ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments–this is for tonight, 7 p.m., meeting July 7, 1999–be amended as follows–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members who want to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge so that I can hear the member for Gimli? Thank you.

The honourable member for Gimli, to continue.

Mr. Helwer: That the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura); and the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson).

And I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments–this is for Thursday, July 8, 1999, 10 a.m. sitting–be amended as follows: the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed).

And I move, seconded by the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews); the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer); and the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the vacant position on that committee.

House Business

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, a number of announcements to make. I know we were talking about having a Committee of Municipal Affairs to finish the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 25. However, given the activity this afternoon, I think we will hope to try to arrange that for tomorrow afternoon. It just seems more practical.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would propose that this House resolve itself into two sections of the Committee of Supply, that this House, as agreed, now resolve itself into two sections of the Committee of Supply to meet outside the Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the understanding that House business will be continued in this Chamber. I believe there will be agreement for that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the honourable minister going to be requesting leave?

Mr. Praznik: I just did.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You did ask for leave. Is there leave for the committees to sit in two sections? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: I also, just for the Clerk and the record, seek leave to ensure that the departments as in each committee, Rooms 255 and 254, as they were yesterday when the House adjourned, continue until their conclusion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave that the two committees, 254, 255, continue where they were yesterday? [agreed]

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On a point of order. Reviewing Hansard from yesterday indicates that a number of resolutions in the Estimates, I am referring to Resolutions 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8, there is no indication that those resolutions are passed. My information is that, in fact, they were passed and that would mean that Hansard would have to be reprinted. If we remember, yesterday there were bells being called, there was a mixup. I am suggesting, as a matter of procedure, just to remove any doubt that those have passed, that we revert back to 7.2 to have those passed today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member did not have a point of order. Number 1, if he wants to bring up an issue that happened within committee, that is the place to do it. The House will not deal with matters that are of the committee's jurisdiction. So that is where the member should bring that issue forward if he so chooses.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with leave of the House, I would move, seconded by the–

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, private members' hour.

Mr. Praznik: Pardon?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: You did not waive private members' hour yet.

Mr. Praznik: Do you want to waive private members' hour?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

* (1620)

Mr. Praznik: Okay. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would canvass the House to see if there is a willingness to waive private members' hour?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour? [agreed]

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would move again, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that this House, as agreed, now resolve itself into two sections of the Committee of Supply to meet outside the Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the understanding that House business will be continued in this Chamber.

Mr. Praznik: As the two committees now proceed to get established, I imagine those members who will be taking part should be now on their way to dispatch the business of those committees.

With respect to business in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would ask that you call for introduction of second readings bills in this order: Bills 41, 42 and 44, to be followed by the continuation of debate on second readings of Bills 35, 39 and 43, in that order, then followed by third readings of bills as they appear on the Order Paper.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 41, The Professional Corporations (Various Acts Amendment) Act, 1999 (Loi de 1999 sur les corporations professionnelles (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of the House.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present to the House today the second reading of Bill 41, The Professional Corporations (Various Acts Amendment) Act, 1999.

The members of this House will recall that the 1998 Manitoba budget announced that we were prepared to allow professionals including medical practitioners to incorporate their practices; however, it is also important that patient and client protection and the rights of recourse are maintained. Accordingly, we were prepared to enter into discussion with the governing bodies of interested professions to develop appropriate legislation for possible introduction as early as 1999.

Before commenting directly on Bill 41, I would like to review for the members of this House the reasons why the need for this legislation has arisen. There are several reasons for moving ahead with professional incorporation at this time.

The Manitoba government has repeatedly been approached over the years by a number of professional groups who have requested legislation enabling professional corporations. Some professional organizations have been vocal about the need to address the continuing out-migration of practitioners. Manitoba must remain an attractive environment for individuals educated in Manitoba to remain here once they become accredited or licensed professionals. Professional incorporation has been identified by professional organizations as one means of addressing these vital concerns.

Since 1975, when Alberta first allowed professional corporations to practise, other provinces, namely British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, have allowed professionals to incorporate. Other provinces are also eyeing professional incorporation legislation in order to keep in step with the opportunities that are available in these provinces.

Manitoba must also keep in step with developments in other provinces where professionals are allowed to incorporate in order to maintain a level playing field to ensure that professionals in our province are not left in a disadvantaged position. It should also be noted that nonprofessionals are not prevented from incorporating in Manitoba or in other provinces. It is unjust to disallow professionals the same corporate taxation planning privileges that nonprofessionals are able to utilize.

