to take care of before an election. They had to take care of the boundaries issue. They had to take care of apologizing for the vote rigging scandal. There are a whole bunch of things that they have to get out of the way before they can call an election, and this is another one. Their failure to move people from welfare to work is a critical weakness for the Conservative party.

We believe in welfare to work, but we believe in welfare to work that works. You know, it is interesting. We looked up the Ontario legislation. You know, the Mike Harris government, regardless of what we might think of them, and certainly it is not very positive in some areas, but you have to give them credit for being serious about welfare to work. Here is their bill, The Ontario Works Act, 1997. It must be 150 pages long. This is pretty detailed welfare to work. Now somewhere here I have the Manitoba bill. I think it is maybe three pages. So this is the Filmon government's photocopy of the Ontario legislation, but they shrunk it. You know, there was a movie, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. Well, this is the Ontario legislation, honey, I shrunk the bill. They shrunk welfare to work.

Mr. Mitchelson: A point of order, Madam Speaker. Yes, I would certainly like some clarification from my honourable friend. When he called me honey, I was wondering whether that was a sexist comment and whether I might take some offence to that.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable Minister of Family Services, I was not aware that the reference was made specifically to the honourable minister. Therefore, the honourable minister does not have a point of order.

* (1510)

Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for your ruling. The minister is correct, I was not referring to her. In fact, we could paraphrase this and say, voters, we shrunk the bill. We shrunk it from 150 pages to three pages. This is the xerox copy of the Harris workfare legislation. An NDP government would improve on this very thin version of welfare to work with our concrete real alternatives that would help people to truly become more productive members of society and improve their self-esteem, pride and economic reality.

What we would do is that we would shift money from welfare to work, and this is what the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) did when he was the Minister of Economic Security. He tells me that he had to get permission from the federal government–I believe he said that Flora Macdonald was the federal minister responsible at the time–to reallocate money from welfare to work programs. I think that makes sense that we use money creatively to get people into work. [interjection] The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) tells me that the Conservative official opposition at the time voted for the Jobs Fund.

Madam Speaker, we think that having people contract with private-for-profit and nonprofit organizations in jobs is a good idea. Certainly, I have some experience in this. Lots of people have experience in volunteering with nonprofit organizations which inevitably is beneficial. I think the question is how we do it.

When I was at North End Community Ministry, I was responsible for getting people who were on community work orders and supervising them. We had them cutting grass and we had them washing windows. We had them mopping floors. We had them painting. We had them doing all kinds of things, and we were a nonprofit charitable organization. You know, it was really interesting to see how people responded to that.

I remember one individual who came to us. She was actually assigned to work in the used clothing store. We treated people as if they were part of the staff. They took coffee breaks with the staff, they ate lunch with the staff. This individual had a drinking problem, and, as a result of volunteering with us, she stopped drinking. The whole time she was working off her community work order. So I think there are benefits.

I think if we have some concerns here, it is that the nonprofit sector needs to be consulted. We need to know who is going to screen people. We need to know who is going to supervise them. We need to know if there is a cost and whether the cost is borne by the nonprofit agency, or whether it is going to be borne by government. I think those are important things that the nonprofit sector wants to know.

We know that this government was hastily cobbled together in the Premier's Office in one day and then sent over to the Minister of Family Services department to draft legislation, and so they did not have time to think about any of these issues. They were just concerned about getting it out there and writing their press release, because there is an election coming. So after the fact, after they introduced the bill, then the minister says they are going to consult with the nonprofit sector and the Premier is going to write to people, so we do not really know if these 17,000 people who are deemed employable could all be put into volunteer positions for 35 hours a week, and paid jobs.

We also have concerns because we do not think that any volunteer position should replace people who are in paid employment, and I think that is only reasonable. We can learn from the experience in other provinces like Quebec where apparently people did replace paid positions, and well, sometimes, you know, governments come along with these brilliant ideas. They say to organizations, you can hire this person on a wage subsidy or you can have this person as a volunteer and, lo and behold, they lay off people and then they get people who are free labour, or they get people who are subsidized, and when the subsidy runs out, then they lay them off. So we can learn from the experience in other provinces and see what works and what does not work.

We also know that education and training must go hand in hand with good placements, that the failure of many education and training programs for welfare recipients is that there is a lack of connections to the work market. Often what keeps people from getting jobs is not lack of training, but a lack of connections that links the training to the real job market.

Another significant factor for people having a good attachment to the workforce, which I think the minister mentioned in her speech, is the length of time that people are on assistance. So it is really important that when people lose a job, and they are forced to apply for assistance because they have no other means of support, that we get them back into work as quickly as possible. For example, when the City of Winnipeg was still responsible for the employability category of assistance or of recipients, I talked to one of the directors of one of their area offices, and he told me that employers only want individuals who have been on assistance for six months or less, and that when they have been on assistance for two years or more, they are almost unemployable because employers do not want them. So it is really important that people get into the paid workforce as quickly as possible after they lose their last job. I think we can all agree on that. I think the question is: how are we going to do that?

Well, one of the things that we need to do is to make work pay more than welfare. We need to provide some bridges for people. We need to maybe improve the work incentive. It is rather interesting that people on social assistance are the only people that have an effective tax-back rate of 100 percent because once you reach your $90 a month of work incentive, every dollar over that is deducted dollar for dollar. Now, I do not know how much it would cost so I have to be careful here, because there would be a cost to government for the work incentive program, but we need to make it pay more for people to work than to be on social assistance. I do not think the minister would disagree with that. That is why we have these current bridging provisions now where people continue to get their health benefits for a certain period of time after they are off social assistance. Certainly if that helps people to become attached to the workforce and to keep them in the workforce, that is a good idea.

We have another problem that needs to be addressed, and that is maintenance enforcement. The majority of the branch's time is spent making assessments and keeping them up to date. This leaves little time to chase down parents who are behind in their payments. The result is only about half of maintenance dues are actually paid, and the outstanding amount of money is absolutely huge. I do not have the figure in front of me, but I think it is about $40 million at any one time, $42 million I am told, which is a huge amount of money. Unfortunately, individuals on social assistance do not get to keep that money. Either they get it and it is deducted dollar for dollar, or it goes straight to the branch, and the minister can contradict me if I am wrong, but that is my understanding. If you are on assistance, you do not get to keep the money, but there are people who are low income who are working who definitely need that money, and it is really important that those individuals get the maintenance that they are owed.

Finally, we need a major strategy to roll back teen pregnancy. Now, the minister mentioned that teens who drop out of school are at a much higher risk. We know that teens who are involved in sports programs are in a much lower risk category, because we have studies on that, and we have quoted those in Question Period before. In fact, I think we brought it up when the government was cutting phys ed in high school, and we said why would you cut one of the things that is proven to be successful in terms of a lower rate of teen pregnancy? and that is participation in sports?

* (1520)

So we need to address this problem because it has a major impact on income assistance and the child welfare system, and we need something more than pilot projects of this minister of pilot programs.

Just today I was reading in the Free Press about innovative ideas that teenagers are working on. They are going to be producing commercials and we look forward to seeing what teenagers come up with, since this minister is bereft of ideas. I think it is good that we have teenagers designing programs to combat the problem of teen pregnancy. I do not think this problem is getting any better; I think it is getting worse.

So with those–[interjection] Well, a year ago, Manitoba led provinces by having the highest rate of teen pregnancy in Canada, and so we think the government needs to be a lot more proactive on this, because it causes all kinds of problems.

I am going to conclude, Madam Speaker, by saying that we are going to pass the bill to committee, and we are going to listen to the public. We are going to listen to the presentations, and we will probably be introducing amendments, and we think it is important to listen to the public. Thank you.

