Manitoba Hansard — 10 March 1992 (Sitting 26, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature ofthe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis c. Rocan Spesker VOL. XLI No. 26-1:30 p.m., TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1992 Printed by the Office of the Q.-ns Printer, Provlnct� of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thlrty·Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, louise DERK ACH, leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARM E, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Ciif EVANS, leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESH AMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLI N, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORI E, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park FlinAon La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY liberal NDP NDP liberal NDP liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC - PC NDP liberal PC NDP PC NDP liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

1108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, March 10 , 19 92 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PR ESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Aida Hildebrand, Leslie Nicol, Lynn Carrier e a nd others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) : Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jennifer Aitken, Laura Kaminsky, Debra Matejicka and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with r.hild abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to presentthe petition of Danielle Fillion, George Shrier, Mandy Peters and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Shauna Neuistiuk, Karen Kouhi, Denise Tattrie and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk) : Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Louise Davidson, Christie Flett, Kim McDonald and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr.

Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 19 88 to conduct an examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal people; and The AJI delivered its report in August of 19 91 and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self-gover nmen t and the right of aboriginal comm unities to establish an aboriginal justice system; and The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many others, also recommended both aboriginal self-government and a separate and parallel justice system; and On January 28, 19 92, five months after releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and Despite the all-party task force report which endorsed aboriginal self-government, the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an aboriginal justice commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba sho w a str ong comm itm en t to abor iginal self-government by considering reversing its position on the AJI by suppor ting the rec omme ndations wit hin its jurisdiction and imple menting a separate and paral lel justice system. (Mr. Lathlin) Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourabl e memb ers to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today, Mr.

Newell Searle, who is a Deputy Comm issioner ofthe Minnesota Department of Agriculture. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also this afternoon, we have from the Grosse Isle School, seventeen Grade 6 students. They are

1109 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 under the direction of Edna Noren. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. • (1 335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Budget Post-seco ndary Educauon Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, last year the government stated one of their pr iorities was allegedly the Education department of the government.

Unfortunately, after they stated this in many speeches and in many proclamations, they came forward with their budget last year, which produced a reduction in the size of the PACE program in the province of Manitoba of close to $1 0 million, a reduction of over 1 00 staff in our community colleges and a reduction in the enrollments in our commu nity colleges by 1 ,000 career opportunities and courses and some 5,000 in the evening school grants.

My question to the Premier is: Is he going to restore the 11 percent cut that he made and his government made when he was head of Treasury Board in our post-secondary education area , particularly in the area of community colleges and oth er ar eas which are key to Man itoba 's improvement and investment in our youth and an investment in the skills that are necessary for the young people of Manitoba to meet the needs of the future? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, last year, despite very, very difficult circumstances that saw us with virtually flat revenues, almost no increase with which to deal, this government was able to pass along an increase of $90 million on health care spending and also a 3 percent increase to education in Manitoba. That contrasts with a 1 percent increase that is being passed along by the NDP government of Ontario. We have to do what is necessary in order to preserve the health care, the education and the social services of this province.

Despite tremendous pressures on us from the international recession in which we are all engaged, we will continue to do our best. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to wait for tomorrow's budget and to make his judgment as to our comm itme nts to education based on that budget. Budget Post-Sec ondary Education Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr . Speaker, my question Is to the new head of Treasury Board .

Last year's budget decisions in the department of post-secondary education, the second largest behind Natural Resources' decline in government support of 11 percent reduction, as I said before , resulted In over 1 ,000 course opportunities being lost in the enrollment numbers in the commun ity colleges, and we lost 5,000 people who were involved in adult education through the evening school grant program .

I would ask the Minister of Finance, head of Treasury Board, whether the decisions they made last year in government by the former head of Treasury Board were cost effective In terms of investing in our adults, investing in our youth and investing in our future. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I regret I did not bring with me the detail of the third quarterly report, but I do have the gross amounts for the Department of Educati on. Mr.

Speaker, 19 91 -92, as compared to the year previously, we have comm itted cash-an additional $66 million flowed in '91 -92 in the first three quarters of the fiscal year as compared to '90-91 in education. A goodly portion of that was in post-secondary education. I do not know on what basis the member is preparing his question. I can say to him with respect to the budget that is forthcoming that there will be announcements that will flow from it with respect to re-establishing some market-driven training, and I am sur e that he will be happy with those announcements.

Community Colleges Applied Sciences Courses Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I would quote from documents relating to a $1 0-million or 11 percent decline in the budget year over year and 14 2 staff years that were lost. After the Premier (Mr. Filmon) accused us of fearmongering on 10 0 jobs, we ended up losing 14 2 last year in the department. A further question to the minister, head of Treasury Board. Last year, the government cut the applied sciences courses at Red River Community

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1110 College and other commun ity colleges. Business people and academic people across this province, in dealing with biotechnology, chemical technology and other courses, have said that this is very bad for the future technological innovations of this province, very bad for the future health care industry of this province. Many, many business people and other academics have asked the government to reverse the decision.

Will the new head of Treasury Board reverse the bad decision that the former head of Treasury Board made by cutting this program and start investing in the future, rather than cutting back as the Premier did as head of Treasury Board last time? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I find it deplorable the manner in which the member asks the question, given my newer responsibility as head of Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, as compared to the Premier in his past role. Mr.

Speaker, we acknowledged last year, when we made decisions with respect to our comm unity colleges, that we were going to go through a re-evaluation of some certain number of courses, that we would remove those that were not delivering a product that the market needed. We did that. We fully indicated what our plans were, and we said that in this fiscal year, once there was an opportunity for adjustments to flow through the system, we would build in programs in keeping with the mar ket demand. Those announcements will be forthcoming in due course.

I say to the member, he will be satisfied with those announcements. • (1 340) Health Care System Spending Decisions Ms. Judy Wasylycl a-Lels (St. Johns) : Mr. Speaker, again today we have information about this government's real intentions and agenda when it comes to health care, clearly an agenda of health care cutbacks dressed up in a poor disguise of health care reform. The evidence today is similar to what we have been raising in this House for the last two weeks, of cuts to urban hospitals to the tune of $27 million over two years, a further cut of 400 beds or transferred beds out of our urban hospitals.

We would like to ask the minister today, for the sake of dealing with fear among Manitobans and poor morale in our hospitals, will he please come forward with the information about the options he has presented to our urban hospitals and decisions he has been making to hospital budgets and bed cuts? • (1 340) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speake r, I welcome my honourable friend's question which was premised on evidence and decisions, et cetera. The decisions made by this government have been consistent in the last three and a haH years.

Our decisions in the management of $1 .8 billion of health care spending will have one overriding focus and that is provision of service to the patient, to the individual Manitoban who needs to access health care services in the province of Manitoba. In accomplishing that, we have brought together probably the finest group of individuals in North America to analyze what we have accomplished in our spending in the health care system, again with research tied to the effectiveness and to the outcome of health care spending on improving the health status of Manitobans.

That has led us to decisions, for instance, such as vastly increasing the Home Care budget so that we can care for more individuals in the community rather than relying on expensive institutional care. That is why we announced earlier this year, after several years of study and preparation, mental health reform which moved services from high-cost institutions to the community, again for the patients' sake and to provide quality health care services to those patients in Manitoba needing care . Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, in light of this minister ignoring our concerns last year and then cutting hospital budgets to the tune of $19 million, will the minister today accept responsibility for informing the public of critical decisions this government is making with respect to health care, come clean and let us know the actual decisions- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped my honourable friend, after numerous reminders, might stop using misleading statements in her questions such as cutbacks, reduced funding.

My honourable friend well knows that in four successive budgets we have increased the funding of health care, including hospital budgets,

1111 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 significant increases to the Home Care budget to support institutional care when it is moved from the institution to the community. We have tak e n seriousl y, although my honourable friend does not care to admit it, the advice that she and other observers of the health care system have made that we must change the focus of the system, centre it on the service delivery to the patient, not on where the service happens but what the service is and its availability to the individual.

That is why we have moved consistently from ins titut ions, where app ropriate, to community-based services for the benefit- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: The numbers he refutes are alive and weii- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. *

(1345) Brandon General Hospital Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): How can this minister cut beds, close wards, lay off nurses, as he did in the case in Brandon, do nothing to improve commun ity health services and then say, as he did in Brandon, that these cuts will preserve and improve health care? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speaker, I did not expect my honourable friend, in her naivete, to deal with the Brandon hospital issue and talk about cuts in the community.

I want to point out to my honourable friend that in the last year that she determined the budget for Brandon General Hospital, it was just over $32 million. This year, that budget will be just under $41 million, a 28 percent increase. At the same time, Home Care services, to acc ommoda te the shift in service from the institution to the comm unity, has gone from the last time my honourable friend determined the budget of- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: The word cut- Mr. Speaker: On a point of order? Order, please. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, while my honourable friend was in cabinet deciding the Home Care budget for the city of Brandon in the last year that she had that responsibility, it was $424,276. Do you know what it is going to be this year after four of our budgets? $1 ,056,000-more than double the budget to provide almost double the services to people in the community in their homes, a policy my honourable friend seems not wont to agree with. Health Care System Bed Closures Mr. Guizar ChHma (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Minister of Health has long criticized the NDP for the policy for ordering the closure of beds for a financial reaso n. Mr. Speaker, now we have learned, and Manitobans know, that there will be at least a closure of 100 beds in the Winnipeg teaching hospital. Can the minister simply tell us what his reasons are, what statistics he has? Can he share with us today so that people can make a judgment? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health) : Mr.

Speaker, I have in the past criticized my honourable friends when in government, as New Democrats, in making decisions without a planned information base to judge their decisions. Mr. Speaker, in the example of the Brandon General Hospital , to answer my honourable friend's question, they have consolidated a number of wards to meet patient care needs in the hospital. It is lower in terms of bed numbers than what it was two and three and four years ago. Why? Because we have funded a significant day surgery program in which patients receive their surgery without admission to ab ed.