One often noted concern preventing professional incorporation is the potential use of a corporate veil to shield practitioners from meeting any liabilities that may arise from negligence in practice or professional misconduct. There are now a number of statutory models, and enough experience has been gained in other provinces that this concern can readily be resolved legislatively.

For these reasons, the 1998 Budget Address announced this government's willingness to negotiate incorporation provisions with interested professional organizations that indicate to government a desire to allow their members to form corporations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would now like to turn my attention to Bill 41 directly. Part 1 amends The Certified General Accountants Act respecting the practice of certified general accountants as a professional corporation. Part 2 amends The Chartered Accountants Act respecting the practice of chartered accountants as a professional corporation. Part 3 amends The Dental Association Act respecting the practice of dentists as a professional corporation. Part 4 amends The Law Society Act respecting the practice of lawyers as a professional corporation.

The fundamental features respecting professional corporations are the same for each profession represented under Bill 21. A corporation is a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders, directors and employees. Such persons are generally isolated from any liabilities incurred by a corporation. On the other hand, professional regulatory bodies develop and uphold codes of conduct, guidelines for their membership that serve to protect the public by ensuring individual members are personally bound to any wrongdoing that arises in their practice.

In order to address this dichotomy, provinces that allow professional corporations have adopted a number of safeguards which are also reflected in Bill 41. A large part of Bill 41, however, represents the consequential amendments to each statute governing a particular profession. The required changes ensure that the authority and powers of each governing body will apply with the same force to the professional corporation individual practitioner.

The common features that are found in each section covering the four different professional groups represented in Bill 41 are as follows: the individual professional remains responsible and liable for any negligence or professional misconduct in any way by allowing him or her to practise through a corporation. Voting shareholders of a professional corporation are jointly and severally liable with the corporation for any professional liability claims against the corporation.

All the voting shares of a professional corporation must be owned by licensed professionals or by other professional corporations. Nonvoting shares may be owned by a person who is a voting shareholder or a spouse or child of a voting shareholder, or by another corporation, the shares of which are owned by such persons.

All the directors and the president of a professional corporation must be licensed professionals. The business of a professional corporation is restricted to the practice of the profession and any activities directly related to the practice. No professional corporation can practise without a permit or licence which is issued annually upon payment of a fee prescribed by the governing body.

The penalties for the breach of a prohibition against practising in contravention of the act or representing oneself as being entitled to practise a profession have been amended for consistency. The provisions under Bill 41 will come into force upon proclamation which will occur once the governing bodies have their internal mechanisms in place to approve applications by members to operate as professional corporations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would also like to point out to the members of this House that other professional organizations are also expected to express an interest in professional incorporation and to come forward with proposals for legislative amendment. Let me assure everyone that we are receptive to any group which sees a benefit to its members who are currently prohibited from incorporating.

Bill 39, The Medical Amendment Act, which is currently before this House is also amending legislation to allow doctors and surgeons to also form professional corporations. The co-ordinated efforts of the various departments and professional organizations involved in bringing Bill 41 to fruition has not been a small task, and there is more work ahead as other organizations come forward.

* (1630)

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will level the playing field so that no professional is left behind other provinces or other businesses, so that no graduate of a Manitoba university feels compelled to leave the province just because there is a desire to function through a corporate entity in another jurisdiction. The ability to retain and attract professionals is important to maintain the level of services provided by the highly skilled practitioners in Manitoba, and Manitobans in general will be better served as a result of our efforts.

I would add that the practitioners who will benefit the most from incorporation are the smaller firms and not the larger multipractitioner national firms with an office in Manitoba. Many of the larger firms are already able to organize themselves to take partial advantage of incorporation through the use of professional management companies. This is particularly important to recognize in rural Manitoba where many professional practices are smaller, and the need to retain and attract professionals is greatest.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to indicate on behalf of our critic that we are prepared to pass this bill through to committee. It is a fairly technical act, but, as the minister points out, essentially the bottom line, the principle here is bringing us in line with what is happening in other jurisdictions, and that is something that I think is important.

We need to be in a position of being able to offer the same type of ability to have professional corporations, and it is going to make a difference, we believe, in terms of not only being competitive in a technical sense but making sure that we can attract professionals and keep professionals in this province. If we do not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with a situation in which we may lose people to other provinces.

So we are prepared to pass this bill through to committee and see an early passage on it. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, in listening to some of the contributions to the debate on this bill from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), we, too, do not have any problem in terms of passing the bill into committee.