Mr. James Downey (Arthur-Virden): Madam Speaker, I look forward very much to speaking on this very progressive piece of legislation, and I want to compliment my colleague the Minister responsible for Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and my colleagues. You know, she has been extremely consistent and successful in the vision and the mission she has been on since she has taken on the responsibility of Family Services.

The statement that she has made is that the best form of social assistance is a job, and she has not changed and she has not wavered from that position. But, as importantly, Madam Speaker, it was our responsibility as a government and as a society to create and develop the policies that would encourage the development and the creation of jobs by the private sector. It is not always that I would encourage people to read a particular press, but this particular press happened to put it in a front page story today. The other one could, quite frankly, do it as well if they so desired, the other major Winnipeg paper, and probably will. They are probably working on more stories because this just keeps going on and on, but: Employers weep as jobs go begging.

The Premier (Mr. Filmon) made reference to it today in Question Period. The job opportunities that have been developed in the province of Manitoba by the private sector are a piece of all of the action that this government believes in, and we are not asking unfairly those people who are on social assistance to go out where there are no jobs, to go out when they are not trained or not capable of handling them.

It is a partnership, Madam Speaker, but, more importantly, this is the time for the New Democratic Party to stand up and say what they stand for. Do they stand for the rights of all of society to look after, totally encompassing people with policies for individuals, or are they going to stick to their narrow, philosophically based minority position, as they traditionally do? Are they going to back up, take a broader look at it, and, quite frankly, as they did with the budget, support this very progressive legislation?

It is a real test, Madam Speaker. They have made comments about, oh, it is because there is an election. Did they vote for our budget because there is an election coming up some time this year? Are they now pondering because they want to be a "me too" opposition along with the government? Are they now positioning themselves so they support this particular bill?

Ah, but more importantly, Madam Speaker, they were not prepared to stand up at all. They were not prepared to stand up and say one word about this, because in Estimates the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) let this particular line pass without one comment; so in not saying anything, spoke volumes as to what the NDP party wanted to do with this particular issue and in dealing with it in public debate. That is what this is all about. This is about public debate. This is how the people of Manitoba want their taxpayers' money used. The New Democratic Party would have sooner been silent on it; in fact, were silent in Estimates, did not raise one issue, did not comment, passed it without even responding.

So do you think, Madam Speaker, he is happy to have to debate this bill in the House? Not at all. What did he say? I invite anybody who is trying to determine who they would vote for on this particular issue to read what the member for–

An Honourable Member: Burrows.

Mr. Downey: Burrows. I just have a hard time. The name comes first.

But the point is, Madam Speaker, I think the NDP truly have to stand up and be counted. They are either going to vote for this bill or against it. Now, it will be interesting to see how many people do not come in and vote at all, because, quite frankly, it is contrary to policy, stated policy by the member for Burrows, as put forward in a resolution of a year ago under the Canada Assistance Plan, Resolution 96(c)10/23. Here is what he said at that particular time in his resolution.

An Honourable Member: Where was this resolution?

Mr. Downey: It was introduced here in the Legislature.

An Honourable Member: No, it was not. It was at the party convention.

Mr. Downey: Oh, okay, but he is still the member. He is still the member until after the election.

An Honourable Member: We just wanted to know where it took place.

Mr. Downey: That is correct. It is a caucus report. That is what I am referring to, a caucus report to the 34th constitutional convention of the Manitoba New Democratic Party, just to get it right.

Here is what his resolution said. Here is what he said: Encourage the provincial government to introduce legislation guaranteeing the rights of social assistance recipients, including the right to a level of assistance adequate to meet one's needs, the right to appeal decisions which limit or deny assistance and the right not to have to participate in work or training programs in order to receive assistance.

That was the position of the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) at the New Democratic Party convention, November 14 to 16, 1997.

The question is where does he stand today? Is it because there is an election coming that he may have changed and he wants to be with the majority of people in society and wanting to support this legislation? He does not, Madam Speaker, want to speak about it in Estimates, because he wants to be silent on it. He does not put his position forward when he speaks in the House, but he was brave enough to put his position forward at an NDP caucus convention in which he said people should not have to work or take a training program to work.

Madam Speaker, that is contrary to, I am sure, the majority of the taxpayers of Manitoba. They are not being hard and they are not being mean, and we are not being unfair because, quite frankly, we believe that individuals in preparing themselves to participate in a day-to-day work activity is not only good for society, it is extremely important that they as individuals, and their families, have the opportunity to participate in what is an exciting activity, a greater life fulfilment, to have a meaningful job, to be trained for that job. If you, in fact, have an addiction, deal with them and deal with them up front.

Madam Speaker, again, I will refer to the press which came out today. This is not only dealing with just a few jobs and a few sectors. This is dealing across the board the job opportunities that are out there. So it is not a matter of training these people for something that would be a McJob like the members opposite keep referring to. These are highly technical, highly skilled jobs where people can grow and elevate themselves in our society and become a very meaningful part of our society.

It says, another headline: Natives catching new-jobs wave. Again, an extremely important group in our society who are, by numbers, far more unemployed in their groups than ours. So, Madam Speaker, this legislation is doing the right thing at the right time in our society.

An Honourable Member: For the right reason.

Mr. Downey: For the right reason. It will be interesting to see what the New Democratic Party does, not because they are interested in the well-being of individuals. It is coming out loud and clear again, they are interested in the long-term welfare, I am sorry, the short-term welfare of the New Democratic Party when they have to face the people. That is what they have to face. [interjection] The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) keeps hollering at me about the number of people on welfare.

* (1530)

Madam Speaker, all the more reason the legislation comes forward to get people into the workplace. All the more reason to get people into the workplace. The question will be: will the New Democratic Party do what is right for the New Democratic Party and try and get the public to support them by being a "me too" on this one? Or are they prepared to stand up and support the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) who put the resolution to his caucus? Is he going to stand up and vote as he felt in the 1997 meeting of the New Democratic Party? I will have to wait and see.

There is another one, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). It is interesting. What did the member for Wolseley do with her constituency? Well, she holds meetings in her constituency. Here is what she says: She has meetings on welfare rights. That is what she likes to do to make sure that the people–and it is certainly appropriate to make sure the constituents know the programs that are available, but I would hope now, rather than just making sure that they know what their rights are, that she would have a meeting to educate her constituents as to what this new progressive legislation will do to provide job opportunities, training for those individuals. It will be a test for individuals like the member for Wolseley to stand up and vote for this legislation. It will be a test for each and every member of the New Democratic caucus to do so. But, Madam Speaker, it may be the old duck-the-vote issue. It may be like the member for Burrows when it came to debate in Estimates: We will let this one go and hope the public, quite frankly, do not notice what we are doing. Well, that is why I rise today. I think it is extremely important that the public know exactly where the New Democratic Party stands on issues of such importance.

I will again go back to my comments when I opened this. The progressive actions of my colleague, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), not only in saying the best form of support or social assistance is a job, but it is equally important that this government, under Premier Filmon and my colleagues, and I have been part of it and proud to be part of it, the creation of employment to give those people job opportunities in our province.

In fact, I say to the member for Len Evans who always likes to criticize about people leaving the province–

Some Honourable Members: Brandon East.

Mr. Downey: From Brandon East.

An Honourable Member: We could change the constituency to Len Evans.

Mr. Downey: The member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) wants to be careful. Today in Question Period he was complaining about old things not being any good any longer. Well, if he is looking for old things to be replaced, I think we can accommodate him. We can accommodate him, that old member for Brandon East. We have an excellent young man who is ready to take on that responsibility and put Mr. Evans into what is a well-deserved retirement.

An Honourable Member: You have been saying that for 30 years.

Mr. Downey: We will accommodate him to do that.