We have increased substantially the Home Care budget, Sir, which allows people to be cared for in their homes, where they want to be. We more than doubled that budget in Brandon. That has allowed the commu nity and the institution to work together to provide appropriate health care and not fund the staffing of empty hospital beds. That is a program change which is good for the health care system. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Speaker, if 200 beds from the smaller comm unity hospitals are to be distributed, can he tell this House where these beds are going to go, and can he again share with us information so that people can make a judgment which hospital needs- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here today, I cannot give my honourable friend those kinds of

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 1112 indications. What I can indicate to my honourable friend is that in our program delivery, our funding and our management within the health care system, to the degree possible within government, one individual will remain at the centre of our planning decisions. That individual will be the patient receiving needed health care. My honourable friend has criticized in the past, and rightfully so, that it is Inappropriate, at $800 per day average bed cost at a teaching hospital, that we have a person panelled for personal care home waiting. We agree.

The only thing is that two and three years ago, when my honourable friend made that criticism, we did not understand the dynamics of the system and how we could make the system work to provide that needed care in a more appropriate location. We think we do now. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Urban Hospital Council is attempting government to craft in terms of program and policy with the patient needs at the centre of our decision making. * (1 350) Bed Closure Co-ordination Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, with the major changes coming, can the minister tell this House who will be co-ordinating action between the hospitals so that acute care services are not totally eliminated out of Winnipeg hospitals? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speaker, I know my honourable friend is seeking as much information as I can possibly provide him. Let me simply give my honourable friend the assurance that in terms of acute care services, i.e., bed admissions for major surgeries and for accidents, et cetera, those will remain a very key and integral part of hospital care delivery.

That, Sir, is what our hospitals are meant to do and will continue to do. I do not think anyone made the case, however, that hospitals, particularly as my honourable friend has indicated in the past, teaching hospitals ought to be where we panel long-term care patients in an interim per iod of time. That service is not appropriately delivered in a sophisticated teaching hospital. That is the kind of reform in process, with the patient again at the centre of all changes, that we make to guarantee that the services as needed are provided to the patients of Manitoba. Education System Funding Formula Mr.

Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Last week we heard about 50 job losses at St. Vital School Division. Yesterday, it was Evergreen School Division's turn to cut jobs. Tonight, Transcona-Springfield School Division will be forced to cut further positions, and not just one or two. Does this minister have any idea what the effects of her funding model will be on school divisions? How many more divisions will face layoffs as a result of the governmenfs inequitable funding model? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to remind my honourable friend that this government supported an increase to the public school system of 3 percent, much greater than the 1 percent of Ontario. We reduced the ESL by one mill rate on residential pr oper ties, and we in cre ased accessibility to the phase-in funds last week for school divisions. Now I trust, with those benefits, that school divisions will make then the appropriate and responsible decisions in conjunction with their ratepayers. Independent Schools Funding Formula Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.

Can this minister outline what the job situation is at private schools that got an 11 percent increase last year and will get 1 0 percent increase this year from this government, Mr. Speaker? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the honourable member again that the funding for independent schools has not yet been announced. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well the formula is locked in- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Education System Funding Formula Support Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister.

She has indicated that the funding formula has been approved by all of these groups. Can she

1113 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 table one letter from MAST, MTS, MASBO or any single organization involved in education that approves of this funding model and the effects it Is having on education in the province? * (1 355) Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the proof is that those mem bers came together around the table and developed the formula, so the proof is in the action and in the behaviour of those member s who developed the funding formula. Free Trade Agree ment Lumber Tariff Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr.

Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). The Free Trade Agreement is supposed to protect jobs for Cana dians. Sinc e the Free Trade Agreement has been in existence we have taken a severe beating in terms of job losses. Seven out of nine rulings recently have gone against us, and as a result of those rulings against us, we have lost jobs. We have not protected those jobs. My question is for the Minister of Finance, again. Yesterday , the Prime Minister took time out to acknowledge that this country will be losing millions of dollars of jobs with new American duties on lumber.

My question is: What action has this minister and the government taken to protest the potential job losses that are there? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the decision the honourable member is referring to is a preliminary decision brought down a couple of days ago. The process Is that a final decision still remains and the case will be put forward by the federal government. That decision is being made in July of this year. Based on the findings of that decision, there is still another me chanis m In te rms of the appeal mechanism through the Canada-U.S.

Free Trade Agreement. This issue Is far from over at this particular point in time, and there are other processes to be followed for a final decision to be reached. Mr. Lathlln: Mr. Speaker, we know that this government is- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please. Mr. Lathlln: My question is very straightforward, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister contact today the major sawmills of this province and put forward a united fight to preserve those important employers in rural and northern Manitoba? Mr.

Stefanson: I should point out, how this originated is there was a previous export tax in place in provinces across Canada. Manitoba had one. It was at the request of the industry that that export tax in fact be removed to make the industry itself more competitive. A result of the removal of that export tax was the introduction of the tariff in the United States. It is that tariff that is being appealed, will be appealed by the federal govern ment, and we support the appeal for the removal of that tariff.

In the long term, with the removal of that tariff, the opportunities for the lumber industry in Manitoba and across Canada will be significantly enhanced. We support the removal of that tariff, Mr. Speaker. Repap ManHoba Inc. Treaty Land Entitlements Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): My final question is: Will the Minister of Finance, in his reconsideration of the pulp and paper mill project in The Pas, also be negotiating with the Cross Lake Indian Band over land claims and not leave everything up to Repap, because Repap does not legally have that mandate and this government does? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): We are presently developing the agenda for renegotiation, and we will undoubtedly discuss as the member has Indicated, the issue that he brings forward. At this point in time, we do not have a set position as to how we may deal with that particular area. One could surmise that maybe Repap might not even want that to be included in a new reconfigured area. Ther e are an awful lot of different assumptions and different points of view that one can bring to that specific point.

At this point in time, restructuring and renegotiation has not occurred, and therefore, we have not set into place our hard thinking on that issue. BFI waste Systems Landfill Site Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment.

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1114 On February 18 , 19 and 20, BFI held three public meetings in three rural municipalities north of the city of Winnipeg. The subject of those meetings was a proposed private landfill site which BFI is presently in the process of siting.

We have been informed by residents of the area who attended those meetings that a number of Department of Environment officials at one meeting, at least three of them, attended those meetings and gave residents the very clear impression from their presence at the front of the room with BFI that they were there in support of this proposed landfill site. Why were Department of Environment officials there ? At whose request? Were they only appearing- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Glen Cummings {Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, Department of Environment people are called upon to attend large numbers of meetings to provide information, to provide background when que stions are ask ed. That should not be interpreted as support of projects by appearing there. We are a neutral body there to provide information. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, for the minister, it was interpreted as support- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Edwards: Can the minister tell us whether or not BFI's proposal is for a landfill site that will accept biomedical waste, and if so, given the even greater risk associated with this type of waste, why were Department of Environment officials so careless in being seen to be so clearly in support of this project for the residents who were there? * (1 400) Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the member would choose to, in my opinion, spread what I would consider unsubstantiated rumours about the attendance first of all of the officials, or secondly, what the information was at that meeting.

If he wants to discuss the specifics of that project, I will have to wait until I have received all the information before I can respond to the question. Mr. Edwards: Can the minister explain how it is that BFI is now claiming as a result of those meetings that 60 percent of the local residents are in support of this project when those attending the meeting tell us that the majority clearly oppos$d the pr oj ects? Did the depar tm en t have any involvement in this alleged balloting, and who counted the ballots, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the question is entirely hypothetical and somewhat silly.

Long Plain Indian Reserve Tree-G rowing Contract Mr. Edward Connery {Portage Ia Prairie) : Mr. Speaker, the NDP constantly falsely accuse our government of not providing jobs for native people. On the Long Plain Indian Reserve southwest of Por t age , the federal gove rnment built a state-of-the-art greenhouse for growing trees. Unfortunately, through the NDP reign, they never did get a contract to grow trees. Fortunately, the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, three years ago, provided them with a contract to grow trees for the provincial government, and they are still doing so.

I would ask the minister if he could indicate to this Legislature how many jobs this has creat$d and how important this is to our natural resources in Manitoba? Hon. Harry Enns {Min is ter of Na tur al Resources): Mr. Speak er, I am plea sed to acknowledge and inform honourable members of the House that the Dakota Plains people are in fact contributing to the reforestation efforts of this government. They have very successfully nurtured and gr own jus t about a mill ion see dlings, 900,000-odd seedlings, of a quality that certainly matches the standards that the department sets. Mr. Connery: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister tell us if this is a one-year shot, or is there any longevity to this contract? Mr. Enn s : Mr. Speaker, I can inform the honourable me mb er, and per haps mo re importantly, the 18 aboriginal workers who are growing these trees in Dakota, that I have been able to, with the co-operation of the federal government, work this into our five-year forestry agreement. That in effect means that they have this kind of contractual arrangement for the next five years. Mr.

Speaker, while I am on my feet, I know the honourable members are interested, but that in general terms -we talk about the commercial harvest of our trees-can be expressed, we cut down about 9 million trees and plant 14 million to 15

1115 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 1 0, 1992 million trees. That is in contrast to the 4 million and 5 million trees that the previous administration planted just a few years ago. Beer Industry U.S. Aluminum Containers Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): The Manitoba beer indus try , Mr. Speaker, is a model for environmen tally responsible handling of waste packaging. They have a system to ensure that over 95 percent of bottles are returned and reused. In 19 89, the NDP prevented this government from allowing that to be disrupted by having cans influx from the American beer industry.

My question is for the Minister of Environment. What proposals does this government have to ensure that the beer industry is not wiped out in Manitoba and we are left to dispose of American beer cans? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment) : Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a number of concerns that have been raised about a possible influx of American beer in aluminum containers, i.e., a one-way packaging proposal.

I am very pleased to say that we are in the process of very shortly releasing regulations on beverage containers in this province that will set some very specific targets and allow us to move very quickly into further regulation if those targets are not met. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, will the government ensure that American beer companies will have to compete fairly with Canadian companies? Will the minister institute a deposit on these American cans? Mr. Cummings: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to enunciate policy on the fly, but I can assure- An Honourable Member: The Liberals do it all the time. Mr. Cummings: -well, in contrast to the group of seven. Mr. Speaker, it is an issue that we will be keeping a close watch on and certainly believe that there is a compatible way of dealing with importation and dealing with waste disposal at the same time. Ms. Cerllll : Mr. Speaker, the beer industry has been waiting since the end of January to have this issue addressed.