But just as a bit of a cautionary note, I know I just left the committee in which there was a vote that was requested of the House, and I am somewhat concerned as one committee might be continuing to pass resolutions knowing full well when the other committee has actually risen. I would ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you take that into consideration immediately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I understand that a vote has been requested in one of the sections of the Committee of Supply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, I cannot recognize him. I have to be moved into committee.

Mr. Praznik: Then I would, with leave of the House, move that Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a section of the Committee of Supply to meet in this Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed]

It has been moved by the honourable government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and this House resolve itself into a section of the Committee of Supply to meet in this Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Committee will come to order.

Report

Mr. Ben Sveinson (Chairperson of the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255): Mr. Chairperson, in the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 to complete the consideration of the remaining Estimates resolutions, a voice vote was held on Resolution 7.10. Net Tax Credit Payments $181,800,000 from the Department of Finance. Following from the voice vote, it was declared that Yeas were in the majority. A request for a formal counted vote was then made by two members. I am now reporting that request.

Mr. Chairperson: A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.

The committee will come to order. In this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 to complete the consideration of the remaining Estimates resolutions, a voice vote was held on Resolution 7.10. Net Tax Credit $181,800,000. Following from the voice vote, it was declared that the Yeas were in the majority. A request for a formal counted vote was then made by two members. I am reporting that request.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 42, Nays 2.

Mr. Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly carried.

This section of the Committee of Supply will now rise and resume. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the composition of Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Wednesday, July 7, for 7 p.m.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, before you call Bill 42 for second reading, I would ask if you could call Bill 39 for continuation of debate on second reading?

* (1650)

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 39, The Medical Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi médicale), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I will be representing our side of the House with respect to this particular bill, and because of the fact that the matter can appropriately–and agencies and representatives will be there tonight–go to committee, we will be allowing this bill to be passed through to committee, although I have some major difficulties with this bill, and I have communicated that to the Minister of Health.

I will be looking in committee for government explanations of this bill. Just let me start at the onset. I have always had difficulty, and it is almost a speech that could be tape recorded on numerous occasions in this House with respect to effective omnibus bills, and those are bills that come in under a particular act and try to do various different things under an act. That creates real difficulty, because there may be components of the bill that we can support with no reservation and which we have no difficulty on. There may be parts we do not support or there may be parts in this case that raise enough questions that we have difficulty in determining what the government's intention is, and that is certainly the case with this bill.

Now the bill, Madam Speaker, deals with Parts 1, 2 and 3, outlined procedures for registering physicians, and for refusing to register, cancelling registration, et cetera. Part 4, it deals with the incorporation of a medical practice. Let me deal with Part 4. Part 4 has been a long-standing discussion and debate in this jurisdiction and in other jurisdictions with respect–

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the honourable members, having the private conversation at the back of the Chamber, could do so in the loge or outside the Chamber. The honourable member for Kildonan has the floor.

Mr. Chomiak: Certainly Part 4, that deals with the incorporation of medical practice, has been something that has been debated across in other jurisdictions and in Manitoba for some time. There is no doubt that it has a significant impact on the practice of medicine. Certainly this particular part of the bill will allow doctors to incorporate and provide them with the tax advantages and tax benefits that are commensurate with that particular activity, which is comparable to that which is allowed to other professionals. Certainly there are philosophical issues that we could debate in this regard, but I do not think we in this Chamber want to, insofar as other jurisdictions have allowed it as well and insofar as it is very hard, very difficult in this province to keep doctors here, I do not think we would want to hold up that portion of the bill or that particular aspect of it that would put our medical professionals at a disadvantage vis-à-vis medical professionals in other jurisdictions.

So that is a significant change in legislation in Manitoba, a significant change that in itself should be a major component of the bill. So we are certainly going to allow that bill to go to committee.

The part that I have more problems with is in respect to the other parts dealing with the registry portion, and again, the registry portion, there are many aspects of it that we agree with, but I am concerned about the part dealing with the clinical assistant registrar, which is Section 11. You know, generally, in the past, on matters of this kind we have been given advance notice of significant changes of this kind. We have been allowed to be briefed, and we have been allowed to discuss these issues prior to legislation coming forward. That has not been the case. I pointed out to the minister yesterday that I had a lot of questions on the section dealing with clinical assistant registrar.

I give the minister credit. He provided me with information last night and provided me with information just recently explaining some of the changes and some of the purposes that are intended under this particular amendment. I do not think we as legislators can make as significant a change as this without having an opportunity to discuss this with other professionals, with other groups and to determine what the ramifications are in a change of this kind. So I am still, we are still concerned about this particular section and what impact is intended by virtue of this particular amendment.