To go back to Bill 40, I think it is extremely important that each and every one of our colleagues clearly understand why this is being done. It is to help people in society who, for certain reasons, have had to have government assistance. There is not one of our colleagues who has begrudged any support to those individuals, but what is more important is how do we help those people get into a more meaningful way in life. That is what this legislation does. We do not begrudge one bit of support these people have and will not, but where there is a job opportunity, we should be working on a training program. We should be working with them to get there, unlike, I go back to the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who had his mind made up as it related to how these people should be dealt with. They should not have to be trained, or they should not have to work, to become part of a program.

Just back to Brandon, there was a resolution also came forward, and I am just want to make accurate reference here. Again, Brandon East, again the executive of Brandon East supported, and this is point No. 5 in their resolution. It says, and I will quote directly: "The right not to have to participate in work or training programs in order to receive social assistance." So it is not only the member for Burrows in the caucus report that went forward to the November 16, but Brandon East also believes that.

I do not believe the majority of the people of Brandon East believe that for one minute. I think that the people of Brandon East expect people to be trained, so they can get meaningful employment. I have said what I believe is important to say as it relates to the constituency of Arthur-Virden, which I represent, and, again, I put the challenge to the New Democratic Party: are they going to support this bill; are they going to duck it; or are they going to maintain what is their traditional position of making sure that we do not have the support that we should have to move forward with this progressive legislation?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will watch and see as the New Democratic Party develop their policy. Is it going to be like the budget and support it, or is it going to be in opposition to it? The question is theirs, of course, to deal with, and we will watch with interest. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): It is a pleasure to stand to rise and put a few words on the record with Bill 40. It is, in fact, a bill in which I think the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is quite right in the assessment in terms of the actual timing of the bill; but, having said that, Madam Speaker, one needs to take a look at the ability to work and the importance of emphasizing that that is in essence one of the key components, that the government of the day in no way should be looking at imposing upon individuals that do not have that ability to be obligated, to have to do things which they, for a number of reasons, are unable to do. I think that is something that really has to be emphasized.

We recognize the benefits of having a bill of this nature, but we qualify it in the sense that there are conditions in which, quite frankly, it would be unfair. That can be things that, if you do not have programs in place, for example, you cannot ask a single parent that has two or three kids at home and expect that that parent is going to be able to have child care immediately accessible in order to attend a particular course of training or, in fact, even to get a job. So you have that form of lack of ability through a handicap of whatever sort of nature, and that also has to be taken into consideration.

I can recall a number of years when, as a university student, I had done extensive surveying of a community called Blake Gardens, and one of the comments that came up was a lot of concern of generations of welfare recipients, where you would have second- or third-generation of individuals who would be on the welfare rolls, and that caused a great deal of concern. What I find that, if implemented properly, is that the whole work for welfare or training for welfare can be a very positive experience and that we should not be fearful of it, but, as I indicate, you do have to watch in terms of the whole ability question.

There are certain industries, like today I brought up in Question Period the garment industry. The garment industry has been in need of a skilled workforce for a number of years. We are not talking two or three, we are virtually talking the last six to eight years where there has been a shortage. That has provided ample opportunity for the government to try to enhance the skill sets of people within the province of Manitoba in order to fill those jobs. It has been somewhat disappointing in the sense that they have not been that successful at doing just that. There are other industries that are out there in which, if the government were proactive in providing training and programming, individuals who are today on welfare could in fact reap the dividends. The terminology of the best social services is in fact a job. No, I do not think anyone would question that.

* (1540)

That is the reason why again, even though there are some areas in Bill 40 that cause us to have some concern, the concept or the suggestion of getting and assisting individuals that are receiving social assistance, providing the incentive and providing, first and foremost I must say, the opportunity through different programming which will enable them to participate in a more productive fashion in terms of economic output can be a very positive thing for all of the stakeholders. That is the reason why we do not have any problem with this particular bill to go into committee. With that, we are prepared to, as I say, let it go.

This bill has sparked a great deal of interest among many members of the public. I anticipate that there will be a number of people that will in fact be making presentation on Bill 40. So we might ultimately reserve final judgment until the third reading, but at this stage there is no reason why this bill should not be going on to the committee stage. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I would just like to put a few comments on record as it relates to this piece of legislation. I am reminded of a pilot project that was entered into between the Minister of Family Services and my department back in 1996, I believe it was, where we had a community in the northern part of our province which was experiencing tremendous unemployment in the community, and that was specifically the community of Lynn Lake. At that time there were many people in that community who were on welfare because of the mining activity having decreased, but in addition to that, there was a lot of vandalism to homes that had been abandoned because many of the people had moved out from the community because the mining activity had decreased tremendously.

At that point in time we embarked on a pilot program between the two departments. We also got the federal government to participate in the initiative as well. We actually embarked on a welfare to work program back in 1996 where we hired people who were on welfare to restore some of the homes that had been vandalized and needed repair, to beautify the community, and also to take down some of the homes that were still salvageable in terms of the material but were no longer habitable.

What happened, we put 16 people in that community to work on the project, supervised by an individual in the community, and they entered into I believe it was 11 weeks or something of that nature of work. They restored some homes, but in total the number of homes they worked on were about 45. They took the materials from these homes and sold the materials for cottages and wherever materials could be used, providing they complied with building code. There were a lot of smaller outsheds and that sort of thing constructed with those materials for the benefit of the community.

We had a reception after the program was over for the people who were involved in the program. What we saw was that people who were desperate for any kind of, I guess, sense of pride in themselves and in what they could produce all of a sudden take great pride in their community. That evening, I will never forget, people who had been on welfare for months and months came up to me, shy as they were, and wanted to express the pride that they had in what they had done in their community.

I guess the bottom line in all of this is that when you put people to work in something that is meaningful, in something that gives them fulfilment, indeed they take on a sense of pride in themselves, in their community, and in their families.

We followed up on all of the people who were on that program. What was surprising was that, out of the number of people who were hired, about 95 percent of them went on to meaningful work. I believe they are still employed today.

As a matter of fact, during the project, one of the young men was able to obtain work at the mine. It just happened that halfway through the program somebody from the mine called him up and said: We know you are working on this project. We would like to offer you a job.

He told me that he went to work at the mine. Usually the work lasts for seven days. It is seven days on, seven days off. But he was so afraid of losing his job that he did not ask for any time off. When I saw him, he had worked for 14 days straight and had just finished a 12-hour shift, had gone back to back because of a friend who was not able to work that day. He worked his shift and came to the party late that night. He looked absolutely exhausted. But he said: You know, I respect the job that I have so much that I would not dare ask my supervisor for an hour off.

Now, here is a person who was basically destitute, was down and out, did not have any self-esteem, who had gotten on this program, gotten a job, and all of a sudden life took on a different meaning. I think that is what this bill is about. It is to give people the opportunity for some self-worth, to be able to provide for them a hand up instead of a handout.

If I look at what the past performance of the New Democrats has been, if you take a look at the record of the New Democratic government that was in power in the Pawley days, unfortunately for the citizens of our province, the policies were wrong. What they did was perpetuated the handout instead of the hand up.

So today we change direction. We change direction to giving people hope, giving people an opportunity to realize some benefit out of their lives, to be able to gain skills that will give them long-time employment.

Now, Madam Speaker, we talk about the Jobs Fund. I can mention some programs that were implemented back in those days which were basically programs. I ask the members opposite: how many of the Jobs Fund jobs are around today? Not a single one, because they were either planting flowers or painting picket fences or doing something that lasted a summer and that was it, basically the green team jobs. This is what the opposition's view was of long-term, sustainable jobs in Manitoba. They just were not. [interjection] No, I am calling it the green team of Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, this is a different approach. This calls on us as a government to give people a hand up, to allow them to train in jobs that are going to be meaningful, the sustainable jobs, the long-term jobs. The list of jobs that are available that the Premier read out in Question Period today are the ones that we want to train people for. Because today this government has turned the economy around. This government, with the assistance of Manitobans, has made it possible for every person in this province who wants a job to have one.