Will the minister, in his consideration of having the deposit system, also look at having the revenue from this system go into a fund, an environmental fund, similar to the innovation fund? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, if the member is referring to setting up, as has happened in some jurisdictions, sort of an environmental slush fund, I think that would be inappropriate.

The fact is we have very strong capability through the WRAP Act to make sure that those who are responsible for the waste can be held responsible and will pay the freight and pay the costs of collection removal from the waste stream, so we will take care of this waste in that manner. Civil Service Voluntary Incentive Program Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, on January 22, the Minister of Finance announced the voluntary separation incentive program , which he hoped would eliminate the need or reduce the need to lay off as many as 300 civil servants this year.

I wonder if he can tell the House today, how many people have taken advantage of that program? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for and charged wHh the administration of The Civil Service Act) : Mr. Speaker, for the information of the honourable member, at the time we made the announcement of the voluntary incentive program, we identified about a maximum of 300 positions that could be affected by the budget of which 200 were presently filled.

We have had some, over 200 I believe, applications to take advantag e of that process, and the matching is now well underway to match applicants to take advantages of this with people who are in positions that could be affected by this budget. Mr. Alcock: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is very good news. Civil Service Staff Layoffs Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne) : Why then is the government issuing pink slips to civil servants in a variety of departments? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) explained the position well.

We are trying to match the maximum number of voluntary withdrawals from the Civil Service with those who may be affected with decisions. Unfortunately, we cannot make a 1 00 percent match, so there will be some people

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1116 who will be affected; that was per the announcement made. This year we are probably providing some earlier notice, to those who may be affected, than we were in last year's budget. Mr. Alcock: Perhaps the Minister of Finance could tell us how many people have been provided with his "earlier notice" since the first of this year? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I cannot provide that number. Certainly, I know I was speaking to one department today.

For instance, there were going to be 20 individuals in their department who were going to be impacted by budgetary decisions. Fourteen at this time, of course, were saved harm as a result of the voluntary withdrawal. That is at this time, and indeed there may be a higher number within that departm ent, so there is no fixed number at this point in time. * (1410 ) Civil Service Staff Layoffs Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Well, Mr. Speaker, following on the last member's question, the 400 jobs that have been identified, we now learn that, as has been said, some 300 to 400 positions, pink slips are being issued.

Forty-nine jobs, we understand, are being lost in Child and Family Services. There are jobs being lost in Government Services and purchasing as a result of contracting out, cutbacks in Finance, cutbacks to farmers in terms of layoffs of entomologists in Agriculture and up to 50 jobs lost in Na tural Resources as a result of this government's sweetheart deal with Linnet.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Com mission if in fact he has undertaken an impact study for all regions of this province so that the government knows, before making this kind of a decision, what the impact will be on jobs in the various regions of this province and on those local economies. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act) : Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to-a gain for the information of the member for Dauphin, we were not talking 300 to 400, as he would stretch it out to be.

We identified about a maximum of 300 positions that could be affected by this budget. I noticed as well the member referred to contracting out, which if I read the news reports correctly, was an issue in their recent strike with their own employees. Before the member gets on a high horse in this House today, he should examine.how they operate their own party. I can tell the member that when we made the announcement of the voluntary incentive program and identified well in advance of the budget the maximum number of positions involved, myself and the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) met with the repres entatives of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association and myself later with the Professional Engineers, the second bargaining unit. We discussed how we could handle this matter, and in fact, the reason why it was being done this year in advance of the budget was to accommodate a request that the MGEA made of us last year. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this government obviously has not done an impact study, nor do they know how many layoffs. They are confused in their normal type of operation.

How can this minister justify the cutbacks in jobs and services in rural Manitoba when we already have a rural economy tha t is reeling from a depressed agricultural economy, from cutbacks in rural economic development, from offloading on municipalities? How can this minister justify those kinds of layoffs? Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, the longer I listen to members of the New Democratic Party, the more I am amazed sometimes, because they are the party that claims to be the party of labour.

The member for Dauphin has totally ignored the fact that we live with a collective agreement and that collective agreem ent stipulates cert ain rules affecting employees if we are reducing positions. As we indicated to the bargaining units at the time we made the announcement, we would be working very hard to reduce the number of employees affected. Obviously as we have gone through the process, departments have identified applicants where they could make a match.

Budget decisions have been made-budget decisions that the member, I would hope, would recall, from his days in government, are made on an ongoing basis almost up to budget day. We have tried to minimize those results, and one will have to wait for that process to be complete before we will have final numbers. It is an ongoing process subject to the collective agreement, as the member should know.

1117 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 Decentrali zation Status Repo rt Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this minister how many more, if he knows, of course-he does not seem to know what is going on- job s are being lost in the decentralization initiative even further. They have cut back on decentralization. How much further is the decentralization being reduced? How many fewer jobs are being transferred to- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act) : Mr.

Speaker, again for the benefit of the member for Dauphin, the process is such that it is an ongoing process at identifying individuals. If an individual has applied for the voluntary incentive program and he can make a match with an employee who has been identified and we make the match, that individual will not even be affected by the budget announcements that will be made shortly.

H we have individuals who are in an area where there is going to be a reduction in staff and a number apply for voluntary incentive programs to retire and it is accepted, it may result in elimination of a position without even an occupant. Until that process is complete- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. Nonpolitical Statements Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Selkirk have leave to ma ke a non pol itical statement? An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. It is agreed. Mr.

Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words about the long delayed recognition of Louis Riel by the federal House of Com mo ns. As members are no doubt aware, earlier today the House of Comm ons finally passed a motion recognizing the achievements of Louis Riel over a century after he was hanged. I want to table that motion in the House today, because I think it is a significant recognition long overdue. Louis Riel was truly the founder of this province. It was through the work of Louis Riel, then the leader of the Metis nation that this province came together.

In 18 67-68, as the secretary of the national committee of the Metis, he issued a declaration of the people of Rupert's Land in the northwest. On December 23, 19 68, he became head of the provisional government of Red River. Riel led Manitoba into Confederation with The Manitoba Act of May 12, 18 70. In 18 70, under his leadership the Metis adopted a list of rights which he used to negotiate terms for the admission of Rupert's Land in the northwestern territory into the Dominion of Canada. Formal transfer of power occurred on July 15 , 18 70.

Riel was leader elected three times to the federal House of Commons beginning with the by-election in 18 73. Tr agically, he was later prevented from taking his seat in the House of Commons. As members are aware, he was hanged in 18 85 for his leadership in defending the rights and freedoms of the Metis people. The recognition he received today is long overdue. As a founder of this province, Louis Riel is truly one of the major historical figures in this country. I can only hope, as a Metis person myself, that his dreams will finally be realized over the coming years. Hon.

Har ry Enns (M inis ter of Natural Resources): I ask lea ve for a nonp olitical statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave. It is agreed. Mr. Enns: I simply want t o associate myseH with the comments expressed. It is indeed an historic occasion that we pause to recognize, what I certainly have no difficulty in recognizing, a founder of this province, a nation-builder of Canada, one who has indeed a long and colorful history in the annals of our country. I speak as the member for Lakeside within whose boundaries the comm unities of St.

Laurent are located, housing many of the Metis homes and families that, in fact, date back to the historic events that occurred here in this province in the year 18 70 in its very formation and to the more trag ic ending of that era 15 years later at Batoche in 18 85. Among my friends I count the current leader of the Manitoba Metis Federation; one Yvon Dumont who traces his ancestry back to Gabriel Dumont who was

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1118 indeed a lieutenant, often considered the military support arm of the young Metis nation, as they refer to themselves. I say with some great deal of satisfaction, and I say that as a Conservative because it was indeed a Conservative administration in Ottawa at the time, Sir John A.

Macdonald who passed on the harsh sentence of death at the time in 1885, but is today in the person of another Conservative former Prime Minister, the person of Joe Clark who is indeed introducing this resolution to the federal House of Commons in recognizing the Metis nation and the Metis people as such and in particular long overdue recognition of one louis Riel. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. *

(1420) Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. BonHace): May I have leave for a nonpolitical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Boniface have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Some Honourable Members: leave. Mr. Speaker: leave. It is agreed. Mr. Gaudry: Monsieur le president, il me fait plaisir de re connai tre ce que le gouverne ment conservateur a fait a Ottawa aujourd'hui. C'est a dire que c'est Ia un bon commencement. lis etaient certainement en manque aujourd'hui de ne pas le rehabiliter et le reconnaitre comme un pare de Ia Confederation.

Alors, je suls sur que ce dossier va se poursuivre afin de le rehabiliter comme un pare de Ia Confederation. C'est beau qu'ils l'aient reconnu comme un des fondateurs du Manitoba, mais il dolt etre reconnu comme le fondateur du Manitoba et non un des fondateurs. Comme je disais au debut, j'etais fier de voir ce commencement puisque, le 22 fevrier, j'ai moi-meme assiste au congras du Parti liberal ou nous avons presente une motion non politique, et puis j'ai ete contacte par M. Dumont par apras. II avait re9u notre motion de M. Clark. Alors que-Aucun problema, M. Downey. [Translation) Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to acknowledge what the Conservative government did today in Ott awa. By that, I mean that is a good beginning. They were certainly remiss today in not rehabilitating him and recognizing him as a Father of Confederation. So, I am sure that this question will be taken up again with a view to rehabilitating him as a Father of Confederation. It is wonderful that the y acknowledged him as one of the founders of Manitoba, but he ought to be recognized as the founder of Manitoba and not one of the founders.

As I was just saying, I was proud to see this first step because, on February 22nd, I myself attended the liberal Party Conference where we introduced a nonpolitical motion, and afterwards I was contacted by Mr. Dumont. He had received our motion from Mr. Clark. While-No problem, Mr. Downey. [English] Now I am pleased to see that they have recognized finally, which is long overdue, and we have been working on this for a long time. And 107 years is long overdue by recognizing a man that has founded Manitoba. He should be the founder and not one of the founders of Manitoba.