Madam Speaker, certainly there are serious questions that arise with respect to this clinical assistant registrar. For example, we have recently passed through legislation dealing with nurses and dealing with advanced practice nurses that allows them to establish a registry for advanced practice, which we are very supportive of. How does that relate to the registry for physician assistants? Does it mean that these physician assistants will supersede the advance practice nurses? Does it mean advance practice nurses will be entitled to the physician assistants? Do these two come into conflict? We do not know from this legislation.

Madam Speaker, what will be the impact of the physician assistants legislation on foreign-trained doctors who are Manitoba residents? Will it permit foreign-trained doctors to assume these positions and to advance to be recognized as practising physicians in Manitoba? Or will it be a dead end for foreign-trained Manitoba physicians who will be forced by virtue of this legislation to never attain their goal of being recognized in Manitoba and will be forced to only function as physician assistants?

Madam Speaker, when we are talking about a major innovation and change in the health care field by the introduction of physician assistants, I think it behooves us to spend more time and more explanation on this particular issue. For example, the issue of advanced practice nurses has been debated and has been bandied about in this province for years and only this year have we actually seen legislation. Now, we happen to have supported that position and have looked forward to that position for a long period of time, but I only point that out to illustrate the fact that we knew where we were going on that.

At this point, we see the introduction of a new category of medical practitioner in the province of Manitoba in the form of physician assistant. Now, the minister provided me with a briefing note that says, and I quote, 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 and comply with requirements to be set out in a regulation. It goes on to say: clinical assistants will work under direct or indirect supervision of a specifically assigned physician.

This implies to me, Madam Speaker, certainly, on the face of it, that we are going to a system in Manitoba of physician assistants. What impact will that have on Manitoba-based foreign-trained physicians? Will it be a dead end for them or will it be a stepping stone to be recognized as a full-fledged physician? What impact will it have on nurses who have only recently attained the right in legislation to practise as advanced nurses? These are serious questions and serious issues, and very rarely do we stand up in this Chamber and say this is a very difficult situation and we require a good deal more information.

The last time the act was amended, the college sat down with us in opposition. We had representation from them; we took the opportunity to spend time dealing with the amendments. We have not had that opportunity. At this late date, we have seen a bill that is introduced that will have significant change dealing with medical practice in Manitoba.

I want this to go through to committee because I want the opportunity at committee to review this bill and to deal with these changes to determine, in fact, what this is going to be. So having said those few comments, I certainly am welcoming the opportunity of debating this issue and dealing with this issue and having our questions and our responses answered at committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

* (1700)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, too, had a few words that I was going to put on the record on this particular bill just prior to its passage, but I understand the Chair of one of the committees or the government was likely going to be asking for some leave to go back into committee to deal with a vote, and then I would continue my remarks once we reconvene.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member can continue. I do not see the Chair of the committee. Oh, I am sorry. I apologize. I did not see the Chair.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Acting Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, by leave, Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and this House resolve itself into a section of the Committee of Supply to meet in this Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the acting government House leader (Mr. Reimer), seconded by the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), by leave, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Is there leave? [agreed]

Bill 39–The Medical Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: Order, please. We will now resume adjourned debate on second reading, Bill 39, The Medical Amendment Act. The honourable member for Inkster had been identified to speak on the bill.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I was just wanting to conclude my remarks by saying we do not have any problem with this bill going into committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 39, The Medical 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. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that Bill 39 is referred to the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations which is meeting this evening at 7 p.m.

Madam Speaker: Bill 39 will be referred to the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations which is meeting this evening at 7 p.m.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I believe we called earlier for the order, that we would go back to second readings, introduction for second readings, the next being Bill 42 and then Bill 44, followed by continuation of debate on second readings for Bill 35 and Bill 43, and then if time permits, to begin third readings of bills as they appear on the Order Paper.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 42, The Community Protection and Liquor Control Amendment Act (Loi sur la protection des collectivités et modifiant la Loi sur la réglementation des alcools), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to introduce an innovative bill, the only one of its kind in Canada, which would help communities across Manitoba restore the enjoyment and safety of their neighbourhoods. It has become clear that an effective response to the conditions that favour the development of crime must take into account the local issues and needs, as well as the strengths of our communities. This government has taken an aggressive approach to the design and implementation of legislation to combat these conditions. This approach builds upon the strength and commitment of neighbourhood groups, mobilizing them to create safer communities and empowering them to take back our streets.