Madam Speaker, today's newspaper I think spells it very clearly that indeed the economy of our province has changed direction. The Winnipeg Free Press has not always been complimentary to what we as a government have done, but today's paper tells the story about the fact that the economy of this province has been stimulated to the point where today we have employers who are seeking for workers. Yes, they want skilled workers, but when I talk to employers they are telling me, you give me the worker and we will help to train that worker in the areas that we need the workers in. We need an attitude. We need some basic skills, but beyond that we will provide the specific skills.

Working in partnership with employers all around the province, I think we can make some real interesting and important things happen for families who today feel somewhat destitute. Whether they are young families who are struggling to survive or whether they are young parents who, because of their circumstances, just have not been able to get up off the ground, so to speak, I think this bill provides the necessities for these people to really get on with improving their lot in life, and that is what this bill is about. I am hoping that the opposition is going to support this unanimously, because this indeed does set a new direction for us and the people of this province. Thank you.

* (1550)

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I must say I find some of the comments rather interesting from members opposite because not once in their speeches did they point out the most obvious fact which after 11 years should be put on the record, and that is that there are more people on welfare today than there were 11 years ago. This Conservative government is the party of welfare. They have, going back, and it is funny–the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) would probably remember this–because I remember back when the Lyon government was in power–

An Honourable Member: A fine government.

Mr. Ashton: A fine government, he said. When a Minister of Northern Affairs said at the time welfare is cheaper than job creation, that was what their policy was at the time. For the past 11 years we have seen the same thing. It is a lot cheaper to have people on welfare than to do a number of things. I want to deal with some of the things that were done by the NDP and are not being done anymore by the Tories.

Now let us look at programs like Access and New Careers, which this government has hatcheted. What is interesting is that the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) talks about pride and achievement. I have been at every graduation except one, of the social work program. I have been to numerous graduations in northern Manitoba, and I can tell you there was a time when the main criteria to get into those programs were in terms of financial need. That is no longer the case because of the cuts that have taken place.

I attended New Careers graduations, a model program for the rest of the country, and you know, they have hatcheted that to the point where there is virtually nothing left. I have, on a regular basis, contact in my office, in my constituency office, from students who would have been eligible for the Students Social Allowances a number of years ago and have been cut off, 16- and 17-year-olds. What they have done, as a direct result of this government, is that they have had to drop out of school in order to be eligible in order to be able to support themselves on welfare. I have had single parents, 17- and 18-year-olds, come to my office, and they have said: what kind of system is this?

Madam Speaker, it is a system that runs on the principle espoused by the Conservative Party that welfare is cheaper than, in this case, training to get people into jobs. Now let us go further, because I think it is very important to look at this very clearly about this. If there is one thing that is also clear about this, it is that this government, in its difficult political position, let us put it on the record, is not into an election right now because they are afraid to face the public because of their abysmal record on health, their abysmal record on education, and indeed, because of the scandals, the arrogant approach of this government.

What did they do? They came up with a brilliant idea of running some ads on TV. Now there is only one problem. After 11 years people are going to say: well, you know, these ads, where is the beef? Actually, to tell you the truth, I think we may have to rerun those. Anybody remember those ads from the '80s: Wendy's, where is the beef? The public is going to sit there, and I think a lot of them are already saying that: the Premier, wait a sec. Has he not been in government for a 11 years and now he is talking about getting people from welfare to work?

Let us look at this even more directly. This government–[interjection] The member for Roblin-Russell still does not understand he criticized the Jobs Fund earlier, and his party voted for it. It just amazes me. It just amazes me that party opposite.

You know what is interesting about the polling, Madam Speaker? The polling showed, guess what, that probably their lowest credibility, maybe next to health care and education, was on the question of getting people from welfare into work. The public out there after 11 years knows that this party does not believe in doing that. They would rather warehouse the poor, because welfare is cheaper than job creation.

I want to suggest to members opposite that in fact the one good thing they have done by bringing in this bill, despite the fine words of the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach), after 11 years, they had a problem. They ran some ads, they decided to come up with a bill, and I think as our critic pointed out a three-page bill probably. I suspect it was drafted on the back of an envelope. It has that sort of ring to it.

An Honourable Member: That is an executive summary, I am sure.

Mr. Ashton: Executive summary. It was sort of like we have to have a bill. They probably test-marketed the ads and people were saying that is great, but where is the action on this? What strikes me about this is after 11 years, what it shows once again is the complete inability of this government to come up with a workable solution that gets people from welfare into the workplace. There are 17,300 people according to the minister's own statistics. That, by the way, underestimates the number of real unemployed people in this province, because that does not include people who are on First Nations communities. I want to stress that, Madam Speaker, there are many more people who are in that situation.

If anybody out there wants to turn this into some sort of a political thing of being in favour of work or welfare, I represent communities where probably there is a 60-70 percent rate of unemployment. Do you know what? You come up with the jobs tomorrow, for every job, there will be 10 people willing to work. I get very sick and tired of listening to Conservatives who for 11 years have cut and slashed and taken away the ability of people to work, coming in and saying, well, you know, like wringing their hands, we are really concerned about getting those people into jobs. The bottom line is they are concerned about running a political ad to try and save their political skins after 11 years.

I want to give you examples of communities like Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei, and I say to members opposite of concrete solutions that could deal with the problem. I will take you to the elders, the grandparents, if you like, who worked 30 years in CN. I will take you to their kids who worked 15 years and were laid off and are trying to survive. I will take you to the grandchildren, 18, 19, and 20 years old, and I will tell you one thing, Madam Speaker, all the stuff the Conservative talk about here, they are in a position where many of them have never had the opportunity to get real training or to get an opportunity in the workforce.

I will tell you how vicious the cuts of this government are in those communities. They even cut the swim programs and recreation programs. You wonder why there is a level of suicide in communities of that nature, so let us get the reality here. Let us compare it to what happened 11, 12, 13, 14 years ago and what we will do as a government, because the fact is there are proven ways of getting people from welfare into work. One is to get a community-based approach. That is one thing that is fundamentally missing here. This government sits in its bureaucratic ivory tower here–and one of the positive things about this bill, by the way, there are going to be 18 people at the committee. You know, it takes a bill before they are actually going to get input from community groups.

Everybody I see, everybody I talk to has ideas on how you can deal with it. We brought up some ideas today. Our critic said look at the bottom line here with maintenance enforcement. You know, I talked to a constituent of mine whose husband is a millionaire, she is on welfare, and she has been trying to get into the workplace. Why? Because of maintenance enforcement. I have always said that when you have those deadbeat parents who do not pay their maintenance, the people that pick up the cost are first and foremost the families, the kids, but the second are the taxpayers.

So where is the real action to deal with those deadbeat parents? We have ways. Why do we not work through the income tax system and other ways? Quite frankly, if you are a millionaire and you are not paying child support, you should be dealing with a lot more than some garnishee, because I think that is the kind of thing we should be getting tough on. Let us get on top of some of the people who are abusing the system.

I want to suggest even further, as we have pointed out, there are numerous ways of saying we can get people into the jobs that they need. The bottom line is there is no shortage of work out there; there is a shortage of jobs. Let us not kid ourselves, you know, the member quoted statistics from the Winnipeg Free Press. There are many areas of this city that have high rates of unemployment. The bottom line here is they listed off some of the occupations. These are occupations that require training.

The bottom line is this government has the most abysmal record when it comes to post-secondary education of any province in the country, the lowest spending on community college. If you were serious about getting people from welfare into work, you would be raising the expenditures and the investment on the community college system, one of the proven ways of getting people into place. So do not give us any of this pious stuff, do not give us any of this stuff after 11 years. This is all politics, and we know it.