I congratulate the Government today for the effort of doing that and, hopefully, in the ongoing recognition that they will rehabilitate and recognize louis Riel as one of the Fathers of Confederation. Thank you very much. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? An Honourable Member: leave. Mr. Speaker: leave. It is agreed. Mr. Downey: Mr.

Speaker, I rise as well to acknow ledge the resolution and the acknowledgement of the federal government of louis Riel and as well want to associate myseH with the resolution in the recognizing of the contribution of louis Riel. I believe at this time when we are renewing the Canadian Constitution that the work that is being done with the Metis people and the work particularly from the Metis community in Manitoba has to be recognized and the leadership which was referred to by my colleague the member for lakeside (Mr. Enns), that of Mr. Yvon Dumont, as well should be recognized.

More particularly is the contribution of the total Metis community in Manitoba and their long-term outstanding desire as Canadians to see this country prosper, to see that they have their rightful recognition in the history books of this province and

1119 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 1 0, 1992 the continuing efforts that they put forward to recognize in an educational way all of the people of Manitoba the clear understanding of the history as they see it. I know there is currently work going on with my colleague the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) through my department of work with the Metis people so that that history can be truly recorded and brought forward to all the citizens of this province.

I am pleased to be part of the recognition of Louis Riel and the tremendous contribution of the Metis people to this province; and as well with the recognition of Mrs. Elsie Bear yesterday-! think as a clear exam ple of her dedica tion and her contribution to this province and to her people. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call adjourned debate, 8111 45, and then the bills as they flow on the Order Paper. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS 811145- The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr.

Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), Bill 45, The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act ; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg, Ia

Loi sur las municipalites at d'autres dispositions legislatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Some Honourable Members: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand. Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave. Agreed. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of rising to discuss 8111 45, The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. I had an opportunity to review the bill. I reviewed it quite carefully and I scrutinized the bill.

The bill, first of all, strikes me as a quintessential example of a perfect example of something we discussed and studied in law school with respect to bills and legislation in general. The issue often comes down to when a bill goes before the courts for judicial

Interpretation or when one studies a bill or its ramifications, the issue often is determined on, quote, what was the Legislature's intention in passing this bill? It is generally fundamental to the way that law is det ermined, and it is generally fundamental to the ultimate decision or at least the ultimate

interpretation of the bill by the judiciary or by whoever interprets it, Mr. Speaker. At the very onset, that is the great difficulty that I have and that members on this side of the House have with the bill as it presently exists. The question is: What is the intention of the government and what is the intention of the Legislature in passage of this particular amendment, a wide-ranging amendment, a very diverse amendment? The question is: What does the government hope to accom plish by this? We on this side of the House recognize a decision was ma de by the residents of Hea ding ley, Manitoba.

They have that democratic right and they made a decision. We on this side of the House were anticipating a bill to come forward to deal with the decision made by the residents of Headingley and to deal with the ramifications of that decision and how the matter would be legislated and how the matter would be put into legal form and effect. However, what we have before us is a bill that does not at all clearly indicate what the government position is. In fact, the bill is so wide ranging, Mr. Speaker, and open to so much

interpretation that it makes members on this side of the House quite suspicious and quite suspect of the intentions of the minister. I am not suggesting in my comments that the minister has any untoward intentions. What I am suggesting is that it is not at all clear what the government Intends to do with this legislation, because of the way it is written and because of the discretionary nature and aspect of this bill and the discretionary authority that is left to the minister and to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we are dealing on the one hand with the simple question, a relatively simple question, of how Headingley residents can deal with the transformation into another form of governance. We have in this bill a complic ated web of suggestions and a number of legislative changes that do not cause us on this side of the House to have comfort with respect to what is going to

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1120 ultima tely resul t as a consequence of this amendment. Mr. Speaker, this in effect is an omnibus bill. It is an omnibus bill, the result is numerous changes to numerous acts, that open up many situations and result in conclusions that may have not been thought through clearly by the minister, by the cabinet, and by those who drafted this legislat ion. That Is our overriding concern with respect to this City of Winnipeg Amendm ent Act. That is, in the first inst ance, our major concern. Mr.

Speaker, just in reviewing the bill in general, the discretionary authority atta ched to the minister is quite str ong. For example, without dealing with the specific sections of the bill, as I realize that my comments are confined to the general nature of the bill, the authority is not "shall," it is "may." We all know that there is a profound diffe rence in legislati on. There is a profound difference between the minister may, and the minister shall. In very many instances we see throughout this bill that the minister may, not that the minister shall.

That certainly opens up the bill to why executive privilege, and why executive discretion. *

(1430) In additi on, Mr. Speaker, the Lieu tenant Governor-in-Council has wide-ranging authority to estab lish regulations and to deal with many aspects of the bill-again, very wide open. The difficulty with this is that the ramifications at what could occur or could result as a result of the wide-ranging nature of this bill may not have been well thought out. It is imperative that we legislators in the House, who are dealing with these amendments, scrutinize very carefully the ramifi cations and the potential difficulties of every single aspect of the bill.

I would hope that the minister and the cabinet and those responsible for the drafting of this legislation will pay very careful attention to the comments of mem bers on this side of the House, not that we have privy, or not that we are a fountain of all knowledge, but I think there have been some very valid suggestions about some of the loopholes and some of the open-ended questions that are left up in the air as a result of this bill. I refer the minister very strongly to the comments of our Leader on Friday in the Chamber to some of the very serious consequences as a result of this particular bill.

I urge thatthe minister and all of those in his departm ent pay attention to those comments, as the minister as I understand in comments during the course of debate in this House indicated they would be coming back with amen dmen ts. We certainly urge and hope that the minister and the department will pay attention to our comments and will come back with amendments that will make the passage of this bill more expeditious, and will result in dealing with the concerns that were Initially brought forward by the residents of Headingley, Manitoba , Mr. Speaker.

Aside from the comments raised by our Leader with respect to this bill, I guess I have some philosophical problems with some of the wording and the nature of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, and in the almost presidential style of authority given to the min ister and the Lieu tenant-Governor in-Council with respect to powers under this bill. If this bill is to deal with a specific situation and a specific inst ance, I do not know why it is so wide open and so much discretionary authority is left with the minister and Lieutenant-G overnor-in-Council.

If you are going to amend legislation, why do you not amend it specifically to deal with this situation? Why does the minister insist on wide-ranging and wide-open amendm ents which stay on the statute books? Until next the matter is addressed by members of this Chamber, those amendmen ts stay on the statute books and can be used by the government in its discretionary authority at any time. That causes us on this side of the House and that causes me specifically with some results and some grave philosophical concerns with respect to this bill. (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) I referred earlier, Mr.

Acting Speaker, to the fact that this is an omnibus bill. I just have to indicate one of the books I have most recently completed is Erik Neilsen's autobiograp hy-the title escapes me. Oh, yes, no, it has come back now- The House is Not a Home, which I have to admit I thoroughly enjoyed and found most instrumental.

One of Erik Neilsen's proudest achievements-! remind mem bers on that side of the House that he was the leader of the Conservative Party for an inter im period and was government House leader for a fair amount of time -as a mem ber of the opposition was the fact that he. was able to delay and st all governm en t omnibus legi slat ion, something which he said was fundamentally improper and incorrect in the parliamentary system . He went to great lengths to indicate that he felt no support should ever be given to omnibus legislation,

1121 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 1 0, 1992 and indeed fought very strongly to avoid it when the Liberal government brought in omnibus legislation dealing with a number of matters which the Conservative Party opposed.

Consequently, I am only reminding members on that side of the House that omnibus legislation is a very, very difficult matter to deal with in terms of the parliamentary system, and certainly one of their former brethren-because I do not know what their relationship is now-one of the former deans of the House of Commons from that side of the House certainly warns his peers and his fellow members against that kind of action. I ask members on that side of the House to consider that when they are looking at amendments to this piece of legislation. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I do not know where to begin in terms of dealing with the City of Winnipeg and its planning or lack thereof, and the difficulties that we have seen through the city of Winnipeg over the last 20, 30, 40, indeed perhaps 50 years, and how the consequences of a bill like this could figure into the future planning of the city of Winnipeg, because the ramificati ons and the effect of some of these amendments and some of these proposals in this bill could seriously affect planning and could seriously affect development in the city of Winnipeg.

The problem that I have is the lack of any government plan or any government initiative with respect to the city of Winnipeg. It is certainly hard for me to get any idea where the government is proceeding with respect to development of the city of Winnipeg, Mr. Acting Speaker. They appear to be all over the board. Although one thing is clear that less planning is better planning, in terms of the members of the opposite side of the House.

That is almost a result of years and years on City Council and where the developers go we shall go to, and members on that side of the House, many of whom graduated from the gang at City Hall, graduated to the Legislature now, still have the same attitude of development, development, development.

As was stated by our Leader on Friday, where the bulldozer go we too shall follow, and we see that, and the lack of planning in terms of the city of Winnipeg has resulted in some grave difficulties, and ha s resulted in some very unfortun ate situat ions, to a large part, is one of the reasons why residents of the city of Winnipeg are seeing dramatic tax increases, and the tax increases they have seen in the last several years.

That is a result of poor planning on the part of the city, and lack of direction from the gang both at City Hall and then the graduates who now occupy the benches on that side of the House. We are in the absurd situation, where as I understand it, now in the city of Winnipeg we have enough lots, enough development for a city the size of 750,000. That means services, roads, all kinds of amenities, and we have all of that while at the same time many of the services provided in the inner city and at the core structure of this city are provided on a regular basis.

For example, residents in West Kildonan that were provided quite efficiently before, are no longer provided as efficiently or as frequently, as a result of the poor planning on the part of the city and the gang and the graduates of the gang. We see the effects on a daily basis, and we see the effects on property tax bills in the city of Winnipeg.

This bill does nothing to allay our concerns about the lack of planning and leadership on the part of the provincial government, the gang and the graduates of the gang who occupy those benches, which is another reason why when we look at a legislation of this kind, and we try to cut through the rhetoric and try to cut through the wording to see what is the intention of the government with respect to this bill, we cannot come up with an answer, Mr. Acting Speaker. *

(1440) If you superim pose all of the history of the relationship of many of the gang and their graduates to the City of Winnipeg, when you look at that relationship, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is fairly obvious to conclude why members on this side of the House are viewing with suspicion and some uncertainty the intentions of the government with respect to this particular bill and with respect to the government's intentions for the City of Winnipeg and for the powers that it can or cannot exercise under this bill.