The Community Protection and Liquor Control Amendment Act is designed to stop certain types of ongoing activities that cause the deterioration of our communities. The act empowers communities to seek judicial remedies to stop these activities that affect the peaceful enjoyment and safety of our neighbourhoods. The bill targets five activities that cause the deterioration of our communities. These are, first, the habitual use or sale of nonbeverage alcohol products such as hairspray and mouthwash; second, the habitual use or sale of an inhalant such as glue, gasoline and nail polish remover; third, the habitual use or sale of illicit drugs; fourth, prostitution and activities related to prostitution; finally, the habitual sale of liquor without a licence.

This bill outlines a three-tiered process for stopping these activities which impact so severely on our communities. The first tier is an application for a cessation notice to the Provincial Court. The court must be satisfied that the applicant has a reasonable belief that one or more of the five activities just referred to is habitually taking place at a specified building and is adversely affecting the neighbourhood or community. Once issued, a cessation notice requires the owner of a residential or commercial building to stop the activities taking place on the premises whether or not the owner is an active participant. If the activity continues, notwithstanding the fact that the court has issued a cessation notice, the applicant can seek a community protection order, the second tier of judicial remedy available.

The community protection order is obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench. The court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities that activities are occurring that lead to the court to conclude that the building in question is being habitually used for one or more of the five activities in question. If the applicant is successful, the effect of the order is to enjoin any person from causing or permitting the activities to continue. The third tier is a closure order, and it may be sought where the activity continues, despite the community protection order. The closure order is obtained from the Court of Queen's Bench. The court has authority to order that building be vacated for up to 90 days.

The bill also contains an important provision for an immediate application before the Court of Queen's Bench for the emergency closure of a building where there exists an immediate threat to the safety or security of its occupants or persons living in the neighbourhood.

* (1740)

The bill contains a variety of offences and penalties for failure to comply with orders issued by the court. These offences are designed to facilitate compliance with the court orders issued pursuant to the legislation. The bill would also amend The Liquor Control Act to create an offence where a licensee permits illegal activities to occur in licensed premises. A conviction of such an offence could lead to licence suspension proceedings under The Liquor Control Act.

A special new community safety unit will be established under the supervision of the director of public safety to assist individuals and community groups with the preparation of court applications. The bill provides communities with a concrete tool for addressing the conditions in their communities. It is this type of direct intervention which can help to reclaim neighbourhoods from those whose activities lead to destruction and disintegration of communities.

The bill represents a fair and balanced approach for creating safer communities, adopting a moderate incremental approach for dealing with owners and occupants. There are notice requirements at each state of the court proceedings and the court is authorized to dismiss applications and award costs where appropriate.

In closing, Madam Speaker, this bill represents a valuable new tool for neighbourhoods that are now under pressure from conditions that favour the development of crime. The bill will allow the province to exercise its jurisdiction to counteract these destructive conditions. I recommend this bill to you and ask that it be referred to a committee of the Legislature for review.

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): After 11 years of puffery and token measures by the government, what have we got in this province? We have become known as the gang capital of Canada, the sniff capital of Canada, the robbery capital of Canada, the auto theft capital of Canada. We suffer the highest increase in violent youth crime of all the provinces since 1990, and yet the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had the gall to put together some TV ads saying how tough the government was on gangs. Well, Madam Speaker, we have become known as the street gang capital of Canada under the watch of this Premier. Yet on these ads the Premier is saying, we are passing tough new anti-gang laws, not realizing or, I am afraid, probably indeed knowing entirely, that it had never passed a single anti-gang law in the course of its 11-year mandate.

I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) tried to make this strange argument that the anti-john law was an anti-gang law, and yet we see more escort services now than ever in the history of this city. Prostitution continues unabated. I saw it again this morning on the streets as I came on the bus to work.

So they said, by gosh, we had better get an anti-gang law into that Legislature because we are going to really look like fools, but we do look like fools. We had better find something right away, and they said we had better not bring in a law that really is going to do something because that is just not in our grain. You know, we have to keep this crime thing so that we can talk tough, you see. You can talk tough. But, if we start to walk the walk, it will make it look like indeed we have not done anything over the last 11 years. So, ta-da, ta-da, they bring in this legislation.