* (1600)

The bottom line is what we want to do with this bill is we want to get into that committee, and, quite frankly, we want the government to listen to the committee groups. I have checked the list. There are many people in there who can come up with realistic ideas. I want to say to the government, everybody knows the bottom line here about what you are trying to do is simply coming up with something that will support this ad that you have had in place. But after 11 years, do you really expect anyone to believe that when you have a government that has more people on welfare today than there were 11 years ago that you are really concerned about getting people from welfare into the workplace?

We believe as we have always believed as a party and a movement that you can aim–and our vision in fact has always been for full employment, that everybody has the dignity of a job, not where you warehouse the poor, where you put people in a situation. I say to this government your policy is you would rather have them on welfare than give them the supports to get back in the workplace.

I want to say finally, too, to this government, what you are also missing as well is the fact that the real victims in this province under 11 years of this government are the working poor, the people that are getting by and barely paying the bills. Now, this is a government that deliberately suppressed the minimum wage. We used to have the highest in the country. They talk about the NDP years. We had the lowest rate of unemployment and the highest minimum wage in the country. This government suppressed the minimum wage, but whoa, election comes; they bump it up. Well, they did not even bump it up as much as recommended by the report on the minimum wage.

When it came to the budget, for example, it is amazing when it comes to looking at taxes, we all are aware of the pressure that working people in this province are under in terms of taxation. You know what they left out? They even left out their low tax commission. The tax that increased the most, the biggest burden we have seen in this province, the property tax burden, they did not bring in any relief to property taxpayers. Why? Because the same working people we are talking about, they are the ones that they took that money away from in 1992-93.

This government gets its support from a small group of wealthy individuals and what they are trying to do is they are trying to get into the politics of divide and conquer. I want to say, Madam Speaker, we are not going to play by those rules. We are committed to a fair deal, not just for those on welfare, but for the working poor as well. I say to the member for The Maples, because I am sure he would agree with us as well, a lot of the people, the real heroes in this society right now are the people who are, yes, going from welfare to work and are struggling to get through education when it is available, and the working poor who, day in and day out in this province, do not get much assistance from this government. I do not mean social assistance. I mean even a recognition. They pay the higher property taxes. Time in and time out they are getting reduced wages.

The bottom line is, Madam Speaker, we want to see a real discussion in this province on not only welfare but the situation facing all the poor, including the working poor in this province. That is why at the committee we will be bringing in a significant number of amendments, and we challenge the government to support these amendments. The statement in this bill, for example, which leaves out any reference to child poverty, to the bottom line of poverty here, the fact it would have been the child poverty capital for much of the last 11 years. The fact is after 11 years I say in conclusion this government has run out of steam. They are playing politics. We all know that. The bottom line is let us get into committee. Maybe just maybe, when we have those 18 presenters or however many will present over a period of time, maybe that will wake this government up to the fact that it is the bureaucratic neglect of the poor, especially their complete lack of any sense of the working poor, has lead us in the position where, and I say to the Minister of Family Services the Conservative Party is the welfare party. There are 12,000 more people on welfare than there were 11 years ago. That is not good enough. We believe there are ways of reducing the welfare roles by giving people the dignity of work, and we are prepared not only to say that, we are prepared to provide alternatives.

Once this government has the courage to call an election, they will see the same kind of approach that they saw under Schreyer and under Pawley which is: we will get people back into the workplace; we will reduce the welfare roles, something this government has completely failed at for the past 11 years. We are prepared to send this bill into committee right now because we want this government to hear from the people out there, the community groups. They have to finally get the message that this government's actions on welfare in this province are a complete and absolute failure. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 40, The Employment and Income Assistance Amendment Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 26, The Physiotherapists Act (Loi sur les physiothérapeutes), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the last major amendments to The Physiotherapists Act were enacted back in 1981, and the practice of physiotherapy has changed in the 18 years since the act was enacted, as has the law and policy with respect to administrative tribunals.

The proposed bill will reflect the expanded scope of practice of physiotherapy, will allow the public direct access to physiotherapy services, increase public accountability and update the disciplinary procedures. Bill 26 will repeal and replace The Physiotherapists Act and update it.

It will increase public participation on the governing council and on the complaints and inquiry committees. It will require that council and committee meetings be open to the public, except in defined circumstances. It will change the name of the regulatory body from the Association of Physiotherapists of Manitoba to the College of Physiotherapists of Manitoba. This will make it easier for the public to identify the body responsible for acting in the public interest in regulating the practice of physiotherapists.

It will allow Manitobans direct access to physiotherapists when required. In the best interests of their patients, physiotherapists will continue to work co-operatively and collaboratively with other health care providers, including physicians.

It will ensure that the college conducts its affairs in accordance with current principles of law that apply to administrative bodies. It will state the duty of the college to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in the interests of the public clearly in the act. It will increase public participation in the regulatory process by requiring a minimum of one-third public representation on the governing council and on the complaints and inquiry committees. As well, public representation on the council of the college and on all committees will be increased to at least one-third, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission, and the meetings of the council and committees will be open to the public, except in specified circumstances. These measures to ensure public accountability are consistent with the recommendations made by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission report on regulating professions and occupations in Manitoba.

It will strengthen the ability of the college to monitor the continuing competence of physiotherapists. It will update the complaints and discipline processes to ensure fairness for the complainant and the physiotherapist who may be subject of a complaint. These processes will comply with current legal requirements for administrative bodies and will provide consistency with other health professions' legislation such as The Medical Act and The Midwifery Act.

It will require that the College of Physiotherapists of Manitoba provide the Minister of Health with an annual report of its activities, including information on the number of physiotherapists registered, the number of complaints received and the nature and disposition of the complaints, the composition of the governing council and committees, and financial information.

Madam Speaker, I urge all members of the Assembly to support this legislation. Thank you.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 36, The Registered Nurses Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infirmières), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Stefanson: The last major amendments to The Registered Nurses Act were in 1981, and many changes have occurred in the health care system since that time, including changes in practice setting, evolving roles for all nursing categories and the introduction of new technology. The changing practice environment necessitates the need for updating the nursing legislation.

Bill 36 will repeal and replace The Registered Nurses Act. It will provide for, first of all, some increased public accountability. The name of the regulatory body will be changed from the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, or MARN, to the College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba. The change in name will make it easier for the public to identify the regulatory body for registered nurses from a professional interest association and will emphasize the overriding duty of the college to always act in the public interest and not engage in professional promotion activities that conflict with this duty.

* (1610)

The duty of the college to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in the interests of the public will be set out clearly in the act. Public participation in the regulatory process will be increased by requiring a minimum of one-third public representation on the board of the college and on all committees. It will also require that meetings of the board and committees be open to the public, except in specified circumstances. These measures to ensure public accountability are consistent with the recommendations made by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in its report on regulating professions and occupations in Manitoba.

The ability of the college to monitor the continuing competence of its members will be increased. The College of Registered Nurses of Manitoba will be required to provide the Minister of Health with an annual report of its activities, including information on the number of nurses registered, the number of complaints received and the nature and disposition of the complaints, the composition of the governing board and committees, and financial information.

As well, it will deal with updated scope of practice. The definition of practice of nursing will reflect the varied roles that registered nurses now assume beyond the traditional clinical setting. As well, a mechanism will be provided to recognize advanced nursing.

There will also be new disciplinary procedures. The complaints and discipline processes will be updated to ensure fairness for the complainant and the registered nurse who may be the subject of a complaint. These processes will comply with current legal requirements for administrative bodies and will provide consistency with other health professions' legislation such as The Midwifery Act, The Medical Act and the proposed physiotherapy act.

Once again, I urge all members to support this important legislation.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 37, The Licensed Practical Nurses Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infirmiP res auxiliaires), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, again, the last major amendments to The Licensed Practical Nurses Act were in 1981, and many changes have occurred in the health care system since that time, including changes in the practice setting, evolving roles for all nursing categories and the introduction of new technology. Revisions to The Licensed Practical Nurses Act are required as a result of the changing nursing practice environment.

Bill 37 will repeal and replace The Licensed Practical Nurses Act, and it will provide for some of the following; first of all, increased public accountability. The name of the regulatory body will be changed from The Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses to the College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Manitoba. The change in name will make it easier for the public to identify the regulatory body for practical nurses from a professional interest association and will emphasize the overriding duty of the college to always act in the public interest and not engage in professional promotional activities that conflict with this duty.

The duty of the college to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in the interests of the public will be set out clearly in the act. Public participation in the regulatory process will be increased by requiring a minimum of one-third public representation on the board of the college and on all committees. It will also require that meetings of the board and committees be open to the public, except in specified circumstances. These measures to ensure public accountability are consistent with the recommendations made by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in its report on regulating professions and occupations in Manitoba.

The ability of the college to monitor the continuing competence of its members will be increased. The College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Manitoba will be required to provide the Minister of Health with an annual report of its activities, including information on the number of licensed practical nurses registered, the number of complaints received and the nature and disposition of the complaints, the composition of the governing board and committees, and financial information.

We will also update the scope of practice, the definition of licensed practical nursing, will provide a broad scope of practice statement and a clearer understanding of the LPNs' parameters of practice. It will also remove the provision which requires practical nurses to work under the direction of a registered nurse or a medical practitioner. A mechanism will also be provided to recognize advanced practical nursing.

We will also deal with new disciplinary procedures. The complaints and discipline processes will be updated to ensure fairness for the complainant and the licensed practical nurse who may be the subject of the complaint. These processes will comply with current legal requirements for administrative bodies and will provide consistency with other health professions legislation such as The Midwifery Act and the proposed Physiotherapy Act. Once again, I urge all members to support this legislation.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 38, The Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infirmiP res psychiatriques), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Stefanson: Again, the last major amendments to The Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act were in 1981. Many changes have occurred in the health care system since that time including changes in practice setting, evolving roles for all nursing categories and the introduction of new technology. The proposed amendments to The Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act are required as a result of the changing nursing practice environment.

Bill 38 will repeal and replace The Registered Psychiatric Nurses Act, and it will provide for the following: first of all, increased public accountability. The name of the regulatory body will be changed from the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba to the College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Manitoba. The change in name will make it easier for the public to identify the regulatory body for practical nurses from a professional interest association and will emphasize the overriding duty of the college to always act in the public interest and not engage in professional promotion activities that conflict with this duty.

The duty of the college to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in the interest of the public will be set out clearly in the act. Public participation in the regulatory process will be increased by requiring a minimum of one-third public representation on the board of the college and on all committees. It will also require that meetings of the board and committees be open to the public except in specified circumstances. These measures to ensure public accountability are consistent with the recommendations made by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in its report on regulating professions and occupations in Manitoba.

The ability of the college to monitor the continuing competence of its members will be increased. The College of Registered Psychiatric Nurses of Manitoba will be required to provide the Minister of Health with an annual report of its activities including information on the number of licensed practical nurses registered, the number of complaints received and the nature and disposition of the complaints, the composition of the governing board and committees and financial information. As well, it will deal with updated scope of practice. The definition of practice of psychiatric nursing will reflect the varied roles of registered psychiatric nurses now assumed beyond the traditional clinical setting.

We will also deal with new disciplinary powers. The complaints and discipline processes will be updated to ensure fairness for the complainant and the registered psychiatric nurse who may be the subject of the complaint. These processes will comply with current legal requirements for administrative bodies and will provide consistency with other health professions legislation such as The Midwifery Act and the proposed Physiotherapy Act.

Once again, I urge all members to support this legislation.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), that debate be adjourned.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed), that Bill 39, The Medical Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi mJ dicale), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Stefanson: The intent of this bill is, among other things, to enable the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba to create a clinical assistant register to register persons who are not eligible for licensure as physicians but who in the course of their duties perform medical functions; as well, to refuse registration or cancel the registration of a person who is convicted of an offence that is relevant to his or her suitability to practise and also register medical corporations.

* (1620)

In terms of the clinical assistant register, there has been a growing demand in primary health and acute care settings for nurses or other health providers to perform some functions traditionally performed by physicians. This demand has arisen from such factors as primary health reform and reduced availability of residents and/or house medical officers in the acute care facilities. The college, in response to these needs, has proposed amendments to The Medical Act to allow them to create a register of nonphysicians who provide certain diagnostic and therapeutic services. Persons eligible for registration on this register could include physician assistants, nurses with advanced training or emergency medical attendants. They would have to pass a competency assessment approved by the council of the college.

As well, in the area of the conviction of an offence, the college under the current provision can only refuse registration or cancel registration if a person is convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. It prevents the college from refusing to register a person or to cancel the registration of a member who has been convicted of an offence which is not indictable or which is not under the Criminal Code; for an example, an offence under the Narcotic Control Act would not qualify. The proposed amendment would correct this problem; as well, the issue of incorporation of physicians' practices.

Madam Speaker, in the 1998 budget speech, we announced that this government was open to discussions respecting incorporation of professional practices. This bill will allow physicians to incorporate their medical practices, while at the same time ensuring that individual physicians remain accountable to both their patients and the college for their actions. These professional corporations will be closely held corporations. The amendment is set out in the permitted shareholders and restrict the business that a corporation can conduct. They give the college the authority to register the corporations and to regulate the name of the corporation. The provisions have been modelled on legislation in British Columbia. Several other provinces also allow physicians to incorporate their practices.

There are a few housekeeping amendments. Finally, Bill 39 contains a number of these housekeeping amendments necessary to accommodate the other amendments I have referred to. Because Parts II and III of the act date back to 1980, this opportunity was taken to update the wording in these parts to be consistent with other recent health professions legislation such as The Midwifery Act. Again, I urge all members to support this legislation.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that debate be adjourned.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second readings, Bill 29, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), The Victims' Rights Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield to the member for St. Johns, who is our Justice critic and who will place our comments on the record with respect to Bill 29.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, well, here we have the government amending its so-called Victims' Rights Act. That was a real doozie of a title that the government chose for this legislation. Over the last year since this legislation has been passed by this House, we have seen exactly what this government means when it talks about victims' rights. What does it mean? Well, let us talk about the compensation aspect of the legislation, first of all.

This goes back, it is part of a theme. It is not part of simply the legislation that the government brought in last year. Back in '93, this is the government that deindexed the benefits to victims who are injured as a result of crime in this province. Then they capped the amount that would be available to victims in 1996. In 1997, wage benefits were cut for those who were not working on the actual day of the crime. Then with this legislation, last year, the government eliminated or slashed a further 16 compensation benefits.

Well, the issue of victim compensation is one that is one that until last year and under this government, we as a community could have been proud of in this province. I did not know this, but it was back in 1966 in this Legislature that the former member for St. Johns, Mr. Saul Cherniack, first raised the issue of victim compensation, a relatively new concept in the western world at that time. He pushed that issue and pushed that issue, and indeed when the Schreyer government was elected in 1969, it was I think the second government in Canada, perhaps in North America, I am not sure, but it was the second government in Canada to usher in a compensation scheme for those that were injured as a result of violent crime.

Over the years, we had developed in this province a victim compensation scheme that did indeed respect the harm that was done to victims and tried to say to them that the community understood their plight and it tried to help them where other compensation schemes or other insurance schemes or other welfare schemes could not come to assist.

So after that record, Madam Speaker, you have to ask what kind of cynical politics it is when the minister last month in public said the following, and that was when he was talking about this legislation: we are reintroducing the rights of victims to be compensated by the criminal justice system and by the civil justice system to ensure that their pain is not forgotten in this entire process, end of quote.

So, of course, he has to use a word like "reintroduce," because it is this government that has slashed and eliminated all of these benefits that victims of crime enjoyed only a short while ago. What did they bring in? Did they change their mind about the 16 benefits that they slashed or eliminated last year? No, Madam Speaker. What they brought in was this bill, which again at best is tokenism.

I just want to say one other thing about the victims' rights legislation. The government goes around and every opportunity, whenever there is a pair of ears or there is a microphone available, they will trumpet this victims' rights legislation. It is nothing but a vague list of what victims should be entitled to as due respect in involvement in the system. When their rights or these vague lists of pronouncements are clearly violated, they say to the victim that they have to go back to the same department that was responsible for the violation in the first place. They have to go to the director of Public Safety.

We know from families and victims that have suffered. I think, for example, just of the McEvoy family that was treated so disrespectfully under the so-called Victims' Rights Act, how impossible it is to believe that a complaint of that sort will be treated fairly, particularly when the minister stands up and through the media and this Legislature prejudges how those people were actually dealt with in the system. This is billed today as I guess their best foot forward. It is their attempt at a comeback, but it is really a pathetic comeback, if at all.

Madam Speaker, I suppose it is also their comeback from our publication of what we would do to ensure greater fairness for victims of crime. We have pledged to introduce Canada's first comprehensive restitution recovery program. The Criminal Code provides for restitution for property damage and bodily harm, but it really is an underused opportunity for real and measurable justice for victims of crime.

It is important that victims of crime, first of all, be made aware that there is such a potential for restitution. It is important that prosecutors be required to consider restitution in all cases where it appears that a victim would be so entitled.

We know and we hear this repeatedly–I am surprised the minister does not–that victims feel victimized once again when they are told, if they ask, that it is their responsibility to go and collect restitution. In other words, it is up to the victim to chase the perpetrator. That is wrong. It is wrong for every reason. The victim will feel intimidated. It may be often difficult to collect. As well, if restitution is not collected, then the victim will, more often than not, rely on the public funding of the victim compensation program. It is important that the offender pay.

So we have pledged to legislate and enforce powerful collection tools and prioritize restitution debts above most other debts to ensure that there is a payment. It is not good enough, as the current minister does, to point to Ottawa and say: oh, well, they are disappointed with recent changes; and, oh, you know, the responsibility is on the victim, so there is nothing we can do.

* (1630)

The Province of Manitoba has a great opportunity to assist victims of crime to collect restitution, as a sort of collection agency, if you will, as a collection lawyer, if you will. Saskatchewan, the province right next door, has had a restitution program for some time whereby there are designated probation officers who ensure that restitution orders that comprise probation orders are collected. It has made a world of difference. But that is not even enough. It has to be a comprehensive program. That is what we have pledged.

Now I know, through this legislation and another bill that is on the Order Paper, the government has attempted to cover this issue off. But they do not do it beyond tokenism.

I will deal with the issue of fine collection and other debts owing to the province as a result of court orders when we get to the other legislation.

Now, with regard to this plan, it is part of a PR effort to make the government look sympathetic towards victims of crime when we know what their record is. We know how they have slashed compensation benefits. We know how they treat victims in the system, even despite their so-called Victims' Rights Act.

The professed purpose of the legislation was to ensure that victims rather than inmates benefit from civil court settlements, that is, money obtained by inmates who sue the province will be first used to compensate victims, they say. Well, I think the government is obliged, if they say that this is somehow significant, to victims who suffer violent crime in Manitoba to explain how many victims are likely to benefit under this legislation. Now we know that there are several inmates who have filed claims against the province in respect of injuries suffered during the Headingley riot. That was a very singular incident, as a result of the negligence of this government, the failure of this government to pay heed to the concerns and complaints of staff and others at Headingley jail. It was due to the negligence of this government in failing to deal with the concerns and complaints of staff about a resistance by senior management, in particular going right up to the minister's office, and deal with their legitimate concerns. There was a poisonous work environment, and it was an unsafe environment.

So, indeed, claims were filed against the government. I would like the minister–he is obliged to do this–to tell Manitobans, aside from the claims that were filed in respect of the Headingley riot, how often is the province sued and sued successfully by inmates for negligence on the part of the government. Because, you know, if you read the words of the minister, Manitobans are led to believe that this is some big breakthrough in victims' rights and victim compensation. So I trust that he will rise to the challenge, and he will tell us just how many claims have been filed, and successfully filed, either settled or judged by the courts. Then we will have a sense, and we will be able to measure just what kind of potential impact this legislation will have.

I know what the minister is going to tell us. He is going to tell us that there are very few claims. They are few and far between, if any, over many, many, many years. Well, I suspect that there will be even less now, if there are any at all, because what this legislation would say to an aggrieved inmate is that if you do sue and, of course, the outcome of civil suits is always a great uncertainty, you have the additional risk of losing all or part of your damage award if you pursue this.

I suspect that this legislation is designed more in the interests of the Province of Manitoba and the government than it is for victims. It is intended, I suspect, to also dissuade potential litigants against suing the government for its negligence on how it conducts its corrections program, and even negligence perhaps in its physical environment. We also have questions as to whether this legislation will simply offer some false hope for a potential victim down the road, because what it does is it says that liquidated damages or damages that are decided on by a court of law and proven can be kept from that plaintiff, as an inmate, as a result of an administrative edict by the government.

Under the legislation the director of victim support services is given the authority with very vague direction to decide on what the damages of the victim may be. I think it would be very sad if, as a result of the vagueness in the statute, a victim would think that he or she would be entitled to some restitution because of this government's failure to have a restitution program in place in this province, only to discover that that expectation was subject to extended, protracted and costly court proceedings, perhaps a Charter challenge, I do not know, Madam Speaker. So, when I look at the vagueness of the statute, I shake my head and I say: I think this really is indeed bluster, because for an administrative edict to overcome a liquidated claim as proven and awarded by a court would take, I would suggest, more stringent wording and a more stringent direction to the director who is given the authority under this legislation. I say that, no matter how well intentioned that section may be, if the section does not work, it does not work for victims, and I do not think that victims need to be victimised again because of a statute that may, in fact, not even work for them at all.

So we would like to see greater protection for victims by very clear and certain wording in the statute. It does not even say that the victim has to have a restitution order agreed to by the court. It does not say that the victim has to have a civil order. So what we have here is legislation that, on balance, is unlikely to benefit any victim at any time and only if a tort is committed by the government, if damages are proven, if then a claim is filed by the inmate, if the victim is actually found, yes, if the claim is successful, and if the act stands up, will the victims benefit? Here, Madam Speaker, this is the legislation that this government brings as a comeback to slashing in January of this year and eliminating 16 benefits that crime victims once enjoyed, and it has the gall to say that it is concerned about victims. This is a government with a pathetic record.

I do not think that with any government, any modern-day government, in this new era of growing understanding of the role of victims, the suffering of victims and a respect that is due to victims, have we seen such a sorry record. Yet the rhetoric continues unabated. They talk in the face of their action, but time is up. Eleven years under this government have meant that victims have been victimized way beyond the victimization that has occurred to them at the hands of the justice system of this province, because this government has taken an active role in victimizing those victims once again, taking away their long-held rights, rights that NDP governments in Manitoba introduced and maintained.

* (1640)

It is not as if the government can say, well, we do not know a better way. The government knows full well how a victims' bill of rights can be written and enforced in this province because we brought it into this Legislature. We introduced it in a background document. We introduced it into this House based on the best practices around the world in dealing with victims, and they know how they can deal better with compensation because we provided the materials to the public and to the government. We have shown them the plans that we have as new government in Manitoba, and, as our Leader said, we will usher in the new era of respect for victims. They know how it can be done, but they just stood up and said: we will not do it, but we are going to talk as though we are doing it. Well, they are being found out.

So we will pass this legislation along, because anything that this government does for victims in its three-steps-backwards, half-step-forward way, we will support. But we want the minister to answer our questions about the vagueness in here, about how many claims have been filed in the past so that we can predict the future success of this statute. In the meantime, we will remind Manitobans how this government deals with victims of crime. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 29, The Victims' Rights Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on Bill 34, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine et modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I am prepared to yield to our Justice critic, the member for St. Johns, who will put our comments on the record representing our caucus.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): It was back in June of 1995 that we raised the matter of how we deal with masters of the Court of Queen's Bench. At that time, I asked the then Justice minister if they were considering discipline procedures at least to deal with masters. If the member of the public has a concern about a master, how does that person lodge a complaint and how is the complaint dealt with were the questions we asked. That coincided, Madam Speaker, with the growth of power of the masters as a result of changes to the rules of the Court of Queen's Bench in the early or mid-1980s. At that time, the minister dismissed our concern, and she said that a complaint can simply be made in writing to the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, who would then examine the complaint and determine an action. She went on to say that one of the possibilities is that, because masters are also public servants, then there could be a referral to the Civil Service Commission. So no concern at that time about masters. Well, we went on to say, I think, it is appropriate that the government now look at the review procedures, the discipline procedures affecting masters.

It was not simply a theoretical concern. There was a complaint about a master that was being put forward, and there was no procedure in place to deal with that. I am sure the government is aware of the case that I am speaking of. Now other jurisdictions in Canada, whether it is Alberta or British Columbia, Ontario, I am aware of, have moved along in this area and respected not only the fact that there has to be a complaint mechanism to deal with complaints lodged against masters, but they have to be seen not as civil servants but as judicial officers. The Supreme Court of Canada decision respecting the independence of Provincial Court judges, I think, did a lot to define the law with regard to the independence of judicial officers, and in that case it was explicitly Provincial Court judges.

But you cannot deal with Provincial Court judges in isolation. Masters are hearing officers; they perform a judicial function; they are hearing officers. They deal with even some rejudgment. They certainly deal with maintenance issues. They have a great deal of power and discretion. So it is important that these judicial officers not simply be treated as mere employees of the government and that there be an independent process set out in legislation.

So we support the principle of the legislation, and we will, at committee, pursue several concerns. We are concerned about the control by cabinet of the nominating process for new masters. There is a majority of cabinet-appointed people on the nominating committee. In fact, it is three to two, and the chair is a cabinet appointee. As well, for each position that is open, six names are to be given to the government, which is interesting, given that, in the appointment process of Provincial Court judges, there is a requirement that there be not fewer than three and not more than six different candidates. So the government seems to be wanting to go fishing to a greater extent under this legislation than under The Provincial Court Act process for the appointment of judges to the Provincial Court.

I might just add, just to go back, that there appears to be a greater power of cabinet appointees in the nominating process here than under The Provincial Court Act as well. As well, here we notice that the complaints are to the Chief Justice and not to the senior master. If the legislation is to reflect the scheme in The Provincial Court Act, it would seem appropriate that the complaints first go to the senior master.

So, with those concerns and issues of detail, we are prepared to pass this legislation on to committee.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 34, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 3, The Fatality Inquiries Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les enquêtes médico-légales), as reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 4, The Law Fees Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les frais judiciaires et modifications corrJ latives), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

* (1650)

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 11, The Statute Law Amendment (Nunavut) Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions lJ gislatives (Nunavut)), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that Bill 12, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 modifiant diverses dispositions lJ gislatives), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 16, The Court of Queen's Bench Small Claims Practices Amendment and Parental Responsibility Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le recouvrement des petites crJ ances B la Cour du Banc de la Reine et la Loi sur la responsabilitJ parentale), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 18, The Correctional Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services correctionnels), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that the Bill 5, The Highway Traffic Amendment, Off-Road Vehicles Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les vJ hicules B caractP re non routier et modifications corrJ latives, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of the Environment (Mrs. McIntosh) that Bill 6, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, as government House leader, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Bill 19, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Act; Loi sur la Société du crédit agricole, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded once again by the distinguished and honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Bill 7, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the most honourable Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 13, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Université du Manitoba, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), that Bill 8, The Ozone Depleting Substances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les substances appauvrissant la couche d'ozone, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Tweed), that Bill 9, The Securities Amendment and Commodity Futures and Consequential Amendments Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières et la Loi sur les contrats à terme de marchandises et apportant des modifications corrélatives, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the most honourable Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), and minister responsible for our senior citizens, that Bill 15, The Cemeteries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les cimetières, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I just wanted to confirm with the Clerk that Bills 29 and 34 as well as Bill 40 have, in fact, received second reading.

* (1700)

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would like to make some committee announcements at this particular time. I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit on Tuesday evening at 7 p.m.

Madam Speaker, then I would announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit tomorrow, Tuesday morning, at 10 a.m. [interjection]

Madam Speaker, I will make announcements later. I would ask at six o'clock if we could make announcements. I want to confer with the opposition House leader.

Madam Speaker, I believe it has now been agreed that–

Madam Speaker: Just one moment. Procedurally, I note to the Clerk, I am leaving the Chair, and you will be in Committee of Supply. Perhaps you would take 30 seconds now to clarify which standing committees, for the benefit of all members, and in particular for the benefit of the Clerk's office, so we can post the notices.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could call for second reading The Physiotherapists Act. There may be a willingness to have that passed through to second reading to allow it to committee.

Madam Speaker: I am just not sure in whose name it has been left standing. The honourable member for Transcona, I believe. Is that correct?

An Honourable Member: Yes, I think so.

Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on Bill 26, The Physiotherapists Act (Loi sur les physiothJ rapeutes), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Reid: I am pleased to rise to indicate that we are prepared to have Bill 26, The Physiotherapists Act, moved through to committee to allow members of the public the opportunity to come out and to provide their comments and guidance with respect to this piece of legislation. At this time we are prepared to pass this bill through to committee to hear those presentations for people who may wish to come out. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: The motion is second reading Bill 26, The Physiotherapists Act. Agreed?

Agreed and so ordered.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I would then announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will be called for Tuesday at 7 p.m. for the consideration of Bill 26, The Physiotherapists Act.

I would also like to announce that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will be called for Wednesday next at 7 p.m. for hearing presenters on Bill 40. I would also like to ask that we seek agreement of the House to sit that Committee on Law Amendments concurrently with the House on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. to hear presenters again with respect to Bill 40, and if the House is prepared to grant leave to hear presenters on both of those days, I would ask that we could have the Clerk's office–I understand we have some 20 presenters–offer time to presenters on either day to accommodate people who want to make presentations, whether it be an evening or an afternoon presentation.

Madam Speaker: First announcement: that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet Tuesday, tomorrow, July 6, at 7 p.m. to consider Bill 26.

The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will also meet Wednesday, July 7, 10 a.m., to consider Bill 40. Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the consideration of Bill 40 to continue on Thursday, July 8, 10 a.m.?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I think we were asking for the Committee on Law Amendments, announcing that we would call Bill 40 for Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. One of my colleagues–

Madam Speaker: One moment, please. Standing Committee on Law Amendments to meet Wednesday, July 7, 7 p.m., to consider Bill 40. Is there unanimous consent of the House to allow the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to meet concurrently while we are in the House on Thursday morning July 8, 10 a.m.? [agreed]

As previously agreed, we will now dissolve into the Committee of Supply to grant Supply to Her Majesty, and the Department of Justice will convene in the Chamber. Agreed? [agreed]