On Friday, our Lea der, I thought very appropriately, pointed out some of the fundamental difficulties and problems with the referenda. A referendum is proposed in this particular bill. I again urge that the government, and the minister in particular , pay very close attention to those comments because the question of referendum goes to the very core of what we hold dear in our democratic society. But more importantly, it is open to all kinds of maneuvering and it is open to all kinds of-1 would not say abuse, Mr. Acting Speaker, but

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1122 I would say conflict and potential abuse, and it must be well thought out. Clearly, in this bill, the whole question of the referendum and its ramifications, its effects, those who can participate, those who cannot participate, those who are residents, those who are not residents, all of that has not been very well thought out with respect to this bill. All of that requires tightening up before members on this side of the House would be prepared to deal with the bill, Mr. Acting Speaker.

I note that the minister is nodding his head in the affirmative and I appreciate that. I hope that the comments will be-w ell, I acknowledge his affirmative nodding, and I look forward to the amendments that will be forthcoming to deal with some of those particular issues, Mr. Acting Speaker. I also, Mr.

Acting Speaker, wish to deal with some of the questions as to the ramifications and the breadth of this particular bill, and that is, to where and to whom does this particular bill and its amendments apply and what is the government's intention with respect to future referenda or future developments under this bill for people in and around the city of Winnipeg? This does result in a fair amount of uncertainty with respect to what other parts or other regions of the city of Winnipeg may determine or may decide. It goes far beyond simply a question of governance, Mr. Acting Speaker.

It extends as well to issues of taxation and tax base and municipal services. It again ties in very, very closely with the whole question of planning th<t city of Winnipeg, the direction of the city of Winnipeg, where and how it is to go. Unless it is clarified as to what the government's intention is for other areas of the city, it would make it very difficult to develop any kind of a long-term plan or any kind of overall direction for the city of Winnipeg and to deal with some of the very serious problems that occur in the city of Winnipeg.

Whenever I think about planning, in terms of the city of Winnipeg, two thoughts come to mind. The first is how in my lifetime governance of the city of Winnipeg has changed so dramatically. We went from the metro corporation and the various municipalities to Unicity. What direction we are now heading I am not sure, but we have seen a fair amount of change in my lifetime alone as to governance of the city of Winnipeg, far more I would suggest than other municipalities and other jurisdictions.

The second point that I wish to make, and which I generally make when dealing with the city of Winnipeg is a concern-and perhaps it is an isolated event-that bothered me for some time with respect to the city in its lack of planning and lack of real attention to long-term growth. I served on one of the early resident advisory committees, early 1970s. I can recall a proposal coming forward to our resident advisory committee. I might add that was when resident advisory committees were far more meaningful and within the confines of the act, and it had some input.

The proposal came forward to develop a series of bicycle trails in the city of Winnipeg. We are talking of about approximately well over 20 years ago. I remember very clearly a very distinguished senior city councillor shaking his head at the time and saying, no, the bicycle craze is just like the hula hoop. It is only a fad and it will shortly die out. Now this was a very sophisticated plan to develop green space and to develop a bicycle path system for the city of Winnipeg.

I have to harken back to it, because I view it as a lost opportunity for the citizens of the city of Winnipeg and surrounding areas, because how beneficial that program would have been had the bicycle path system and the green space cotangent with it been if it had been incorporated into the City of Winnipeg plan 20 years ago, when it was far more affordable and far more practical than it is now, particularly now that we have seen some tremendous urban sprawl in the city of Winnipeg.

I reflect back on that on every occasion when we have opportunity to deal with the city of Winnipeg and to deal with matters of this kind, because it fundamentally does come down to the issue of planning. An Honourable Member: You would not have a constituency. Mr. Chomlak: The minister indicates that I would not have a constituency. Actually, I think that most of the bicycle trail was destined to be on the east side of the river which would take in several of the members opposite constituencies.

It bothers me to this day that we did not take advantage of the opportunity, because the matter has arisen over and over and over again, and it just strikes me that we have lost an opportunity in this city.

1123 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 The whole question of planning is a constant theme of ours with respect to the city. We really have seen the effects of urban sprawl and what it has done to our city and to the lifestyle here and to the property taxes. In my own constitue ncy, ther e is a very unfortunate situation of a large manufacturing area that is totally closed in, almost completely closed in, by residential properties, and there is a very unfortunate situation that has developed, and that is that trucks carrying product in and product out are forced to proceed in residential areas.

What has happened, the result has been that as areas of one-quite rightly so-area of residence petition and complain, the problem is moved to another area. The result is, it has been moved from area to area to area and we still have a difficulty. We still have individuals whose sleep is disrupted at night as a result of this activity, whose lifestyle is greatly affected in the summertime because they are not able to enjoy their homes and their property as a result of these trucks passing by.

It is a very unfortunate situation that has developed, and it clearly can only be attributed to a result of poor developmental planning, Mr. Acting Speaker, and unless the provincial government and the city come to grips with that difficulty, we will continue to have problems of this kind. We will continue to have empty space on the periphery of this city and a crumbling core and services to the periphery area, while other areas of the city do not have adequate services any longer. So, Mr.

Acting Speaker, whenever we deal with questions such as the Headingley question, we should not deal wit h it in isolation of the ramifications, but at the same time the government bill should be far more specific in its dealings with the particular situation as it deals with Headingley and the surrounding area. * (1 450) Mr. Acting Speaker, I had an opportunity to reference comments of other members of this House with respect to this particular bill and the words "blank cheque" were used, or at least it was my

interpretation that was the ramification of some of the comments that I read of members of this House dealing with this amendment of Bill 45. Again, I am drawn back to some of the very, very open-ended approaches to this particular bill.

I can only urge, again, the minister, that if you are going to bring in legislation of this kind, that you very carefully address those issues, provide enough lead time for follow-up to examine some of the potential ramifications of the bill, and then bring it in, which would then allow for much speedier passage than to follow this awkward procedure of bringing in the bill with its omnib us type of provisions and, consequently, resulting in amendments and delay, delays not occurring as a result of members on this side of the House being obstructionists, but actually by delays as a result of the governmen t's incompetence, if that is the word to use, or the government's haste, perhaps, in introducing this bill, in not carefully analyzing the ramifications of what they are doing.

We on this side of the House are doing our duty as members of the opposition in terms of addressing this bill, and the government should have done its homework, Mr. Acting Speaker. If the government had done its homework, I suspect quite strongly that the bill would move through this Chamber far more expeditiously than is occurring now. What is occurring now, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that we are scrutinizing the bill and being forced to acknowledge the defects and have the government bring in those changes and those areas where improvement is needed.

When dealing with the issue of planning, one should consider the fact that there is no requirement in the act for any plan for Headingley or any other R.M. which may or may not leave the City of Winnipeg to include a plan for what is going to occur in the future. This is consistent with the lack of attention paid to planning, and the lack of consistency in this bill, and in other actions taken by members opposite. The question is, as I understand it, Headingley should or will remain largely a rural type area, Mr. Acting Speaker.

One would suggest, would this not or would that not be included in the act or some kind of provision to provide a plan for including that in the act? There is nothing like that in the act, and one would suggest that at least the requirement for a plan to be submitted by a certain deadline or by a certain date would almost be a requirement of the act. But we do not see that in the amendment, and it is something that the members on this side of the House would be looking for and would suggest be included in some of the amendments that the minister is going to bring forward.

One ofthe areas ofthe bill that I do not completely understand, Mr. Acting Speaker, is the whole question of the inconsistency in this act. Other

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1124 municipalities cannot have referendums in one part of a jurisdiction. How is it possible that areas of a particular city can have referendums without the ramifications and the effects which are felt by all of us collectively in one jurisdiction in one urban area, how those matters are not determined and how those matters are not dealt with?

I just do not quite understand that particular issue and would probably look for some clarification or some comment from the minister or the government as to where it stands with respect to that particular principle as it applies in this agreement. Mr. Acting Speaker, the whole question of the bill also fails to deal in any large part with any of the taxation issues. I looked at the issue and I note that the minister can refer the matters to a reference board.

That is done via the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, but again I noticed the-and I do not want to get into the specifics of the legislation-some of the differences between the use of language. We have the mays and the shalls. We would urge that the government consider the ef fect of its discretionary authority and its implementation thereof. I note , Mr. Acting Speaker, that the member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock) is quite excited about-1 presume he is quite excited about my comments and I know that he is greatly anticipating the opportunity of engaging in this debate and this opportunity to provide further suggestions and further advice to the minister for dealing with this particular bill and with the legislation. Generally, in conclusion, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I would urge that the minister peruse very carefully the comments of our Leader on Friday dealing with this particular bill and some of the outstanding matters, the unstated matters and the ambiguous matters that are included in this bill and pay careful attention to this. I will close largely on the note that I began on, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that when judges and others are looking to this bill to try to interpret what the intention of the legislators are with respect to this bill, it should be made far clearer so that what in fact we do in this House is interpreted and viewed by those outside of this House as one and the same. Mr. Reg Alcock {Osborne): Mr. Acting Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to rise after the member for Kildonan and put a few remarks on the record on this particular bill, because I do want to take a somewhat different slant on this than perhaps has been taken to date.

We have heard from the moment the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) introduced this bill of the need for this legislation. I think that is what I want to talk about. We have heard from the critic from our party and from the Leader of the New Democratic Party and then in lock step fashion from other members of the New Democratic Party what some of the concerns are with the bill. I think there are legitimate concerns. I think there are some legitimate questions to be raised about the need for as general a bill as has been presented to the House.

However, I do not think I am telling tales out of school to suggest that I think the minister is open to seeing some amendments. I think the minister's intention with this bill is an honourable one.

I think he wishes simply to correct a situation that has been before this province for many years. * (1 500) He may have been or his department may have been somewhat overzealous in drafting the legislation and has opened some of the doors that people are concerned about, but I think that we can quickly in committee, if we get this bill into committee quickly, we can close some of those loopholes or address some of those concerns and get on with the business of allowing the residents of Headingley, 92 percent of whom voted to become an independent township, that want to separate from the City of Winnipeg.

Their reasons for doing that are not only legitimate, but they are longstanding and they are widely recognized. I have not heard a person in this House speak against them. We have two things before us, and we must not lose sight in our concern about the way this bill is drafted.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there are a very large number of people who have for a long time been put in a very uncomfortable and unnecessarily uncomfortable position of having to pay very high taxes for services they do not receive, people whose case has been studied, the legitimacy of which has been recognized for years, and who have been very patiently asking to be allowed to separate from the City of Winnipeg. I think we should not let the debate in this House interfere with the timely separation of the R.M. of Headingley or the town of Heading ley. I think that the evidence speaks for itself.

Anytime this question has been studied, anytime the residents have been spoken to--a nd certainly the

1125 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 most concrete example of that is the polling that was done. The minister himseH spoke about the results of that polling. In fairness to the members of the New Democratic Party, I think that they recognize that. I do not think I have heard anything in the remarks of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) or from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), anything that says that the residents of Headingley should not be allowed to separate. Have they said anything along that line?

What they had been saying, and I provide them with some comfort in their remarks, is that this bill is poorly drafted and perhaps too broad in its potential application. We agree with that, but I do beKeve that we do a disservice given the time necessary, the time needed by the people in Headingley to establish a mechanism whereby they can have elections to establish a civic administration to negotiate with the City of Winnipeg about the transfer of resources and certain amenities to -{interjection) I am sorry, Mr. Acting Speaker, there was a question from the Minister of Government Ser vices (Mr. Duchar me) .

The Mini ster for Government Services was what?-[interjection) The Mini ster for Governmen t Services was recommending the separation of St. Boniface. Was that the question? Some honourable members, oh, oh. I want to just be very, very precise and very clear in what I am suggesting, and that is simply that there are a lot of complicated decisions that face the residents of Heading ley. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and it is better done now so we can go through the next civic election which is upon us this fall than attem pting to clean it up afterwards.

I think that the intention of this bill and I think the intention of this minister is to do exactly that. We should get on with the work of it. I would hope that at the conclusion of today we will see this bill passed into committee. I would hope that we can get into comm ittee and deal with the clauses of this bill that cause concern to members of this House and produce some changes in those, so that we can-not we can--but having passed this bill, having disposed of this legislation, we can allow the residents of Headingley to do what they have chosen to do, and that is to develop their own administration.

To do otherwise, I think is a disservice to them. I want to comment too on some of the complications that have been raised here because I think there is a lot of smoke in this discussion about Headingley separating. I attended a meeting with some of the councillors from that end of the city just recently, and there was a concern raised about how would Hea dlngley pay for some of the improvements that have been made over the years by the city.

I think that the people who raise those kinds of concerns simply fail to remember back to when we amalgama ted under Unlclty, and there was no question of payment by the City of Winnipeg to Charleswood or Tuxedo or other places for civic buildings, or community clubs, or rinks or other facilities that were taken over. I think in the spirit of co-operation and goodwill that should exist on this separation that we should do exactly the same thing, that Headingley should be supported in every way to establish itself as a free-standing and prosperous and healthy community.

We should not do anything to interfere with that. I thank the minister for his assurances that he is prepared to deal with the concerns that have been raised, and I would urge the House to get on with the business of getting this bill into comm ittee and passing it. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Acting Speaker, in response to the honourable mem ber for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), I would ask, have I ever dealt with any issue in this House with anything but the most care? I rise, as have other members of our caucus, to discuss the concept of Bill45.

I know that we cannot discuss specific details on the bill at second reading. It Is a very complex bill. It incorporates a great number of provisions and changes and new ideas. The very size and scope of the bill is causing us, on this side of the House, a fair degree of concern. My understanding, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that the genesis of this bill was the request for the area of Headingley to be allowed to separate from the City of Winnipeg, as a result of a referendum that was held a few months ago. It is difficult in perusing the general outlines of this bill to find the Headingley portions of the bill.

They are there, yes, but included in this Bill 45 are a great many other Issues and items that require a very clear and thorough review of the implications of those provisions in this bill. This bill is not simply an enabling piece of legislation that will allow Headingley to separate from the City of Winnipeg. The provisions of this bill and the broad outlines of this bill will have enormous

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 1126 ramifications and imp lications for the city of Winnipeg, for rural municipalities around the city of Winnipeg, for the suburban areas that are currently incorporated in the city of Winnipeg, for the inner-city sections of the city of Winnipeg. Our reading of the bill in its entirety is that it is a very major piece of legislation going far beyond what was anticipated would be the parameters of this act when it was first discussed, which would have been simply to enable the district of Headingley to separate from the City of Winnipeg.

The Cherniack report, which has been discussed in this House and raised as sort of a touchstone for some of the issues and concerns that have been brought for th by our side in this Hous e , recommended that the Department of Urban Affairs, the Minister of Urban Affairs and ultimately through the Minister of Urban Affairs, the government of Manitoba should decide the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg, that it should be done not in isolation, which this bill appears to have been done.

This bill appears to have maybe started off as a simple enabling piece of legislation to allow Headingley to separate, but it has grown, Mr. Acting Speaker, much as Topsy did, without planning, without forethought and without thought, it would appear on the surface, for the consequences and the implications of all of the ramifications of this bill.

What needs to be looked at in addition to the fairly narrow details of the Headingley issue are other issues such as suburban sprawl, a lack of planning and co-ordination between the city, municipalities around the city and the province, the lack of green space planning and generally an overall lack of a co-ordinated plan. Thls issue is not one that has solely been brought to the attention of the government in regard to the City of Winnipeg and the Headingley separation.

This whole issue of co-ordinated planning, of consultation, of thinking ahead is one that we on this side of the House have been concerned about with this government since It was first elected. * (1 51 0) It does appear that many pieces of legislation, manyl nitlatives, many announcements are made by this government to respond to a particular issue without having put that particular issue in a larger context. That cer tai nly, Mr. Acting Speaker, appears to be the case with Bill 45.

We would not be legitimately standing on this side of the House and raising issues of concern about planning and green space and urban sprawl and other issues that have been discussed and will be discussed by us if this bill only specifically dealt with Headingley. We on this side of the House would in theory have no major concerns with a bill that simply , responded to the requests of the residents of Headingley. I say in theory, because it would be inappr opriate of me to cate gorically appro ve something that I do not see in front of me. I am dealing with a hypothetical issue.

However, we do have a bill in front of us that does provide this minister and this government with a broad range of powers, of authority, of ability to make sweeping changes to the entire fabric of the city of Winnipeg and the surrounding areas. This is causing us a great deal of concern, Mr. Acting Speaker. We need an overall plan. We need a discussion on the part of the city, on the part of rural municipalities, on the part of the Legislature, on the part of the rest of the province that we need a province-wide policy on planning. Hon.

Har ry Enns (Min ister of Natural Resources): In a language we all understand, Becky, they have spoken with a ballot. Ms. Barrett : The Minister of Natural Resources is saying that the people of Headingley have spoken as a result of the referendum. Yes, I agree. The people of Headingley have spoken by means of a referendum. This bill does not simply address the results of that referendum. That is one of our basic concerns about this bill.

If it only addressed the concerns of the residents of Headingley we would probably not be standing here sharing the depth and level of concerns that we are showing on the part of Bill45. Other provinces, as has been stated in this House before, are a great deal ahead of us in the understanding and the implementation of urban planning, of rural planning, of planning on a province-wide basis. For example, almost 20 years ago in the province of British Columbia when the NDP government of Mr.

Barrett was in power they implemented a very broad, far-reaching planning process that is still being followed today through a number of successive governments. In Quebec under the leadership of Rene Levesque they instituted another broad, far-reaching provincial planning process which, again, under a range of political perspectives is still being followed.

11 27 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA March 1 0, 1992 In Alberta, which has never been considered by members on this side of the House as particularly advanced in its government, at least even Alberta has begun the planning process. In the context of discussing the airport issue in the province of Alberta, they are aware of the broader implications of decisions that are made that appear in this context to be understood by this government as being very narrow in basis. Mr. Acting Speaker, there are some very major concerns that we have with this bill, and I would like to outline them and discuss them briefly.

The minister and the cabinet will have the power to establish areas for the city under The Municipal Act which will lead to them having control over many more boundaries than just the city. Again, in the absence of a plan, in the abse nce of an understanding on the part of all Winnipeggers, all members who live just outside the city of Winnipeg, and even all members' residents of the rest of the province of Manitoba will be rightly concerned over these provisions in this act. It is allowing this government, without further legislation, to make decisions on boundaries of cities and rural municipalities.

It has enormous implications for the future of our city and our area surrounding the city of Winnipeg, implications that have clearly not been thought out by the government. This act will enable the minister and the cabinet to transfer lands and property from Winnipeg to other municipalities, again, without having prepared the way by a full and thorough plan. The manner by which these transfers will be undertaken is the method of the referendum. Now this, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) pointed out, was the method whereby the residents of Headingley showed their support for seceding from the City of Winnipeg. Under this act, there will be referenda in perpetuity for whatever cabinet or the Minister of Urban Affairs deems to be appropriate.

Again, on first reading, there does not appear to be an overarching rationale for this--or there is an overarching rationale, it appears to me, and that rationale is that the Minister of Urban Affairs and the cabinet are given enormous power in making the determination as to which areas of the city or of the surrounding area outside the city would be allowed to hold a referendum. The minister and the cabinet can also decide on the division of assets of any areas within or without the city.

This includes, as in our cu rrent del iberations, as the determination is being attempted to be made as to what constitutes the eastern boundary of the municipality of Headingley, great dispa rity between what the citizens of Headingley see as their eastern boundary and what the City of Winnip eg sees as their western boundary. It is based largely, Mr. Acting Speaker, on the division of assets portion of what is being contemplated here. Some very large assets are at stake here: Assinlbola Downs, John Blumberg Golf Course. A great deal of land is at stake here.

This act does not give us a degree of comfort that the determination will be made in an appropria te manner following a well -thought -out, well articulated, well-understood, overall plan. This government, throughout its term in office, has shown in many ways and at many times that it does not have a well understood plan, it does not have a plan that deals with more than the specific.

Again, in this case, with the municipality of Headingley, we would not have the problems we are having now if this bill actually dealt only with the municipality of Headingley, but it gives enormous delegated powers to the cabinet and minister of the day. • (1 520) We are very concerned that plans and programs and elements that have such an enormous impact on the future of Winnipeggers and the future of people outside Winnipeg and on the future of all Manitobans is at the whim of an elected official and the whim of a government. There must be more security in place than this.

As well, the minister and cabinet can determine who can vote in a refe rendu m. To my understanding and knowledge, there is virtually no other political entity where another political entity determines who are the eligible voters.

In virtually every other sphere of government on the municipal level, whether it is a city or rural municipalities, school boards, local government districts, cities, provinces, federally, in all of those political jurisdictions the determination of which citizens are eligible to vote is not made by politicians, but made by nonelected civil servants and officials based on election acts, so it is very clear and it remains clear to all citizens who is eligible to vote, what the criteria are for being eligible to vote.

The only changes that can take place to those criteria are changes that are debated and moved upon by the public through its elected representatives.

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1128 This bill will allow the cabinet to make that determination without public consultation, without any responsibility to go back to the people who elected them and say this is how we want to determine who is eligible to vote in this referendum. This element is to my way of thinking a very undemocratic element in this bill and needs to be very seriously looked at. The right to vote, the right to know exactly who is eligible to vote, is one of the basic tenets of every democracy that we know of from the very beginning.

From the very beginning of democracy , arguably in ancient Greece, the population of Greece all knew who was eligible to vote and who was not. Granted it was a very narrow definition of who were the citizens in that time. It was only men of a certain economic stature, but everyone knew that within that definition which had been determined by the duly elected representatives of the citizenry, upon consultation and as a result of election, they knew who was eligible to vote.

When we go to the polls, assuming we do go to the polls this fall in municipal elections in the city of Winnipeg and throughout the province under whatever boundaries are determined to be, we will know who is eligible to vote. The determination as to who is eligible to vote will have been made through a nonpartisan process. It will not be at the whim of whatever minister and cabinet happen to be in power at the time.

It will not be as a result of lobbying on behalf of groups that want to get the ear of the cabinet to say, we want to be part of the group that determines whether our area or an area will be eligible to vote on a referendum under this act, an unbelievable amount of degree of opening for maneuvering and an ability of individuals and groups to lobby on something that has absolutely no place in any democracy of being open to influence in that context.

There is no other, as I stated earlier, political entity to my knowledge that says, we as a political group will determine case by case, time by time, issue by issue, without prior consultation and accountable to no one, who will be eligible to vote in this referendum. That is an unbelievable travesty of the democratic system that we have operated under for 3,000 years. I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) and his cabinet would allow this kind of antidemocratic action to be part of this bill.

I hope very seriously that the minister rethinks many sections of this bill, but that one in particular. Many questions on the whole process of the referendum-again I have spoken on who will be eligible to vote and that the fact that is determined on a case-by-case basis, very open to manipulation and antidemocratic influences. Another whole area on the referendum is, what, if any, are the spending limits? It does not appear that there are any spending limits that are put in place in this act. It does not appear that there are any determinations or

definitions of what can be spent, the amount of money that can be spent, by whom will the expenditures be allowed, and for what will the expenditures be allowed. Mr. Acting Speaker, throughout this country we are looking at reform of election finances, particularly on the federal level. We had a major reform of election finances on the provincial level in 19 83, 19 84 which has made the political process much more open, more fair, and more accessible to all members of the province in Manitoba.

The City of Winnipeg itself is looking at basic reforms to their election finances, given the fact that we will be looking at a very differently configured city council after the next election whenever it is held. This act, which discusses another major voting proposal, addresses not one word to those issues of who will be allowed to vote, how much money will be allowed to be spent, by whom will this money be allowed to be spent, and on what will this money be allowed to be spent.

Also, another element that is quite a substantial portion of The Elections Finances Act in the province of Manitoba, and it certainly plays an important

part in the Lortie report which is looking at the federal Elections Finances Act, is the whole issue of disclosure. Again, in a democracy it is important to know who is paying for what for whom. The reason it is important to know who is paying for what for whom is that we all know that financial support is one of the most important forms of support that can be given in any election campaign. The federal Elections Finances Act has a very stringent third party disclosure that has currently not been proclaimed because of a court case brought by the province of Alberta.

In the provincial Elections Finances Act we have a very strong disclosure provision. That is for the support and the protection of all of the citizens of the province of Man itoba. Kno wle dge is no t only power,

1129 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 1992 knowledge is necessary for an informed electorate . This act, by not speaking about the whole issue of the referendum process, flies in the face of the most sacred of our democratic principles. • (1 530) The whole concep t of referendum itself is interesting in the context of what the Premier of the province is on recor d as stating regarding a referendum request in a different context, and that is in the context of a request that the provincial Pr og ressiv e Conser vative Party institute a referendum on the Constitution.

The Premier says, "Well, we do not believe the referendums are a way to solve the political challenges that we have to make as government. We have to take into account both sides of every issue, and we have to make decisions that elected officials have to make. We were elected to make decisions. We the people of the Conservative Party were elected to make decisions and we will make those decisions, and that is why we will not support the referendum proposal ....

" I am not for a moment suggesting that the Premier was ina ccur ate In his comm ents about the referendum proposal as It related to the Constitution debate. My only purpose In bringing this forward is that he appears to say that referenda, on the one hand, as an assistance in the constituti onal discussion is not appropriate, but a referendum on the future of an element of the City of Winnipeg is appropriate. I am only bringing that apparent discrepancy to the attention of honourable members and would hope that the Premier is able to clarify that in his statements about Bill 45.

However, I would like to reiterate the point we have made, that this bill is very lacking in its supports, in its safeguards for the democratic process under the whole issue of the referendum sections of this bill and hope that they are very seriously looked at and improved. Another element that appears to have been lacking in this bill is any discussion or any provision for impact studies in the future, when an area of the city makes an application for a referendum on secession from the city. An Honourable Member: You read your Leader's speech--a lmost word for word. Ms.

Barrett: I cer ta inly share my Leader's concerns, but I would suggest that if the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) reads Hansard , he will find out that our speeches are very different In content, although the ideas are very similar. Again, we would not have the kind of concerns that we do have about Bill 45 if Bill 45 dealt with Headingley only. The issue of Headingley and whether it is to be in the City of Winnipeg or independent has been before the people of Winnipeg and Headingley since probably before Unicity. It is an issue that has had a long and public debate and discussion.

That is why we have said that our concern with this bill is not the portions of it that deal specifically with Heading ley, but the enormous discretionary powers that are given to this government by this bill in determining future of the City of Winnipeg. We do not know, we have no way of knowing, and I do not believe the government has done any studies, and it certainly does not appear to be in this bill, that there is any place for an impact study of the effects of any future requests for secession. In particular, two areas of impact are most important for me.

One is the whole issue of the taxation structure that would be heavily impacted by many of the potential areas of the city asking to be removed from the City of Winnipeg. Since Unicity, City Councils have made decisions often mostly without apparent recourse to an overall plan, but these decisions have been made that have had an enormous impact on all of the citizens of Winnipeg, particularly in the area of taxation. As has been earlier stated, earlier City Councils made the assumption that by the end of this decade there would be 750,000 people in the city of Winnipeg.

We have all made decisions based on information that turned out later to be erroneous. There have been external factors that have assisted in making sure that Winnipeg most likely will not have 750,000 citizens by the end of the decade. The impact of that decision has been enormous. It has meant that the number of serviced lots has increased to support a population estimated to be three-quarters of a million people by the end of this decade. Those serviced lots, many of which are standing idle today, have an enormous taxation impact on the city as a whole.

Those services that are provided for those lots, and in many cases at this point not needed and probably will not be needed in the future, have meant an enormous capital tax burden on the taxpayers of the city of Winnipeg.

March 10 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 30 That is another whole issue that has also been raised in this House about the responsibility of many of the memb ers on the provincial government benches today who were city councillors when these major decisions on capital expenditures were undertaken, and we are now reaping the whirlwind of those ill-advised decisions but, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is not part of my major comments today.

We have now before us a clear picture of the impacts that earlier City Councils have made when they have not paid attention to the planning process, when all they have listened to are the needs and the desires of their developer friends. We, all of us, whether we are residents in the inner city of the city of Winnipeg, the northern suburbs, the southern suburbs, the south-east, the south-west, Transcona, St. Vital, Tuxedo, St. Norbert, Kildonan, River East, are reaping the results of those decisions. Now, we have to live with that, but for goodness sake let us not do the same thing again.

Let us not put in place a bill that does not require the government to initiate and respond to impact studies when asked for a referendum on secession of a portion of this city. It is not fair to the people who are asking to be allo wed to hold the referendum, and it is cert ainly not fair to the taxpayers of the city of Winnipeg or even to the taxpayers of the province of Manitoba, with almost two-thirds of the residents of Manitoba currently residing within the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg, and more and more coming into the sphere of influence of the city all the time.

Any decision that is made by the city or the province on behalf of the city of Winnipeg has an enormous impact provincially. We must make sure that any decision that is made on the future configurations of the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg take into account the impact on the taxation structure on the service delivery system for the entire city of Winnipeg and for the areas that are asking potentially to leave. Another area that is of great deal of concern to me in the lack of a plan is, again, the whole concept of urban and suburban sprawl.

I think that this has been discussed at great length in this House and elsewhere. The fact that as a city we have not grown in a rational, well-thought-out manner.

We have grown, literally, at the behest of large property developers who can reap enormous tax write-offs and profits out of developing land outside the inner city. * (1 540) We on the opposition benches, many of whom represent inner city and older neighbourhoods, see every day the impact of the decisions that have been made over the last 20 years by city councillors when they have allowed the suburban sprawl to go almost without check, and the very narrow and petty and pitiful degree of support for inner city revitalization that earlier City Councils have given, is also well known.

So again, we urge very strongly that any changes in the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg under this bill or, hopefully, a very much changed Bi11 45, will take into account not only the impacts on the taxation processes for the city of Winnipeg, but also the quality of life issues, the urban sprawl, the need to help revitalize our older neighb ourhoods.

Actually, many of the seats that are held currently by members of the government party are year by year becoming defined as older neighbourhoods, and their residents-! am sure they are well aware-are showing more and more concern for the rotting infrastructure that has been allowed to occur in the older portions of our city so that the developers can have their serviced lots, many of which are still vacant. It is essential that we undertake a very serious look at this bill, and the implications that this bill will have on all members of the province of Manitoba.

I would like, very briefly, to state another concern that I have that was expressed earlier by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), and that is the extensive use in this bill of the word "may,� as opposed to what we would prefer to see as an extensive if not exclusive use of the word "shall.� The word •may� is a very open-ended word that gives an enormous amount of discretionary power to, in this case, the minister and the cabinet. According to my reading of the bill, this bill does not even require the minister to take any decision on a referendum to the Municipal Board.

I cannot understand why a provincial government would take unto itself that degree of power that has such an impact on the people of Manitoba, that they •may� go to the Municipal Board. I cannot understand the rationale behind the use of "may� in that context rather than use of the word "shall.�

1131 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 1 o, 1992 I would also suggestto government members that the word "shall" implies accountability. It implies a process that is unde rstood to be followed in all cases, that is not open to the whims and the vagaries of a particular Minister of Urban Affairs, a particular cabinet configuration or a particular government of whatever political stripe.

I will state categorically that we on this side of the House would be very comfortable if the word •may" in Bill 45 were changed to the word "shall." We accept as governments the responsibility to be accountable, and this bill with its reliance on the word •may," the enormous discretionary powers that this bill allows the government, with a total lack of definition of issues such as the referendum, is an abrogation of the democratic process.

The people of Manitoba and the people of Winnipeg should be very discouraged and very concerned about the calibre of bill that this government is bringing forward to deal with, ostensibly, a very narrow issue. If this government is truly interested in responding to the wishes of the people, particularly in this case the people of Hea dingley, let it bring forward a bill that deals specifically with the issues and the concerns of the people of Headingley.

Do not use this bill as an opportunity to make a mockery of the democratic process, to take away accountability, to take away clarity, to take away a sense of the individuals in this province and this city knowing who Is responsible for what, knowing what the process is, knowing what the process is for determining who is eligible to vote in a referendum . I am very uncomfortable, as I am sure many Winnipeggers and Manitobans would be, to know that only the Minister and the cabinet are the determiners of who shall vote in a referendum. That is not acceptable in a democracy. That is not acceptable in a democracy.

That might very well have taken place in many oth er governmen t contexts, but it is not acceptable in Manitoba in 199 2, and I hope the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) takes this very flawed bill back and comes back with something that deals specifically with the residents of Headingley. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise today to add my comments to those of others that have risen to speak on Bill45, The City of Winnipeg Ame ndment, Mu nicipal Am endment and Consequential Amendments Act.

This Bi1145 holds many things for us in the province of Manitoba and, in particular, for the city of Winnipeg and Its surrounding communities. Bill 45, of course, is brought about and is necessary as a result of the Headingley referendum. We all know and we remember very clearly the referendum, as we have seen it in the media over the past months leading up to the proces s of the vote to secede from the City of Winnipeg. Of course, that referendum was held on November 14 of last year.

We can all remember the images that were portrayed when that vote was being held, and, of course, the smiling minister who represented the area announcing the results of that vote, quite proud to be up on the stage announcing those results. It was under much fanfare and much media hype that this came about, this issue to secede from the City of Winnipeg, the path that Headingley has chosen to pursue. The minister, as I said, he was quite happy to announce those results to his constituents. It is always nice to be elected to public office, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and to represent the wishes and needs of your constituents. It is nice to be a great guy in that process, and to be well thought of by your constituents, but there comes a time during your elective office that you have to stand up and make some hard decisions on what is right and wrong for us in our province, the offices to which we are elected. I think this minister has unfortunately not fulfilled his obligation to the remainder of the citizens of Manitoba, he has shirked his responsibility and his duty.

He wants to be a nice guy to his constituents, but I do not think that was the proper course of action for him to pursue. The minister, of course, by his actions has created a long-term effect for us in the city of Winnipeg and in the province of Manitoba. It will have a great deal of impact upon us in the city of Winnipeg. I do not know if the minister fully realizes the consequences of his actions or his decisions, as he has gone with his constituents and pursued the course of secession from the City of Winnipeg for the residents of Headingley.

This Bill 45 gives the minister a great deal of discretionary powers. It gives him the discretion to determine the division of the assets of the breakaway communities, the municipalities which are going to be created as a result of this bill.

March 1 0, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1132 In a few moments I will get into explaining a situation that happened in my own community of Transcona a number of years back when we became part of Winnipeg. I will give some further explanation on what happened with some of those assets, and what we can see happening here for the community of Heading ley. The minister, in his power and his wisdom, has decided to go with his constituents' wishes and to pursue the course of secession for Headingley. I think he has an underlying urge to be the minister of rural affairs.

I think he wants very seriously to have that opportunity to be the minister of rural affairs, and by having his commun ity of Headingley become a ru ral muni cip alit y that would give him the opportunity. Of course, that will mean some changes to his travel allowance. Being a rural member, he will have some increased travel allowance as the MLA for the area that , had he not been cabinet minister, he would be entitled to. That is probably one of the reasons why he wants to be a rural member. [interjection] As a rural member, he is entitled to a travel allowance for an area. An Honourable Member: So are you. Mr.

Reid: No, I am not. No, I do not. No, I wish to correct the members opposite. When I asked to be reimbursed for legitimate expenses for travel within the province of Manitoba, I had to write a letter of expla nation to the me mber s' allo wances (inte�ection) To represent your constituency. * (1 550) If you are a rural memb er-1 say this tongue in cheek to the member opposite, of course. He takes this very seriously when I make these comments about the minister wishing to pursue a course of becom ing the Minister of Rural Development.

Maybe I should have smiled and given him some indication that this was done tongue in cheek, but-[interjection] No, I do not think many members opposite would have thought that this minister's real underlying reason for allowing Headingley to secede is so that he would get the rural travel allowance. I think now that this has come forward, I hope that the minister will take the next opportunity to stand up and tell the citizens of Manitoba that that was his real reason for allowing Headingley to secede. Of course, maybe we should change the definition or the title of his office.

Maybe he should become the minister of separation. Maybe that would be the more appropriate title that we should have here, looking at what this bill, discretionary powers this bill gives to the minister. If that was the same policy that was applied to our country, then our country would be falling apart today. I do not think this is the right course of action that this minister should be pursuing for the city of Winnipeg. He may wish to represent the wishes of his constituents, but I do not think it is in the best interests of the city of Winnipeg. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) This bill gives the minister discretionary powers, many discretionary powers, not only to this minister who is currently responsible for the area, but to other ministers that will follow after this minister. The mini ster will then be able to det ermi ne the boundaries of the new rural municipality. I know that in second reading of this bill, we are not supposed to get into the content, but to talk about the policy that this bill brings to us here.

I do not wish to in any way challenge the rules of the House or the past practices of the House in talking about this bill, but I do not think in my humble opinion that those discretionary powers should be given to the minister, whoever that minister may be who holds that office, to give that minister the discretionary powers to make the decisions that are outlined in this bill. There has been much discussion about the issue of referendums for secession.

I know that when my own community of Transcona became part of the greater Winnipeg, became a part of the Unicity, there were people on both sides of the argument. There were those that said that Transcona would not receive any benefits as a result of becoming part of the greater body; then there were others that thought that there were going to be benefits in becoming part of Winnipeg. Hindsight is always 20/20 on this issue.

I know there are many points, and even during the debate on the Headingley referendum the citizens of Transcona, I received a few phone calls, just talking about what Transcona used to be like before we became part of Unicity. The residents in Transcona, of course, had some concerns about what was going to happen to our commu nity when we became part of Unicity, what was going to happen to the services that we had in our comm unity, whether we would still have that control of our community and the decisions that were going to be made that would be impacting

1133 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 10, 19 92 upon that commu nity. There were those on either side of the argument. We have lost some services and some control or powers over decisions that are affecting our community, but then we have gained some areas of power and control as well. There is a need, of course, as I indicated, for the minister to represent the wishes of his constituents, but there is also a responsibility to ensure that there are services and that he fulfills his responsibilities. If areas like Heading ley separate from the larger body, if other areas separate, that could be St.

Germaine, Transcona, St. Vital , St. Boniface or other areas that were reluctantly in some cases becoming part of the City of Winnipeg but have obviously reaped the benefits of becoming part of that larger body, the se separate communities will then lose some control or some power over the decision-making process on how it will affect them in their borders, the surrounding communities that border on their particular community. I talk particularly about my own commun ity of Transcona once again, and I will explain.

We have a situation in my community that has been impacting upon us where we have had little control because this area is outside of the area of authority of the City of Winnipeg. There is a particular scrap metal shredding company that is in the extreme southwest comer of the rural municipality of Springfield. That particular industry is located far away from the residential and the agricultural areas of Springfield and, of course, does not impact directly upon the people residing in Springfield.

It provides a necessary source of revenue by tax base to the R.M. of Springfield, but at the same time this particular industry impacts upon my comm unity of Transcona. It impacts upon my comm unity in that it borders on Transcona, the portion of the commu nity known as Lakeside Meadows. It borders on that portion. During the processing of this scrap metal through the shredding process, the process involves the shredding of derelict or scrap vehicles, and in the process sometimes the occasional gas tank that is filled with gas sneaks into the process and it gets shredded and that- Point of Order Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs) : Mr. Speaker, I, moments ago, was absent from the Chamber for a moment, and I understand that during my absence the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) in his remarks gave some indication that the reason that I was advancing this bill was so I could obtain a rural minister's travel allowance. I will wait to peruse Hansard tomorrow. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, I want you to be advised I will be rising on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable minister. Mr. Reid: Mr. S

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	34d9d01eddab6a5f589cc6a20ba74d34ead06240

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).