Now I do not know, and I want to know from the minister what consultations took place. I want to know what community organizations were consulted. There is no doubt that we have to do things differently in this province. We have to get serious with the ugly face of crime that has developed in this jurisdiction. We have to deal with the underlying social problems. The question is: is this the way to do it? Is this indeed a tool, or are there better, more effective tools? Is this the solution, as the minister says, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) says?

There is no doubt at first this legislation sounds good. The Parental Responsibility Act sounded good; the principle, no one could dispute, legislation that did not look too bad, although we tried to pass amendments to make that legislation truly workable and meaningful for ordinary Manitobans. We tried to make that legislation work for victims of violent crimes because the government is only concerned about property crime under that legislation. But, oh, no, they rejected all those amendments. After four years, there is not one known parent who has been made financially responsible under that legislation, not one known victim that has been given restitution under that legislation.

It sounded good, Madam Speaker. It sounded good going into an election campaign. But let us look at this legislation. This legislation puts into statute law what is generally available under the common law tort of nuisance.

There are two kinds of nuisance in fact. One is the public nuisance, which obligates the Minister of Justice and only the Attorney General to take action. For example, in British Columbia, the Attorney General there took the responsibility to deal with a public nuisance. That was prostitution in a particular neighbourhood, and went to court and got a court order to deal with that prostitution problem.

Well, the other tort of nuisance is private nuisance. Now, you can sue your neighbour right now if your neighbour is a nuisance. There are certain tests that have to be met indeed, but the reason that the neighbours do not sue the neighbours are manifold, and the most obvious is it costs a lot of money. I know, I practised litigation law. It costs in the area of $5,000 easily, and that is with no appeal and just one simple application by affidavit evidence to go to court to get an order.

So do victims of a nuisance, do victims in a neighbourhood want to go to court, pay $5,000 to a lawyer, not knowing at all whether they will be successful, and likely not getting damages? Of course not. It is not enough that the government says, in response to these serious challenges facing Manitobans, go sue. It is saying to the victims in the neighbourhoods go sue. Hire a lawyer, spend $5,000, $10,000, I do not know if you will succeed. Not only that, it says to the victims here you go get the certificates of title, go get that, go hire your lawyer, find your lawyer, pay your filing fees, maybe be liable for costs, go and even post a notice on the affected property if you are successful.

So the act requires a community member to place him or herself potentially in danger, by standing up to gang members, for example. Some may want to do that, but does this not call for an administrative response? Or a better use of police and by-law enforcement? The reason that neighbours do not sue neighbours right now in nuisance is because they can call the police and often the police will be able to shut down a gang house or a crack house or brothel, or they can call the city and they may or may not be able to act. I am not going to say that the current system is good enough, because it is not.

We are prepared to accept this legislation on the understanding that the government is going to rethink immediately why it is simply going to put the obligation back on victims to go sue. We ask this government to instead take on the obligation, if it is so concerned about this problem of pursuing these matters to court, whether through a prosecutor or through the civil litigation branch, that it takes conduct of this matter, that it takes responsibility for the case or that there be another administrative response. It is not good enough that the victims be victimized, that they be made open to retribution, as could happen here. One police officer said in response to the announcement here, well, it looks like it would not hurt. Well, that is not good enough.

* (1750)

So we will ask the government not to impose this kind of obligation on victims, that it takes some leadership, it takes some responsibility, and it works indeed in partnership with local community groups and communities and individuals who are victimized by these challenges. The partnership will instead work much better than what we see here. We will give the government some benefit of the doubt here. We do not oppose this legislation. We will move it forward and hope the government is listening to this, the minister is listening to this, so that we can indeed get serious about these challenges. Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very quickly. We look at Bill 42 as an actual additional resource for community members, ultimately. One can call into question, as we do in terms of the timing of much of the legislation and the reason why we have it before us today, and as been attributed in the past, much of the legislation no doubt appears because there is an election just around the corner.

Having said that, I believe that what it does do is it gives more empowerment to our community members, which, in a real sense, can be a very positive thing. Whether community members take advantage of it or not, it sends a very strong message. I think that the message that it sent is one of a positive nature, whether it is our crack houses or brothels, I think there is widespread support that government does have a responsibility. Quite frankly, action speaks far more than words, and we would have liked to have seen a government more aggressive in dealing with these problems.

Having said that, we recognize with the election around the corner that that could be the motivating factor for bringing Bill 42 today, but it is a bill which we do have support for.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 42, The Community Protection and Liquor Control 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. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I understand that a further vote in Committee of Supply has been requested.

Therefore, by leave, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into a section of the Committee of Supply to meet in this Chamber to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed]