Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 42 (35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-42

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis c. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No. 42 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1992 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty- Fifth Legislature Members, Constit uencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard , Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,C iif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, 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. STORIE, 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 Ste inbach 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 Bu rrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon 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

1965 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, AprilS, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, ! beg to present the petition of Jim Silver, Deborah Smith, Tim Sale and others requesting the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substanti al likelihood of further family violence. Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Gwen Sveinson, Tracey Haarsma, Darcie Andres and others requesting the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial likelihood of further family violence. Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Raymond E. Sinclair, Walter G. Murdock, Oliver T. Flett and others requesting the govern ment consider funding the Abinochi preschool program to ensure it continues to operate . READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr.

Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). 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 shewe th: THAT the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between the jus tice system and aboriginal people; and The AJ I delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the jus tice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aborig inal self-government and the right of aboriginal communities to est ablish an aboriginal justice syste m; and The Canadian Bar Association, The l& w Reform Commission of Canada, among many others, also recommend both aboriginal self-gove rnment and a se parate and parallel justice syste m; and On January 28, 1992, 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-gove rnment, the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice syst em, an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial jur isdiction.

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 stro ng comm it men t to ab original self-go vernmen t by considering reversing its position on the AJ I by su pporting the rec ommen dations wit hin its ju risd iction and implementing a separate and paral lel jus tice syst em. *** •

(1335) I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friese n). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. 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 bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and The problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and

1966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 requires a multifacete d approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and children, be protected from further harm. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a su bstantial likelihood of fur ther conjugal or fam ily violen ce being perpetrate d. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the atte ntion of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon His Excellency Njuguna Mahugu, the high commissioner of Kenya to Canada. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon, Sir. Also with us this afte rnoon, in the Speaker's Gallery, is Mr. Colin Maxwell, who is executive director of the Canadian Wildlife Federation. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon .

Seated with us this afternoon in the public gallery, from the Native Business Management Skills Program, we have 21 students. They are under the direction of Carolee Baty cki. This school is located in the constit uency of the honourable member for Well ington (Ms. Barr ett) . On beha lf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon . ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Economic Growth Government Strategy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the OpposHion): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In November of 1990 and December of 1990 our Minister of Finance made glowing predic tions through Hansard .

His words are all the way through Hansard predicting the recession is going to end; the recovery is just around the corner; the recession is over, Mr. Speaker. Then, of course , came the spring of 1991 , and we had the same glowing predictions from our Minister of Finance. Happy days are here again; the recession is over; the recovery will take place; Manitoba will lead the Canadian recovery ; Manitoba will lead the way out of the recession and into recove ry. Again, in this last budget of 1992, we have the same familiar words from our Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), whistling past the economic graveyard, slowly but surely: a renewed sense of optimism is building in Manitoba and across Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, today we have the first verdict on the governmen t's budget. The Toronto Dominion Bank has now dealt with the growth rate of Manitoba and has downgraded their predictions for the growth rate of Manitoba from 2.4 percent to 1.7 percent for 1992, a decrease in growth of over 25 percent.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: What hope can he give the thousands of Manitobans that are unemployed and the growing thousands of people who are on social assistance in the province of Manitoba with these latest predictions? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel badly that the member has resor ted once again to sele cti vely quo te informati on. My budget, in the appendices of course, forecast growth in the province beyond 2 percent. That was on the basis of an average of all the forecaste rs.

I am led to believe that there is some downgrading taking place across Canada by all the private forecaste rs. Manitoba is a part of Canada. We are not immune from those general downtrending with respect to the private forecast. I would hope within the course of the next three or four weeks that I will have a revised number of the average of all the private forecas ting that I can share with the member. TO is the first. I can indicate that there are significant changes going to come from the Conference Board in their estimates and forecasts, particularly as it deals with some ot the Atlantic provinces.

So I do not expect that Manitoba will be immune from that, and when we have those numbers compiled on average, I will share them with the members. •

(1340) Mr. Doer : Mr. Speaker, hopefu lly, the other forecasts will be more favourable to the province. The Minister of Finance is correct that the predictions are now being made not only for Manitoba, but also for Canada, predictions for Canada after the federal Conservative budget was produced in the country, a budget that was hailed

April S, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1967 by members opposite as a great Conse rvative budget for the people of this country. We hailed it as another recessionary budget and depression budget for the people of this country. My question to the Minister of Finance is again the same question. You told us two years ago that the recovery was around the corner. You told us last year that we were going to lead the way out of the recession in Manitoba. You told us two months ago that we were going to lead the way out of the reco very.

We now see that we are bein g downgraded even more than Canada in the province of Manitoba. What hope does this government have and what strat egies does it have, except for being wrong on their predictions, what strategy do they have to get Manitobans working again and to get people off social assistance that are employable? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, one thing when you make a predic tion, it is almost 1 00 percent sure you are going to be wrong. You are either going to miss it too high, or you are going too low. I mean that is the nature of forecasti ng-{interjection] You would be 1 00 percent that way too.

Yes, everybody is. To answer the question, we have been watching very caref ully as other provinces have brought down budgets across Canada. We are very mindful of the fact that those provinces in Atlantic Canada have certainly followed along with what we have done here in Manitoba. They have reduced taxes to the extent that they could. They have tried to hold back expenditure growth. They have tried to minimize their levels of deficits. I would say the only provinces in Canada that seem to be increasing taxes are B.C. to this point in time, and I forget the other one that is also conte mplat ing.

Sask atchewan cert ainly is contemplating increasing taxes and also Ontario in a significant way. I say to the member that obviously we have a different philosophy here. He wants this province to continue to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars in su pport of increased deficit. He wants us to continue to defer taxes, but taxes nevertheless , Mr. Speaker. Right today one of the greatest handicaps to businesses who are creating jobs are the tax levels of this provinces vis-a-vis jurisdictions to the south.

I would say to him, I would think that he would want us to do everyth ing within our power to hold back government spending so that we could reduce even further the tax load, so that indeed people and entrepreneurs could come forward, create jobs and create the economic well-being that he wishes and indeed the government of Manitoba wishes. That is the only way. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the Minister of Finance read the Provincial Auditor's report on year-end stat ements for the last four years.

He will find we have gone from a $55-million operating surplus in the financial affairs of the province to a $530-m illlon deficit, so he should not lecture members opposite on the financial situation of this province. He should stop that kind of charade in this province. I would note that the province of British Columbia is predicted to have a 2.5 percent growth rate ; Ontario is predicted to have 3 percent growth rate . That means that there is going to be jobs created in those provinces, but more importantly, questions to the Minister of Finance. We have a major downgrad ing of our growth predictions for 1992.

That has major implications on the unemployment rates of this province. It has major implications on the number of people on social assistance, a number that has necessitated a $90-million increase in expen ditures in two budgets for the many people who are employable on social assista nce. It will provide reduced reve nue to the government, reduced opportunity for our people, reduced opportunities for our people who are requiring services.

My question to the minister is: Is he just going to talk about right and wrong predictions, or is he going to come in with a strat egy to get Manitobans working again and getting people off the vicious cycle of social assistance for employable people? *

(1345) Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am not the one talking about forecasts. It was the Leader of the Opposition who brought forward the forecast issue, very selectively, I might add. I would say to him, if he wants to look at the ranking, he will see that Manitoba is still relatively well positioned in the ranking, when you take into the account all of the private forecasts. I say to the member, there are two choices here. We can sti ll follow the old NDP way of borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars, adding to the deficit, add ing to ultimately the tax levy that has to be imposed upon

1968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 individuals and on busin esses in this country, destroy ing the desire and indeed the ability to try and cr eate wealth, driving people out of this province, driving them to the welfare rolls. The members opposite know the impact of their $500-mil lion and $600 -million deficits through the '80s. They know that they have had more to do with the ill and the impact on taxes in this province than any other force. I say to the members they are going to ultimately have to tell Manitobans which path they would follow. Mr.

Speaker, I gather in their silence what they want is the government to borrow hu ndreds of millions of more dollars to add to the deficit increasing taxes along the line. Health Care System Anesthetist Review Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): We seem to be going from crisis to crisis in our health care system under this government. Today we have learned that the situation facing the anesthetists in this province of Manitoba is explosive. Two years ago this government promised to begin to deal with this situation facing anesthetists by stu dying the matter.

A year ago they found themselves unhappy with that study and brought in outside consultants to study the matter. That study was done about 10 months ago. It was released on March 30 to CEOs and heads of departments in our urban hospitals, and then those hospitals were given 36 hours to roll back the sessional rates in the hospitals of Brandon , Grace, Misericordia and Victoria, and the hospitals of Seven Oaks and Concordia were given short notice that their contract, their special contract arrangements would end.

I want to ask the minister if he will put these arbitrary, high-handed decisions on hold until the community hospitals, until the profe ssionals, until the anesthetists have had a chance to respond to the report, provide some input and give some advice to this government. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend, in the initial stages of her pream ble, I believe, was critical of the time in which it took us to come to some recommended solution to the difficult problem we have with the recruitment retention and rates of remuner ation for anethesiologists in the province of Manitoba. I distinctly recall her being critical of it taking two years.

Now when we have a report which has been a su bstantial amount of time in its development, with wide discussion and consultation involvement of ex pertise , and we take action on that, my honourable friend says you are acting too quickly and you should stu dy it some more. Mr. Speaker, the issue is very, very complex, and it has been two years in the making to come to those kinds of hopeful solutions that will work. Unless my honourable friend has a suggestion on how better to resolve the problem, which I did not detect in that rather lengthy

preamble, I am afraid I have to abide by the best advice we could obtain in almost two years of discussion, study and consultation around the issue. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister was: Why, after spending two-)'ears studying this matter, did this minister and this government then give our urban hospitals 36 hours to respond to two serious situations, one, the rollback in obstetrical anesthesia sessional rates at Bran don, Misericordia, Victoria and Grace , 36 hours to Concordia to deal with the end of a special contract arra ngement? How could he have done it that way?

Could he not be dece nt- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, all of those institutions were part of the consultation process to under stand the dynamics of the problem and to help create a solution. I will admit that any solution offered by govern men t around the sensitive area of compensation to physicians is never received with applause unless you pour more money at it.

What we tried to do was arrive at the most reasoned solution possible, bringing togeth er expert advice and cons u lta tion, work with the profess ionals, work with the facilities to come to a solution, which we asked the hospitals, yes, to implement very quickly, because we were under pressure from those same hospitals to come to a decision of government that they could implement. Mr.

Speaker, unless my honourable friend has some solution, other than the one that was proposed , that is better and will solve the problem quicker, other than the traditional response of pour more money at the syst em, I suggest my honourable friend ought to read the report, consult carefully with the issue to make sure that she unde rstands that we

April S, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1969 have probably arrived at the most reasoned solution to a difficult problem. •

(1350) Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: It is a very serious situation- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member kindly put your question, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I want to ask the Minister of Health, what impact will this kind of policy of confrontation of this government have on patient care , have on needed surgery, have on services that people of Manitoba are relying on? What kind of impact will this style of conflict and confrontation of the minister have on patient care ? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that the profe ssionals who provide anest hesiology service wiii'A..Jrk with government as this solution hopefully resolves a number of outsta nding issues.

Secondly, I would hope that within the distribution mechanism that the MMA, as the union bargaining on behalf of all physicians, that distribution mechanism as we have tried to achieve for approximately three years with the MMA, would recognize a greater share of the pie to go to anesthesiologists who are relatively underpaid in the Manitoba context because of the distribution by their union representation organization, the MMA, and that some of the wealth, the $300 million that we put to the MMA for their membership might be redistributed to assist in solving the problem.

Simply coming to government saying the solution we have arrived at is wrong, without a better one, is hardly appropriate in today's context, Mr. Speaker. Misericordia Hospital Emergency Ward Closure Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speake r, my question is for the Ministe r of Health. On January 15 of this year, the Minister of Health issued a news release about the Urban Hospital Coun cil, which he established in 1991. The minister's release said that the Urban Hospital Council had approved the recommendation to close the emergency ward of Misericordia Hospital from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m.

However, this recommendation was directly contradicted by his own group, and I will table the minutes of that meeting that took place on February 6. The decision was made on the 15th, that is what he said. Mr. Speaker, the working group said that it was oppo sed to the closing of the Mis er icordia emergency ward, and it said that many of the recommendati ons, and I quote, had been made with inadequate statistics. Can the Minister of Health tell us-according to this group, his own group, the decision Is not medically sound, it is not financially sound-why he is proceeding with this recommendat ion? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when I held the press conference with the Urban Hospital Council in January, some of the examples of issues-w ell, all of the issues being studied were laid out. One of the issues that was laid out was the closure of emer gency departments from, I think, it is 10p.m. to 8a .m. Even one hospital was sugge sted to under take that. That recommendation has come in and is before the Urban Hospital Counc il.

Now the normal process-and I simply indicate to my honourable friend that this is one of the decisions that I hope the Ur ban Ho spit al Council will advance as a recommendation, one way or anothe r, in the very near futu re, but the process is not complete. I have not been asked by the Urban Hospital Council to accept or to make any decision on closure and operation of emer gency departments in the city of Winnipeg from the Urban Hospital Council, Mr. Speaker. Now, when that recommendation comes to me, I will deal with it expeditiously. •

(1355) Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that we will help the minister on health care reform , and this decision by his own group is not medically sound and not financially sound. Can the minister tell this House today, according to his own judgment, does he still favour this decision or not? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my honourable friend, that is exactly the kind of process that we put those recom mended courses of actions through at the Urban Hospital Council. They are circulated back to the respective hospitals.

The feedba ck on the fea sibil ity of any recommended course of action is given to the Urban Hospital Council. If in their expert opinion it will work, I would su spect they will pass that rec ommen dation on for imple men tation, for consider ation of implem entation to myself. Government ultimately will make that decision.

1970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April S, 1992 Now if as my honourable friend says, the experts in the system question the medical effectiveness of that decision or its cost, then I would think the Urban Hospital Council would be very cautious in making that kind of a recommendation to government as government would be in accepting it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister make a promise in this House that in future such a major decision must be released in this House by the minister, not by us? Mr.

Orchard: I hate to use farmer vernacular, but my honourable friend has the cart before the horse, because I do not know how many times I have to tell my honourable friend that the Urban Hospital Council has not recommended a decision on emergency ward or emergency department hours of operati�riod and paragraph. One of the recommendations from the study group was to consider closing. That has been through that consultation process that was just urged upon me by the first opposition party. Mr.

Speaker, the essence of that consultation will guide the Urban Hospital Council to a recommendation to be made to me, I hope, in the near future. When that is given to me, I will gladly, as I indicated in Estimates yesterday and the day before, share it with my honourable friend. Dutch Elm Disease Program Provincial Funding Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The City of Winnipeg program for Dutch elm disease control aims to limit the annual loss rate of elms to less than 2 percent of the total.

It is a sensible policy, and I believe it is one that the minister shares. Together the city and the province have had some success in this. In 1989, provincial funding of $700,000 enabled the loss rate to be maintained at 1.906. In 1990, with the same level of funding, the loss rate was also 1.9. My question for the minister is: What evidence leads the minister to believe that his reduction of 50 percent of the funding for this program will enable us to maintain those tolerable loss rates? * (14 00) Hon. Harry Enns (Minis ter of Natural Resources): Mr.

Speaker, first of all, let me commend the honourable member because she does understand the problem and she asks the appropriate question. We cannot do anything other than restrict and hopefully delay the onslaught of the disease. Best professional evidence says that if we can keep the diseased and dying trees to below the 2 percent level, then we in Winnipeg-and I might say we have done in this instance a much better job than many other jurisdictions across the North American continent in controlling this disease-a re doing the right thing.

It Is precisely the question that she asks that I am fully prepared to examine. I am fully prepared to review the current level of support for the Dutch elm disease program, and if my professional advisers, forestry advisers in the City of Winnipeg or Indeed in the Department of Forestry In my department, tell me that I am putting at risk of exceeding that 2 percent level, then as I have said before, I believe, in this House, I am prepared to revisit the level of funding currently established in the budget exercise. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that.

I would like the minister to acknowledge that part of the program's success is due to the fact that the City of Winnipeg has substantially increased its funding and that

whereas the $700,000 provincial grant of 1989 was 48 percent of the total required, but in 1990 that 700,000 was only 35 percent of what was necessary to maintain this tolerable loss rate of less than 2 percent. Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member makes It difficult for me to respond, because far be it for me to take on prominent urban Tories on this question of fighting Dutch elm disease, not to mention the wife of a former Leader of mine, now a senator, or indeed others who have expressed concern about this.

But I want to assure the honourable member that us little farm folks, woodlands ranchers have perhaps even a deeper and greater understanding of this problem. That is why we are fighting Dutch elm disease in 41 rural municipalities and are adding to that another five municipalities while I stand, Mr. Speaker, which is something that honourable members opposite sometimes in their urban flavour forget that that Dutch elm disease does not know borders, is not just contained to the city of Winnipeg. It is an important issue in the city of Winnipeg. It is an important issue in 45 rural municipalities as well, Mr.

Speaker. We too have increased our budget in the overall fighting of this disease.

April S, 1992 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 1971 Ms. Friesen: Will the minister then make the commitment to review that program to increase the funding so that the 5,000 dead elms which are the real danger to the riverbanks and to the rural municipalities, can be treated, removed- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister to make the commitment to restore the funding so that the dead elms that are along the riverbanks can be removed in ways that they could not be removed last year because of inadequate funding, and so that the municipalities and the city along the rivers, the Assiniboine and the Red, can be assured that there will be some protection against Dutch elm disease spread. Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) reminds me, and correctly so, that this government increased the overall funding to the City of Winnipeg by some 4.2 percent.

It is entirely within the purview of the City of Winnipeg if they wish to use some of that increase in a manner that they wish to prioritize. But because I am a reasonable man, I am going to do something that my 26 years in politics should tell me not to do. Instead of simply answering the honourable member with the well-proven response of "soon," I will say she will have an answer in 10 days. Chinese Cooking Wine Sale Restrictions Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): My question is to the Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Commission.

Today we have learned that another Manitoban is believed to have died as a result of consumption of Chinese cooking wine. Community groups have repeatedly called on the government to respond to the growing problem of abuse of this product by restricting its sales in a manner that would prevent misuse. Will the Minister responsible for the Liquor Control Commission inform the House what action her department will be taking to address this issue? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr.

Speaker, I thank the member for Point Douglas for his question and his concern in this issue. We have a committee going. It is a nonpotable abuse coalition committee.

It has members on it from the Main Street Project, from the substance abuse coalition, from the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association, Point Douglas Residents' Committee, and the Winnipeg Police vice squad amongst others, who are currently examining this very question to determine whether or not substances such as the Chinese cooking wine which has traditionally been considered nonpotable because of its high salt content, is in fact potable, and if it is, what should be done about it. Those products are currently being tested by laboratories; results should be coming back from those labs before too long.

The committee will deliberate on those results to see what action we could or should take. Mr. Hlckes: My question is to the same minister. Since 1989, Alberta has changed their legislation to classify Chinese cooking wine as liquor to control its sale. Why has this minister not responded previously to this same precedent that has been set? Mrs. Mcin tosh: Mr. Speaker, in various jurisdictions across Canada, there are differing

definitions for what is controlled by various liquor commissions and those in charge of beverages containing alcohol. You will see different laws in jurisdictions for rubbing alcohol, for example, and stomach bitters and those types of articles. Here in Manitoba the definition of the alcohol that is controlled by the Liquor Control Commission has always been potable spirits. The Alberta legislation has a differing definition. If as a result of our study we determine that this should be considered something that should come under the Liquor Control Commission or under the Department of Health or some other area of government, then some

definitions may have to be changed in the act. Solvent Abuse Legislation Proclamation Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): My final question is to the Minister of Health. Will he now, given the apparent death of yet another person due to nonalcoholic beverage abuse, and also given this government's statements of commitment to stopping such abuse, finally proclaim the antisolvent abuse legislation

1972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 introduced by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis)? It has been well over two years ago in which it could give police and community groups a tool to help fight this problem before we have more deaths in Manitoba. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I think my honourable friend the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission addressed the issue in how a course of action might be undertaken, which I think will effectively deal with the sale of such products and that, Sir, should be accomplishable within existing statute. Women's Directorate Assistant Deputy Minister Competition Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.

The minister made a commitment last summer to an open competition for the appointment of the Assistant Deputy Mi nister for the Women's Directorate. That never took place because this minister cancelled the competition. The reason why it was cancelled is because she says that there were no qualified candidates; and that is her opinion, not my opinion. My question is to the minister. Why is the minister trying to leave the false impression that the competition was cancelled by the Civil Service when, in fact, it was cancelled from the Minister responsible for the Status of Women? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, I have never tried to leave any false impressions on the record. As a matter of fact, I am satisfied that I followed proper procedures in consultation with the Ci vil Service Commission and, in fact, the competition was cancelled by my office and I have never indicated otherwise. It is government's prerogative to make technical appointments in instances of senior Civil Service positions. I followed that process and I believe I followed the proper process. • (141 0) Mr.

Lamoureux: It is beyond me how this minister can dare to blame the Civil Service. How can she possibly do it given, Mr. Speaker, and I quote- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question is: How can she blame the Civil Service in a letter in which, and I quote, I also wish to advise that the decision has been made to cancel the competition as the government has chosen to make an appointment through an alternative method? That means the minister- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mrs. Mitchelson: That is exactly what I said in my first answer. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, to the minister responsible for the Civil Service. I make reference to the- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Inkster kindly put your question now, please. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the Hay Report my question to the minister is: How does the minister justify what the Minis ter responsible for the Status of Women has done given, and I quote from the report, the control that ministers appear to have over who gets approvai-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mrs.

Mitchelson: The ranting and raving that we hear from the member for Inkster only indicates that he has no understanding of government because he has never been in government and never will be, Mr. Speaker. I think the issue here is that the women of Manitoba deserve to be well served by the Women's Directorate, and I have every confidence that Theresa Harvey, who has been appointed by this government into a technical position in the Women's Directorate, not unlike what the NDP government did when they took the member for St.

Johns out of the Premier's office and put her in the Women's Directorate without a competition. It was a technical appointment, and that was their prerogative at the time, just as it was our prerogative this time. I have four letters from people within the community and within government who have highly recommended Theresa Harvey as the right person for the job . Human Resources Opportunity Centre Closure Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Family Services.

April S, 1992 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1973 I have a letter here from the mayor of Selkirk addressed to the Minister of Family Services, and I will quote: I urge you on behalf of the people of Selkirk who will lose the most to reconsider the closure of the Selkirk Human Resource Opportunity Centre. I also have a letter from the Selkirk local and the Manitoba Metis Federation again condemning the closure. Considering the mounting opposition to the closure, will the minister now stop the planned closure of the centre ? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, day after day, we have opposition members asking us to spend more money in a variety of areas and certainly Family Services is one of the areas where this government has made a priority. We have increased the spending in Family Services almost 9 percent this year. That compares very favourably with a budget that was brought forward by-a pretend budget mind you-members opposite . I forget the name of the people who were refe renced in a petition earlier, but in their wildest dreams they were going to increase spending in Family Services by 5 percent.

We have had to make some difficult decisions to be able to create new programming, to create a new program in social allowances for the disabled, to make additional expenditures in daycare , to make additional expenditures in child welfare , and do some very creative and innovative things. We have legislation before the House now that we will be talking about later this afte rnoon, and I am sure members opposite will want to support that. Mr. Dewar: This government is bragging about the amount of individuals on welfare. It is terrible.

Will the minister delay the dismantling of the centre until he has a chance to meet with groups who are working on alternatives to the closure? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, as I was just starting to indicate, we have a lot of additional programming that Family Services is embarking on this year including the maintenance of the CareerStart Program that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) freq uently asks about, the creation of the Partners with Youth program that we will be unveiling some details about in the near future.

There are times when difficult decisions and certain adjustments have to be made to allow us to create new progr amming and to add to the expenditures in this department. The adjustment that the member is referring to was one of those difficult decisions. Mr. Dewar: The minister refuses to answer the questio ns. One of the reasons these individuals are in the training plant is, of course, because they have little money.

My question to the minister is: What is he going to do to provide these individuals who will now be forced to travel from Selkirk to Gimli, from Selkirk to Winnipeg, what is he going to provide to them? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member should have been at Estimates the other day. We were discussing the Esti mates of the Department of Family Services, and the critic for the NDP and the acting critic for the Liberals were asking some questions on this area, and we talked about programming that we have for individuals who are on social allowances.

I can say to the member that there are new initiatives being taken to atte mpt to get recipients of social allowances into the work force . The members who are currently taking that program will continue to take it and later on be served in other areas. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Order, please. Prior to Orders of the Day, l would like to tell the House that if debate on the Address for Papers in private members' hour is concluded before 6 p.m., I will be bringing down my ruling respecti ng private members' Resolution 4. Nonpolitical Statements Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a nonpolitical state ment? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. It is agreed . Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to recogniz e an honour being given to two distinguished Manitobans. This afternoon in Ott awa, Mr. Osmond T. Anderson and Mr. Gordon T. MacDonell will be among 25 Canadians being awarded citations for citizenship by the federal

1974 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 Mu lticulturalism and Citizenship Minister, the Honourable Gerry Weiner. Recipients are eligible for this honour only once in a lifetime and are recommended to the minister by an advisory panel. Recipients are chosen from across the country on the basis of activities which promote the values of Canadian citizenship and encour age citizenship participation. The activities of Mr. MacDonell and Mr. Anderson have under scored the shared values and beliefs of freed om, justice, equality and respect for diversity that characterize Canadian citizenship. *

(1420) Their gene rosity and initiative have made a unique contribution to Manitoba. Mr. MacDonell himself, Manitoban born, has served Manitoba and Manitobans in the educational field over the past 60 years. His dedication reflects his strong personal belief in the value of learn ing. His wisdom , enthusia sm, dedic ation and strong sense of community, has earned him the respect of his peers and all who know him. It has been a career of notable accomplishment and honours earned. I am also pleased to point out that Mr.

MacDonell is the founding member of the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, a strong reflection of his commitment to making this community and this country a better place for all. Mr. Anderson or O.T., as he is called by all who know him, is equally deservi ng of this recognition for his efforts to improve our community. O.T. immigrated to Canada in 1959 from Jamaica. Upon completing his studies at the University of Manitoba, Mr. Anderson began with the Winnipeg School Division. During this time, O.T. began a lifetime commitment to the advancement of multiculturalism in Manitoba.

He was inst rumen tal in the creation and establishment of the multicultural policies within our educ ational syst em. His dedic at ion to the multicultural ideal is illustrated by his work in ethnocultural promot ion. O.T. has served as president of the Jamaican Association of Manitoba and has played a strong role in the development and success of the Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg. Mr. Anderson's tireless efforts have been twice recog nized, in 1987 and in 1990, with the City of Winnipeg's Award for Outsta nding Citizenship, Leade rship and Community Service.

As the current chairper son of the Manitoba Multicultural Resource Centre, it is evident O.T.'s dedication and energies have not diminished. Mr. MacDonell and Mr. Anderson have both served Manitoba in an exemplary manner, and I ask the members of this House to join me in acknowledging and expressing our appreciation for their many years of contributing to the betterment of Manitoba community. Thank you. Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical state ment? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Radisson have leave to make a nonpolitical state ment? Leave. It is agreed. Ms.

Cerllll: I would just like to join with the Minister responsi ble for Multiculturalism (Mrs. Mitchelson) in recognizing the award being given to Mr. Anderson and Mr. MacDonell. Both of these individuals have contributed an incredible amount of time to issues of citizenship and multiculturalism in combating racism in Manitoba. They certainly are deserving of this award and exemplify the kind of commitment that so many people in the multicultural committees and organizations throughout the province have, and it is important that they are recognized in this way. Thank you. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, I would ask for leave to make a non political state ment. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Ink ste r have le ave to make a nonpo litical state ment? Leave. It is agreed . Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to stand up and echo some of the remarks that were made from the minister to both Mr. MacDonell and Mr. Anderson . In particular, as many people who know Mr. Anderson, Mr. Anderson likes to be addressed as O.T., whom I have come to know over the last number of years as an individual who is just a fantastic person to sit down and to talk to about multicultura lism.

One of the things that I have always sugges ted , Mr. Speaker, is as a critic for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and concentrati ng on multiculturalism, it is always a benefit to be able to go out and meet with many different individuals, leaders of the different ethnic communities. O.T. is one of those individuals who is so knowledgeable about multiculturalism that he would amaze a great number of individuals in this Chamber and could

April 8, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1975 keep us glued to our seats and give unlimited time to talk about the importance of multiculturalism, what multiculturalism is really all about. I have had the opportunity on several occasions to sit down and to hear his words and wisdom regar ding multiculturalism and how he feels about the multicultural Canada or the mosaic and what it is all about. I know that he has been very active, not only within his own community, the Jamaican community, but also, as the minister pointed out, with the folk arts.

He has been really the leader over at the Multicultural Resource Centre . I have had opportunities to meet with different individuals who have had some interaction with O.T., and the reaction has always been one of a positive thing. So I do want to put those few words on the record and again give my cong ratu latio ns to both candidates, in fact, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, very much. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in the following order: Second Readings, Bills 61 , 62 , 64 and 70, and then adjourned debate Bill 45? That is it.

If we will duly finish Bill 45, I will call additional bills after that. Mr. Speaker: Okay, thank you. SECOND READINGS BIII61-The Consumer Protection Amendment Act

(4) Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodre y), that Bill 61 , The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia protection du consommateur, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Speaker, just a few words on this particular amendment. The basic intent here is just simply to clarify, for those who will be working the act, the thrust that we now take in government in terms of consumer protection. The purpose is to clarify the information exchanging provisions of the act to allow the Consumer s' Bureau to communicate information within the Manitoba government. When the act was draft ed, and the way it is worded right now, the clause covering the

section with sharing of information enables the Consumer's Bureau to exchange information with governments of other provinces but not with other departments of the Manitoba government. This is a housekeeping amendment that clarifies the intent and will rectify the situation by enabling the Consumers' Bureau with good conscience to communicate information within the Manitoba government.

Considering that consumers experiencing the same problem ofte n approach more than one gove rnment department or law enforcement agency, it is essential that departmen ts and agencies ex change information in order to co-ordinate enforce ment activities and to apply the most appropriate law to any particular situation. This amendment, Bill 61 , will enhance the role of the Consumers' Bureau in ensuring the foste ring of an efficient, effe ctive marketplace by allowing the Consumers' Bureau to exchange information within the Manitoba government as well as with other jurisdictions. I recommend Bill 61 , Mr.

Speaker, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4) to the honourable members of this Legislature and look forward to their support and debate on the issue. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellin gton): I move , seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 62-The Business Practices Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodre y), that Bill 62 , The Business Practices Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Mcintosh: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will enable the exchange of information with municipal police forces such as the Winnipeg Police. It was the intent of the act when it was put in place to have communication with law enforcement officials available. Of course , as we have begun to work with the act and as we go and work with law

1976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 enforcement officials in various parts of the province, as we are doing increasi ngly, we have had a number of issues. *

(1430) The home renovation scams that were out there in the ma rketplace that we are cu rrently investigati ng in co-operation with the RCMP and the City of Winnipeg Police necessit ate increased involvement with law enfor cement officials. The current wording of the act did not permit us to communicate and share information with municipal pollee forces such as the Winnipeg Police force.

Since many complaints are of such a nature that they requir e a full-scale investigation that takes us into a policing jurisdiction, it was felt that allowing the exchange of information with municipal police forces needed to be written in. The provision in the act right now enables the Consumers' Bureau to exchange information with government agencies and with the RCMP only. While we do need the provision to communicate and exchange information with the RCMP, we also need to share information with municipal police forces, and so we wish to add that particular state ment.

It is essen tially an amendment of a housekeeping nature which broadens the intent and makes it clear that we have the ability to communicate with law enforce ment officials at any level, if it is necessary to help with an investigation that might bring a perpetrator to justice. The re is another small ad dition in this amendm ent, Mr. Speaker.

Since many of the complaints that we get involve inadvertences and misu nderstandings as opposed to delib er ate breaches of the law, this other amendment would allow the bureau to retain the option of resolving a compla int thr ough medi ation by amending su bsection 13(c), making it consistent with the discretion presently provided in subsection 14 (1 ). The present wording could be viewed as requiring or demanding a full investigation of a complaint even though the problem could be satisfacto rily resolved through mediation. That is an important wording change to have.

It is simply changing a "shall" to •may" in order to avoid frivolous complaints having to be investigated in det ail as a full -scale investigation. It also enables us to mediate when an investigation is not necessary. I will give you one example of a situation we had recently -a consumer who complained to the bureau that she had purchased a video cartridge which the ret ailer had sold as being new. Indeed, it was in new packaging, but when she used the cartridge the consumer discovered the cartridge had In fact been used.

Through med iation, the bureau was able to discover that the store did not in fact sell used cartridg es, and had no idea how the used one had entered their stock. The store immediately provided the consumer with a full refu nd of the purchase price, plus their assurance that they would investigate the problem and ensure that it did not occur again. Then they took their own complaints to the place from where they had obtained the tape.

This is a case where clearly an investigation that would be necessary under the present wording would have served no useful purpose, would have tied up time and talent when mediation was the answer. We try to solve as many problems as we can through mediation. The Consumers' Bureau, of the complaints it receives every year, solves 80 percent of them through mediation, and returns to the consumers of Manitoba about half a million dollars on an annual basis through the successful resolution of disputes.

On the one hand, we are asking for the ability to work more closely with policing officials, and where that is not necessary, we are asking for some flexibility to be able to mediate without having to resort to those full-scale investigations. Regarding the provision of information, the last portion of the amendment provides the necessary di scretion to the direc tor to dete rmine the appropria te information to be provided to consu me rs and supp liers as circums tances warrant. Mr.

Speaker, I believe, that these changes will allow the Consumer s' Bureau to be more efficient and more effective in allocating their efforts on those matters for which the act is intended , and that these amendments support the intent of the legislation and make it eminently more workable. Mr. Leo nard Evans (B randon East): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) , that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

April S, 1992 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1977 Bill 64- The Child and Family Services Amendment Act Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speake r, I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintos h) , that Bill 64 , The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les services a !'enfant et a Ia famille), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, today I have the pleasure of speaking in support of Bill 64, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act. This amendment will result in the establ ishment of a Children's Advocate office in Manitoba.

The est ablishment of this office will ensure that children recei ving services from Manitoba's Child and Family Services system are protected and well treated and their rights, interests and preferences are respected when decisions affe cting them are being made. In the December 5, 1991, throne speech our government made a commitment to introduce legislation in the current session to establ ish the Children's Advocate office. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in support of this important initiative.

As the Minister of Family Services, I take issues related to child protecti on, care and family support very seriously. I well under stand the stresses and burdens felt by families in crisis. The legislation that is before the House today reflects our government's strong commitment to Manitoba children who are in need of special care and protecti on. Recommendations to est ablish an advocacy office for children in care in Manitoba were made as early as 1983 in a report on child welfare by Judge Kimelman The 1987 Reid-Sigur dson review on child abuse made a similar recommendation.

More recently, the Aboriginal Ju st ice Inquir y als o recomme nded the esta blishment of an office of child protecto r. In each of these instances, the authors and their reports unde rscored the necessity of creating an independent body to advocate for the rights of children who receive services from the province's Child and Family Services syst em. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the establ ishment of such an office is long-awaited and long-anticipat ed. It should be noted that the provinces of Ontario and Alberta each currently have a Children's Advocate office.

In both instances, the Children's Advocate reports to the minister who is responsi ble and accountable for Child and Family Services. As is proposed by this amendment to Manitoba's Child and Family Services Act, the primary function of the Children's Advocate will be to ensure that children are well treated by Manitoba's Child and Family Services system and that their rights, prefe rences, and interests are respected when decisions affe cting them are made.

It should be noted that this office will have a broad mandate that includes case-specific advocacy on behalf of individual children in care ; class advocacy on behalf of groups of children; and systemic advocacy to ensure that child welfare standards, policies and proced ures are generally responsive to the needs of children. As the members review this legislation, I ask they keep in mind the spirit and intent of this legislation, which is to establish an independent advocate for children in contact with the Child and Family Services system in our province.

I ask that they recognize the importance of the principle of advocacy in this legislation. Technically, any person who speaks on behalf of, or represents the interests of another person is perf orming an advocacy function. Naturally, parents or family members are usually in the best position to advocate for the inte rests of their children. This advocacy role may be lost, however, when due to neglect or abuse the child requires protective intervention by the sta te. In these cases, a governmen t ser vice system as sumes the respo nsibilities formerly exercised by parents and other individuals in the child's life.

In addition to being the primary caregiver, the onus is on government to also ensure that the child continues to have someone who can and will act on the child's behalf. When children are taken into care because they are judged to be in need of protecti on, the primary role and responsibilities of the care giver shift from the parents to a Child and Family Services agency, trea tment centre , group home or foster home.

Staff or foster parents do their best to provide protection and support for the children in their care . • (144 0) This may often include advocating on the child's behalf when important decisions must be made, or

1978 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA April S, 1992 when the services being provided to the child are inadeq uate or inappropriate. Because they are service providers within the Child and Family Services syste m, however, there may be instances where staff or foste r parents Jack the necessary independence to perform an effective advocacy function. (Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Similarly, the Director of Child and Family Services and his staff may, on occasion, be perceived as Jacking the independence necessary to advocate on a child's behalf. For these reasons, Mr.

Speaker, we are estab lishing a Childr en's Advocate who has no direct responsibilities for service delivery, and who can therefore represent children's interests in an objective, independent manner. The Children' s Advocate's primary duties will include advising the minister respon sible for Child and Family Services on issues affe cting children or the delivery of services; receiving and investigating complaints related to child protection and family support services; and speaking on behalf of children when Important child welfare decisions are to be made.

Madam Deputy Speaker, our government is committed to the children and families of Manitoba. The introduction of this legislation is an important part of our commitment. During the course of the past five fiscal years we have underscored our com mitm en t to fam ilies by increasing the Department of Family Services' tota l budget by 47 percent, an increase of $204 million. During the same period, total government spending has increased by about 26 percent. My department has increased funding to the areas of domestic abuse and violence against women by 223 percent since 1987-88.

Funding has now reached an all-time high of $2.9 million annually. Child and family support funding has grown by 41 percent over the last five years to $98.5 million. We have increased child daycare funding by 71 percent since 1987-88, Madam Deputy Speaker, to $46 .7 million in 1992-93 . These initiatives by the Department of Family Services reflect the same commitment to families that led our government to introduce the legislation before the House today. This commitment to children and families also led our government to subs tant ially increase foster care rates.

Under the terms of a three-year agreement nego tiated with the Man itoba Foster Family Association, foster parents saw increases of 84 percent and 49 percent respectiv ely for children up to 10 years of age and youth 11 to 17 years of age. As I noted earlier in my remarks, child protection is a priority of our government and the Department of Family Services. We have stre ngthened laws protecti ng children from abuse and have initiated several new child abuse prevention and trea tment programs. I should also note that the department has prepared new protocols for reporting suspected cases of abuse.

These protocols have been prepared for a variety of professionals, including social workers, health care profe ssionals, child daycare workers and teac hers. Further to our commitment to families, last spring we carried out a major restruc turing of Winnipeg Child and Family Services agencies. This restruc tu ring has brought together the administrati on of the six former agencies into a single organization, thereby reducing administrative costs while improving the co-ordination of support and care for children and families at risk.

My department is also developing a computerized information system to help track Child and Family Services clients and a high-risk indicator to help workers assess cas es. Our commitment to families will continue. Madam Deputy Speaker, the initiatives and support that I have spoken of during the course of my rem ark s are evidence of my personal commitment as well as our governmen t's and my department's commitment to children and families in Manitoba.

There are critical challenges facing Manitoba's families, and there are critical challenges facing the Department of Family Services in respon ding to the needs of these families. These challenges include an increasingly complex opera ting environment resulting from family conflict and breakdown, sh ifting dem ographic s and weak economic conditions. These realities dema nd and will continue to demand that the Department of Family Services maintain and enhance vital social services to Manitobans who are in need or at risk at a time when government resources are not expected to increase significantly.

My department's policies and programs affect the lives of tens of thousands of Manitobans and, over the course of a full year, it is estimated that as many as 1 80,000 Manitobans, over 16 percent of our total

April S, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 79 population, receive services or benefits from Family Services or the organization that it funds. Family Services co-ordinates a wide range of human support services which protect and assist the needi est and most vulnerable members of Manitoba's population. The Child and Family Services Amendment Act that is currently before this House is part of our commitm ent to protect the most vuln erable Individuals in our province-our children.

I have spoken at length, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the initiatives that have been undertaken in the name of the families of Manitoba. You may be assured that this same dedication and diligence in protecting and sup porting children in need of protection will continue. I urge all of the members of the House to join with me in supporting this legislation, which will result in the establishment of the Children's Advocate office. I am asking that the members consider the words I have spoken in support of this legislation and Manitoba families and support Bill 64.

Ultimately, the establ ishment of the Children's Advocate office will ensure that children are protected and well treated and that their rights, interests and preferences are respected when decisions affec ting them are made. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask: Is that not a goal which must in good conscience be supported by each member of this Assembly? Ms. Becky Barrett (Welli ngton): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 70- The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Famil y Servi ces): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur I' aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second time and refe rred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Gllleshammer: Madam Deputy Speaker, this afte rnoon I have the honour of speaking in support of Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. The proposed amendments to The Social Allowances Act and to The Municipal Act which are contained in this legislation will resolve the long-standing issue of municipal assistance rates and the rules of eligibility varying across the province.

During the 1988 election campaign, we made a commitment to strengthen Manitoba's social assistance program in order to protect those in need. We stressed the importance of fairness and equity in the syst em, at the same time underscoring the importance of a local delivery syst em, sensitive to regional demands and realities. The legislation that is currently before this House is a direct result of this commitment to social assistance reform . It is also the result of a broad-r each ing consu ltat ion process involving Mani toba' s municipalities.

As the members are likely aware , the former Minister of Family Services est ablished the Social Assistance Review Committee in the spring of 1989. The committee was struck to provide municipal governments with the means of presenting the government of Manitoba with their perspective on changes to Manitoba's municipal social assistance syst em. Along with the decision to con sul t with municipalities, the approach also recognized the need for the effective provision of service through continued delivery by the municipalities and uniform regulations governing the provision of assistan ce.

The comm ittee itself was com prised of representatives of the associations representing municipalities: the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the City of Winnipeg. The Manitoba Municipal Administrators Association also served on the committee. As the members may recall, the Social Assistance Review Committee prepared a report which was based on a series of meetings held between April and July 1989.

This report was then reviewed by each municipal association and the City of Winnipeg Council to ensure that the rec ommendations reflected the views of the municipalities. This report was also provided to interested advocacy groups for their review and comment. This was an important part of the consultation process.

1980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April S, 1992 The legislation that I am speaking in support of today is the result of this consultation process. It should be noted that in its report the com mittee agreed that standard ization of the municipal assis tance progr am, through the pro vinc ial regulation, would address the major concerns with regard to the current structure while allowing the municipalities to bring their knowledge of local matters and their exper tise to the delivery of assi stance.

Furthermore, the committee agreed that there should be extensive regulation of the benefits, rates and financial eligibility criteria, with flexibility for the municipalities to exceed the regulated rate s, limited regula tion of adm inis trative proc edu res and reasonable levels of support and monitoring of the municipalities. * (1450 ) It was also rec omme nded by the Social Assistance Review Committee that the criteria which determine eligibility for municipal assistance be standar diz ed . This incl udes a common definition of what income and assets are considered in the needs assessment test.

I have gone into some detail about the consultation process and the review committee's recomm endations which establ ish the basis for this legislation. I have done this to ensure that all the members are aware that these amendments are not being proposed lightly, nor without consultation and input from Manitoba's municipalities. As the members are aware, in the December 5, 1991 throne speech, a commitment was made to introduce legislation during the current session which would result in more equitable benefits and treatment across the province.

I reiterated that commitment on January 17 of this year when I announced the standardization of rates and rules gover nin g muni cip al assistance through amendments to both The Social Allowances Act and The Municipal Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am honoured to speak in support of our commitment to Bill 70. The intent of this legislation is very straightforward and sim pie: to sta ndardize the minimum rates and some of the criteria which establish eligibility for municipal assistance across the province through the regulation of the Municipal Assistance Program.

The amendmen ts that are proposed by this legislation are the result of our government's commitment to social assistance reform and the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, and consultation with Manitoba's municipalities and in te rest and adv ocacy groups. With the introduction of Bill 70 , our gove rnmen t is est ablishing the legis lative framework necessary to bring about many of the reforms recommended by the Social Assistance Review Committee, and, I might add, necessary to the fair and equitable delivery of social assistance in the province.

The proposed amendmen ts will result in The Social Allowances Act bec oming the major legislative base for the social assistance syst em. The proposed approach is to consolida te the leg islative provisions for social allowances, municipal assistance and general assistance within The Social Allowances Act.

The result will be that the act would apply to provincial social allowance clients, largely disabled persons, sole su pport parents , municipal assistance clients, unemployed employables in a municipality, and to provincial gen er al assis tance clien ts, un emp loyed employables living in local government districts and in unorganized territ ories. The amendm ents to The Municipal Act will empower Manitoba's municipalities to provide municipal assistance in accordance with The Social Allowances Act. The proposed amendments would alleviate disparities and standardize rates across the province.

I want to stress that municipalities will retain the flexibility to exceed the minimum standard levels, and provincial cost sharing will be in keeping with the provincially approved standards using the existing cost-sharing formula. The new regulations will also maintain strong employment search expec tations that are flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in employment availability. Most importantly, under the proposed regulated syste m, municipalities will continue to play a key role in the delivery of standardized municipal assist ance.

In recog nition of municipalities' experience and underst anding of local needs and regional realities, municipalities will hold a vital position in the proposed re gula ted syste m. Also, key administrative procedures such as some aspects of the applications process will be regu lated . This will help to ensure equal acce ssi bili ty and confidentiality. It should also be noted that municipalities have repeatedly expressed a need for support and assistance during the st andardization

April S, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1981 process, and so department staff will be designated to support municipal administrators and to monitor the program during the initial transition phase and beyond . Over the past several years our government has made a number of reform s to the social assistance system in Manitoba in keeping with our commitment to protect those in need of financial assista nce. The legislation I am speaking of today is more evidence of our governm ent's commitment to reform Manitoba's social assistance syst em.

As the memb ers may be aware, we have undertaken a number of initiatives in this regard . For example, immediate eligibility for the provincial Social Allowances Program was extended to recently separated and/or deserted single-parent families effective January 1990. Beginning in the current calendar year, social allowance recipients have received an increase in monthly benefits to cover the value of provincial tax credits previously received on an annual lump-sum basis.

At the same time, recipients also received a general social allowances rate increase of 3.6 percent and a 3 percent rise in allowable monthly shelter payments. I also announced that a special new supplement will be provided to disabled adults who qualify for social allowance benefits to offset their higher living costs resulting from their disabilities. Most recently, we raised the liquid asset exemption levels for provincial social allowance recipients . This change will provide clients more flexibility in managing their financial resources.

Each of these amendmen ts to the provincial program and its policies have been part of the process of reform our government committed itse lf to in 1988 and when the Department of Family Services was created in 1989. Madam Deputy Speaker, while the proposed amendments are broad , as I have outlined in my remarks, they are also vital to the delivery of a fair and equitable social assistance system in Manitoba. Inconsistencies and inequities in the current system must be addressed and rectified. The legislation before the House will enable us to do just that.

I urge the members to join with me in supporting Bill 70. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 45- The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Munici pal Amendment and Consequenti al Amendments Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second read ing of Bill 45, The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Mu nicip al Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg, Ia

Loi sur les municipalites et d'autres dispositions legislatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) , standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who has three minutes remaining. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was unfortu nate I did not have the full 40 minutes last time to be able to complete my remarks because, as members will recal l, I had many concerns about this particular bill. I want to emphasize again that we are concerned about the powers given to the minister.

We are concerned about the precedent this ministe r is setti ng in terms of the city of Winnipeg and the kind of precedent we may see in the future in terms of construction of new rural municipalities. It is not a question of Headingley per se, but the kind of agenda that we are going to see from this minister and other members of this government in terms of possible dismemberment piece by piece of the city of Winnipeg and other boundary changes that may occur throughout the province. I want to indicate that there are many concerns I know in my own community related to municipal affairs, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We do not have, in particular, boundary problems. There are other problems in my own constituency with regard, for example, to policing. I will be raising those as concerns. I am very concerned indeed about what is happening and the pressures that are taking place at the municipal level of government, as in the case of my own community where policing has led to the community having to pick up 90 percent of the policing costs .

I think we need a new deal between the provincial government, indeed the federal government as well , and the municipalities, because I see increasingly that municipalities are ending up in a divide-an d-conq uer type of mentality

1982 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April S, 1992 this government is encouraging. They are not getting adequate support from the provincial government. They are havin g offl oading of programs. That results in the kind of pressures we are seeing for the reconstruction of boundaries, whether it be in the city of Winnipeg, and will also, I think, lead to the precedent of similar situations outside of the city of Winnipeg. •

(1500) Madam Deputy Speaker, what this government is doing through its bills, such as this particular bill, and its fiscal policy is putting a great deal of pressure on municipalities that is not good for the citizens of this province. They like to say there is only one taxpayer. Indeed, there is only one taxpayer in this province, and what they are doing is transfe rring burdens out of one pocket, the provincial pocket, that people have into the other, the municipal level.

I can see som e major pr oblems ahead for municipalities, for the city of Winnipeg, for the rural municipalities and the urban municipalities in the province of Manitoba if this government does not recognize the damage it is doing to one of the most grassroots, in-touch levels of government, the local level of government. I am disappointed there are so many people from that side of government who come out of municipal politics, civic politics. I would have thought they would have known better. It is up to us in this case , because of the silence of some of the members opposite , to raise these concerns.

I have raised the concerns because I believe as a representative of the city of Thompson I have as much stake , and I wish to speak out as much on behalf of the citizens of Winnipeg if we see in this case as we do, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this government is not doing the same. In conclusion once again we have significant problems with Bill 45. I want to say, this minister, this government has to amend this bill. If they do not amend this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be debating it, we will be fighting some of the negative principles in this bill, and we will be debating this bill for quite some time.

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to add a few remarks to the debate on this very important bill that has been discussed very briefly by my colleague the member for Thompson. I know he made an eloquent speech last time, but he only had three minutes on this occasion to provide his wind-up remarks. It is a piece of legislation that is very fundamental . It involves a number of basic principles that should concern all of us, regardless of what area we represent in the pro vince.

There are some principles that bear on how we go about forming municipalities, and there are some concerns we have about the methodology used by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) . Having said all that, I can tell you that I appreciate the concerns of the residents of Headingley and a lot of the problems that they have perceived over the years with not getti ng the kind of services that they believe they are entitled to compared with the amount of taxes that they had to and have to pay still to the city of Winnipeg.

What we have here is perhaps the culmination of many years of frustration and of anger and concerns raised by residents in Headingley, both in north Headingley and south Headingley. Of course , in some ways it has come to a head now with this particular piece of legislation and cert ainly with the ref erendum that was held last November 14 . That is November 14 , 1991, when a ref erendum was held, whereby 86 percent of those who voted supported a movement to secede, they su pported a secession, they supported the setting up of a separate jur isdiction of Headingley.

I note , I am not sure under what legislation this refe rendum was able to be held. I do not believe there is any provision. I stand to be corrected on that, but I do not know under what provision, in what act that particular type of refere ndum was allowed to take place. Of course, you can argue that if you have any kind of refe rendum on a secession it should involve the whole and not just the part.

Just as many people in Canada would argue that you cannot just have a refere ndum in the province of Quebec and allow it to decide that it is going to secede from the rest of the country without involving the opinions of the rest of the country , therefore a case has been made, Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of constitutional reform for a nation-wide refe rendum so that everybody has an opportunity to voice a concern, not just the one part that wishes to sece de.

I think that type of argument can be utilized in this case as well, that perhaps there should have been involvement of residents in the city of Winnipeg as well, but it is sorry that we had to come to this

April 8, 1992 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1983 particular extreme position where the residents were very, very upset and took the measures that they did and carried on as they had. I think that there could have been other solutions worked out between the city fathers and the residents of Headingley with the co-operation of the Province of Manitoba to avoid this type of drastic action because, indeed, it is drastic. It is a carving up of part of the City of Winnipeg and thereby diminishing the city as we now know it.

Having said that, I can under stand the perception of Headingiey being separate from the City of Winnipeg and, indeed, when you drive through Headingley-1 am talking about north Headingley now, which I have driven through regularly for over two decades. I drive through that area many times, too many times during the year. I know that especially when I go through in the evening or in the darkness that you come from Brandon, you come from the west and you hit Headingley and you have lights and you are in a community, you are in an area.

You think, well, maybe you are finally in Winnipeg, but then what happens, you go a bit further and you hit the darkness again. So it is totally dark between the built-up north Headingley area and the area near the Perimet er. So there is a darkness in there and it gives you the perception that really- An Honourable Member: How would you know all that? You have not been to Brandon for years . Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, as I said before the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) sat down, I have driven through Headingley between this Legislative Assem bly location and my constituency too many times over the last two decades. An Honourable Member: You used to. Mr. Leonard Evans: We ll, used to-M adam Deputy Speaker, I would invite the ministe r to come with me and see how many times we take that trip-last week, the week before, this Friday, and the following week, and the following week, and week after that, ad infinitum-just too many times.

As a matter of fact, if and when I ever retire from politics, I figure I might apply for a job with the Greyhound bus line driving the bus to the west because I am a man well experienced in that area, very well experienced . I know every little turn, every little bump in the road and most experienced, too experienced, in that particular stretch. But I say there is that perception of separation that you get, particularly when you drive in the dark, to see the darkness between the built-up north Headingley area and the rest of Winnipeg, which starts to come to light when you get near the Perimeter.

It is an old issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is an issue pretty basic, very close to people, an issue of paying certain property taxes, paying what the residents of Headingley seem to think are too high. [interjection] Yes, and on the other hand the level of services that are provided. The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) is talking from his seat. I do not know if I get all his comments or follow all of his comments from his seat, but I can tell you that we had to deal with a comparable situation in Brandon with what happened in Winnipeg.

In 1969 when we became government in the Schreyer administrati on, we did have the problem of a metro Winnipeg with many municipalities offe ring many kinds of services, levels of services, various tax rates and so on, and it just was not very satisfacto ry. You did not have equity in taxation and you did not even have the equity that you like to see in type of service in, presumably, the major urban area in the province of Manitoba.

In the wisdom of the time, and I know with the support of the mayor of the City of Winnipeg and I think the bulk of the leadership of the City Council, we proceeded with the Unicity legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I voted for it and we created the city that we have today, more or less with some minor modifications that have taken place since and may take place at some time in the futu re. I think it was the right thing to do.

At the very same time, I would like to remind members of this Legislature that we unde rtook a similar move in the city of Brandon because the city of Brandon had urban sprawl into the surrounding municipality of Cornwallis. The Rural Municipality of Cornwallis contained several thousands of people immediately adjacent to the city boundaries of Brandon. Richmond Avenue used to be the southern boundary and you go across Richmond you see many, many blocks of housing and you find that tot ally urban area, but that was the R.M. of Cornwallis.

You had a very unsatisfactory situation where indus try was coming to the Brandon area demanding services from the City of Brandon , yet locating out of the city, partly because there was not

1984 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 sufficient room in the city, paying taxes to the R.M. of Cornw allis, so that the R.M. of Cornwallis probably had the biggest bank account of any rural municipality in this province. In the meantime, the City of Brandon was suff ering in terms of inadequate tax revenue to provide the services that were demanded by the res idents. I believe that we made the right move in 19-1 guess it was about '71 when the legislation was passed , approximately the same time as the legislation setting up Unicity, and we brought those urban areas into the city of Brand on.

This was of course afte r a one-year review by Doctor Dulmage who was then president of Brandon University, and with adequate hearings and input from the public and so on and came with a proposal for redrafting the boundaries which the government of the day accepted after due delib eration and debate in session and in this Legislatu re and, of course, afte r public hearings at the committe e level. *

(1510) At any rate , we set up an enlarged Brandon. It was the right thing to do. Perhaps if I were asked over the last 22-23 years one of the most significant things I had been involved in as an MLA from that area, I would say without hesitation it was the enlargement of the city of Brandon to give it a proper tax base and to enable it to carry on in a reasonable way. I think it provided the basis for considerable growth in the city. It certainly provided the basis for a more equitable tax syst em.

At the same time, those people who were brought in had improved services, because what was happening in the urbanized areas of the R.M. of Cornwallis was you had hundreds and hundreds of homes that were not on a proper water and sewer system, and there was a real public health problem, a very potential serious public health problem on the horizon, and something simply had to be done about it. This wa s one of the things that was accomplished in the enlar gement of the city's boundaries, because water and sewer was brought in in large measure to that area, and it was done, as I said, for no other rea son.

It should have been done for public health rea sons, but it was done for other reasons as well. So the city at the same time as Winnipeg did have a major boundary expansion and a major rationalization of responsibilities in that area. I believe the city continues to benefit on that account. It cer tainly has a large area for indus trial development that it did not have before. I think that, as I said, in my 23 years approximately of being in this House and representing Brandon East, of all the things that I have been associated with, I think that was perhaps the most significant thing.

In fact, it was an election pledge I made In 1969 when I ran, and I am very happy that I was able to see that election pledge fulfilled. So when we talk about services versus taxes paid and whether we are getting adequate services for the amount of taxes paid, we are dealing with an eternal question, I suppose, in government. We have that in this case as well, in the case of Headingley and the concerns expressed by the citizens In that community. As I said, it is not a new problem. It has been dealt with over the years by various groups.

One of the most outstan ding reviews, of course, was made by the Cherniack Committee, The City of Winnipeg Act review committee chaired by Lawrie Cherniack with some excellent people who had many years of experience in urban government, including D.l. Macdona ld, former com mis sioner of metro Winnipeg and Alan Artibise, who Is an urban studies expert, an expert on ur ban problems, urban development, Donald Epstein and Paul Thomas. All of these gentlemen were experienced and well qualified.

They held hearings and they had many discussions with people and finally came up with this comprehensive recommendation to government on proposals to improve the administration of the City of Winnipeg. In

Section 8 of the report, it deals with the subject of the city and its neighbours and specifically deals with the question of Headingley, the Headingley area. Of course, it deals with various other rural areas and rural jur isdictions surrounding the city of Winnipeg. It notes that what we are concerned about is some very diffi cult, very fundamen tal regional issues in this instance . They are basic issues regar ding the effectiveness and desirability of what is known as the Winnipeg additional zone. That is one area of concern.

The other, as I said, was the appropriateness of the current boundaries of the geographical limits of the city of Winnipeg. Of course, related to that was the purpose of future mechanisms for the utility or purpose of future mechanisms for co-operation between the city and its neighbouring rural municipalities and also the resolution of a number of intermu niclpal grievances

April S, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 85 and continuing problems that adversely affect their relat ions, Madam Deputy Speake r.

At any rate , the committee's view was that there was general agreement on most of the basic items, such as the future of the additional zone, which give the City of Winnipeg certain powers to control development outside its immediate administrative purview, outside of its legal limits; also, a basic item including principles for boundary adj ustment; in additi on, questions of city acquisition of land outside of the city and the question of the City of Winnipeg's adherence to the approval of req uirements of other municipalities; and then questions of city payments of full grants in lieu of property taxes to other municipalities.

At any rate , it is an excellent report, authored by some people of considerable experience and talent and, I believe, in a nonpartisan way, representing views held by many thinking people in the area and in the province of Manitoba.

The com mittee made some specific recomme ndations for a regional association of municipalities in a particular region, and it talks about methods and so on, but it is not suggesting that the parties are unwilling to co-operate , and they believe that ultimately through discussion and good will there will be a recognition for certain changes to be made, and indeed those changes can be made.

Well, they talk about abolition of the Winnipeg additi onal zone, and I just mentioned in passing that the committee recommended that that additional zone be abolished, that therefore that the city have that power taken away from it and that it confine its ju risdiction and its responsibilities to within its exist ing legal limits. It goes on talking about corporate limits of the city of Winnipeg, and it recommends adjustments to the boundaries of the city.

Specifically, it states, the review committee recom mends that the act esta blish principles or guidelines to be used in making boundary adjustments between the city and adjacent rural municipalities. This

section should specifically oblige the province to make boundary ad jus tment s as re qui r ed to ensu re futu re maintenance of an urban development standard within the city's boundaries and a rural standard and a life style outside of the city's boundaries. So I think that that is a basic principle and one that has to be considered in discussing the principle of this piece of legislation before us. We are talking about principles when we discuss this Bill 45 in second rea ding, and this is a basic principle established by the Cherniack commission.

It sugges ted a number of guidelines which I would like to refer to because they are germane to the debate : 1) lands relat ively contig uou s to the city's boundaries that an elec ted council of a rural municipality has designa ted for develop ment or approved for development to a subu rban standard typical of subur bs within the city should be incorporated within the city's boundaries. *

(1520) So, if there are activities just outside the legal limits of the city, and if they seem to be of an urban nature, then those should be brought in. I think there is some specific reference in the northeastern

section of the city whereby there is cert ain land there that should be brought in from the R.M. in that area. So that is one guideline. You develo p--if it is urban or suburban, it should be brought into the city, and presumably the corollary of that, if it is rural, it should be left out.

So that brings you to the second guideli ne.: Lands tha t rural muni cipal ities desig nate and/or approve for development for rural residential purposes below the sta ndards typically found in the city suburbs, agriculture use or other rural purposes outside of their establ ished towns or villages should be reta ined within their jur isdiction. In other words, the existing rural municipalities that surround Winnipeg should be able to maintain and indeed acquire lands, but in this guideline No. 2 they should simply retai n those lands within their jurisdict ion.

Thirdly, the third guideline of the Cher niack Committee here : Where the city declares its long-term intention not to use lands within the city's boundaries for development to a typical urban or suburban st andard , or for other uses and purposes important to the city, those lands should be considered for exclusion from the city's jur isdiction. So there, Madam Deputy Speake r, you have the point where you could make a case , I suppose, an argument that Headingley should right fully be removed if you determ ine, of course, that it is below ur ban or suburban standards however that is deemed.

But in this principle note the Cherniack Committee is saying, it is where the city declares its long-term intention not to use lands within the city's boundaries for development. I would say therefore that the Headingley area was not declared that by

1986 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April S, 1992 the city, and therefore I do not know how those who would argue for the separation of Headingley could refer to this Cherniack guideline in that instance , because it leaves the onus on the city, where the city takes the initiative to declare that it has no future use for that particular land. The review committee recommends that the act be amended to establish new boundaries for the city of Winnipeg, and in some areas it recommended no change in the city's current boundari es. In other areas, they suggest some important modifications.

They go on to talk about the R.M. of Rosse r, R.M. of Macdonald, R.M. of West St. Paul, East St. Paul, et cetera , but they go on to discuss the Headingley area specifically, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to quote from the report: The committee is not in a position to provide a specific description of the western boundary at this time. One idea which has received considerable supp ort dur ing the consu ltation process is that the city's western bou ndary should be drawn in to rem ove the Headingley area from the city of Winnipeg.

North of the Assiniboine River the boundary could be approximately two kilometers west of the Perimeter Highway. South of the river the boundary could be the Perimeter Highway. I will just repeat that: South of the river the boundary could be the Perimeter Highway. We rec ommend, however, that an immediate study of the alternatives for precise boundaries and for Headingley's future municipal status be undertaken and concluded within 12 months. Dur ing this period, a basic planning statement or development plan should be prepared for the area.

One of the main objectives of this plan should be to est ablish policies and an official land-use plan to safe guard Headingley's future as a predominantly rural envi ronment adjacent to the city. Headingley's reside nts must be given the opportun ity to participate fully in this process and in the decisions that may be taken as a result. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, considerable water has flowed under the bridge since this report was issued in late '85. Actually, it came out in 1986. An Honourable Member: Who is building the bridges? Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I am glad some members opposite are liste ning here.

This was a test, Madam Deputy Speaker. You listen with bated breath . At any rate, obviously the Chernia ck Committee is supporting a move that is being proposed in this piece of legislation. Where the disagreement comes is the methods, procedures and so on, and perhaps the timing, but, as I said, it is an old issue. Unfortunate ly, in some ways we have not had the research into .•. recommended into a development plan that would be appropriate for the area because the area should know where it is going to go. What are its objecti ves ?

I mean, the last presuma bly-{interjection] Well, for the council, but nevertheless council should be part of development plans. They should be want- An Honourable Member: But that should be their council that does it, so let us let them form a municipality. Mr. Leonard Evans: Okay. Well, we are talking about a recommendation. I do not know whether this is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, to debate with someone who is commenting from his seat, but the member raises some good points. But I am just saying this committe e's report is long before the establ ishment of a separ ate municipality.

They are talking about doing some planning and thinking about the process, so where we are going to go before you even hold a referen dum, before you make the decision to cut off. The memb er op posite tal ks about the respon sibility to the municipality, but it does not exist as such yet. There is nothing, I am sure, with competent people and some wisdom and good will, othe rs- the province could have come up with some proposals of what a development plan might look like. That does not mean that the municipality would not take subsequent responsibility. It does not exclude that whatsoever.

Ther e was di scussi on, ther e was a white-{i nte �ection] At any rate , I did not hear all of that. I did not hear the first part. But there was a white paper issued by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) on February 27, 1987-a discussion paper, I should say entitled "Strengt hening Local Government in Winnipeg: Proposals for Changes to The City of Winnipeg Act." It dealt with obviously major issues, not just boundaries. It did that indeed, but it dealt with more comprehensive issues such as a more representative and accountable city government

April 8, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1987 and more dem ocratic and equit able city government, but also it dealt with planning and it dealt with land use. It certainly dealt with ques tions of zones or areas outside of the city of Winnipeg, specifically, I note , dealing with the abolition of the additional zone. There too there was agreement that the additional zone could be abolished, but, at any rate , the point I am making is that the problem has been around a long time.

We are dealing with something that has been a matter of controversy betwe en City Council of Winnipeg and residents in the Headingley area. So we have, on the one hand we are concerned that we ensure that we maintain a strong capital city in our province. It is our largest city and it provides a lot of benefits for us, as do, indeed, most of our good parts of our province. Many urban centres across the province provide basic services to their residents. The City of Winnipeg provides some very important services that could only be provided in an urban set ting.

They could not possibly be provided in a rural setting. There are certain advantages, certain things we get out of living in an ur ban area. Certainly urbaniz ation of people around the world has enabled us to engage in all kinds of developmen ts , research , higher education, something that would never have occurred if we did not have urban centres. The basic resear ch, the scientific research that occurs in the world, the basic centres of higher educat ion, these centres of art and culture are found throughout the world, by in large, in the major urban centres.

Certainly we get that out of the City of Winnipeg by having a large urban conglomeration of people. We get certain things that could not happen otherwise if those people were scatte red throughout in rural setti ngs or in smaller towns or smaller cities. I am talking about the obvious. •

(1530) What I am saying though is that it is important we make sure that we do not hurt the existence of the City of Winnipeg, and we have concerns that this may be opening the flood gates to other proposals to carve chunks off from the City of Winnipeg. In my view, in our view on this side, this would not be a good thing. As I said, I voted for Unicity in the Schreyer administration. It was the right thing to do, and basically we should ensure that we do whatever we can to maintain a good viable city structu re. There ha ve been proposals made for improvements to the city structure.

No one said that in 1971 it was perfect. We should always be open to suggestions for change, modifications to help make the struc ture more democratic, to make It more accountable, to make it more eff icient. Basically, what we did was avoid duplication of fire services, avoid duplication of police services and so on and try to co-ordinate that within the metropolitan area. Of course, this is a problem the people of Headingley are going to have now, assu ming that at some point they are a legal entity unto themselves .

They are going to confront the problems of providing adeq uate fire prote ction, adequ ate ambulance service, adequa te police service, and whatever other services the people in that jurisdiction wish to have. Our concern with the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, as has been stated by some other members on this side, is that it is not restricted esse ntially to Headingley. It gives the minister a blank cheque to accommodate others who may wish to secede from the City of Winnipeg. Why should we give the minister and the government a blank cheque to do this?

Why should we leave it to the Cabinet, which as I understand from this legislation, could deal with these other areas simply by Order -in-Council without coming back to this Legisla ture. If another area has to be dealt with, has concerns, and we know there were concerns raised in St. Germain. I do not know whether there were any concerns raised in St. Norbert, I am not sure, but wherever they may be, West St. Paul, East St. Paul, I do not know.

Wherever there are concerns, they should be dealt with, and if there is need for additional action to adjust the boundaries, that should be done through specific legislation dealing with that rather than giving the minister a blank cheque, giving the minister omnibus powers to do what he, or perhaps she, likes to do at some future time. There does not seem to be any planning involved in this. They seem to be doing it in a very ad hoc fashion.

As one member said across the way, well, the municipality can do its own planning, but I say that there is a respon sibility on the part of the province to ensure that there is co-ordination and that there should have been some better idea of

1988 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 8, 1992 what we were getti ng into before we just rush in like this. We do not have any Information. I do not believe there are any studies, to use an example, what impact will there be on taxes? What impact will there be in the city of Winnipeg? What Impact will there be on the residents of Headingley? I know that question begs another question and that is, what level of municipal services do they want?

Well, nobody knows, and that is why I said it would have been probably rational to look at these things, to have a study done in advance so that some of those answers could have been provided. We are also concerned, and, you know, it is easy to just pass over these things, but the fact is that we have not had sufficient planning and control even within the city of Winnipeg, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have seen a lot of sprawl within the city. I am thinking particularly the south St. Vital area which has probably caused urban taxes in Winnipeg to go up higher than they would otherwise.

We are concerned about disclosure provisions. When you have a refe rendum and people involved in a refer endu m, to what extent have certain individuals contributed money towards influencing a refere ndum one way or the other? We have seen too many developers become involved in the political process in this City of Winnipeg, and that is not in the interest of the residents at large.

Another question regarding the division of assets, we are not so satisfied that what is being proposed in the bill will enable that to be done in as independen t a way as it should be, and we would argue, or I would argue anyway, that you need a completely independent board to be involved in that procedure and not the cabinet or some senior official in the Department of Urban Affairs. The City of Winnipeg has put forward proposals for a rational approach to boundary adjustm ents, which I think that we should be able to agree with.

In many ways, they support what was stated in the Che rnia ck repor t, and tha t is, that ur ban development standards should be contained within the city boundaries and a rural standard and lifestyle established outside of the city boundaries. The city agrees that primary agricultural land on the fringe of the city should be protected and its conversion to urban uses should be resis ted.

They also believe that existing and proposed private sports and recreational facilities that are of a metropolitan regional nature should, where geographically practical, be contained within the city's boundaries, and they use as an example, of course, the Assiniboia Downs. It would seem to me that that is what is being proposed in the most recent recommendation on boundary adjustmen ts. The city is also agreeable, or proposes, that existing city-o wned, municipal service facilities that will continue to provide services to the city, should, where geographically practical, be located within the city's boundaries.

Of course, the example there is the Winnipeg Pollution Control Centre remaining within the city of Winnipeg. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you advise how much time I have left? Madam Deputy Speaker: Three minutes. Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, if I could have another 30 minutes by leave, we can go on. I have lots of material here. I would like to spend more time in putting forward some of the rational considerations of people who have given a lot of thought to this and who suggest a rational approach to adjustment.

But the city does have planning concerns outside of the city, in that area, and I think the province will do us all a favour, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) will do us all a favour if he would take heed. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, we oppose the bill as it now exists. We believe it is done in haste . We believe we should only be dealing with Headingley. We should not give the minister power to adjust Winnipeg boundaries by regulation. The minister should rewrite the bill. All the boun dary change s shoul d come to the Legisl ature .

Winnipeg, and its government, I believe, as I said earlier, is important for the whole province. So we are going to have these concerns. We are concerned that there not be excessive and unacceptable use of regulation by the minister, as will occur if this bill is passed the way it is at the moment. * (154 0) So, we believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, therefore , that far more consideration should be given to this bill, that certain amendments should be forthcoming.

I am sure that, when it gets to the committee st age, if it ever does, that some very important recommendations will be forthcoming to make this legislation far more acceptable than it Is at the present time.

April S, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1989 I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other members of the House, for their atten tion in this deliberation of Bill 45. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. On a procedural point, I neglected to ascertain if there was leave to permit the bill to remain st anding in the name of the member for Wolseley prior to permitting the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) to speak to this bill. I will now pose the question . Is there will of the House to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friese n)?

An Honourable Member: No. Madam Deputy Speaker: No? Leave has been denied. Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a little problem here. I do not mind letting it stand in the name of, as long as we spend all afternoon on Bill 45. That is a condition. If we do not have members opposite ::1 the absence of the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) prepared to speak, then we must insist that the member for Wolseley speaks . So that is the dilemma I am in right at this moment. Madam Depu ty Sp eaker: The honourable member for Wolseley on the same point of order. Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, we do have a number of ot her speakers who want to speak on this. So I think I would like to see you leave the bill standing for the time being while other members speak. Madam Depu ty Spea ker: The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) on the same point of orde r. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposi tion House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, we in the Liberal Party did want to grant leave, and I under stand that the government will allow leave and just possibly allow the other members to stand up and speak to it.

Maybe we can revisit it, as the Government House Leader (Mr. Manness) sug gests, but we do allow leave for it to remain st anding in the member's name. Madam Deputy Speaker: Orde r, please. There must be a determination made now by the House as to whether it is the will of the House to permit leave or not to permit leave. Mr. Manness: Yes, we will let it stand. Madam Deputy Speaker: So leave has been granted to allow the bill to remain st anding in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). *** Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 45.

I listened to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) earlier when he made a speech, and I was hoping that he would have the opportunity to listen to me on this bill. It was a very close call here with all of the points of order and interjecti ons, but I am very pleased that everyth ing has worked out and the minister is here and I can begin to try to convince him of the merits of opposing this Bill 45 in its current form. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Headingley issue has been around with us for as long as I can remember.

I guess the question that I have often wondered about is, why would a municipality want to secede in the first place, particularly if its concerns were being addressed by the central authority ? It seems to me that if I was a resident living in Headingley and I was getting the services that I was to expect for my tax dollars, that I would not want to secede from the city of Winnipeg. It seems to me that the people of Headingly were cert ainly not getting what they were expecting to cause them in fact to take this drastic step in the first place.

Financial pressures are always a concern, I believe, particularly at a time when the economy is in the shape it is in right now. I think that people forced with financial pressures and so on will always take the easy road if given that option, and may in fact do things that they may perceive as being in their short-term interest, but perhaps may not be in the long-term interest of themselves or the greater good. I am concerned about the concept of allowing different groups to secede from the city of Winnipeg, and I think that it is possible to ask a question a certain way and get a certain response here.

I think that if you asked the residents of Transcona a question in a certain way, they too might make a decision to secede from the city of Winnipeg because everyone wants to save money, and if that

1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April S, 1992 is perceived to be a way to save money, then people may take that short-term solution. Madam Dep ut y Speaker, that is my unders tanding of one of the reasons why Unicity was established in the first place. Prior to Unicity we had a situation where we had a number of separate municipalities, separate little city state s, and each had its own taxation base, and each had its own level of ser vices.

If one could afford to live in Tuxedo, for example, then one was in a position to live in an area with a better taxation base than, say for example, Elmwood or Transcona, and one could enjoy much better services as a result. Let me ask you what would happen if Tuxedo or River Heigh ts decided to secede, with their affluence and their tax base , where that would leave the rest of the city?

What you would have essenti ally, if you follow this line of thought that this bill engenders to its logical conclusion, is you would be back to the days of the city states of old where you had each city as a state in itself, had its own army, its own completely autonomous system and was essentially at war with all the other city states in the region. Certainly that is not the kind of attitude, the kind of activity that I think we want to fos ter. After all, in Europe today we have a coming togeth er of small state s into a larger economic union.

In fact, in the last 30 years we have two or three countries in Europe, Italy being one, I believe, whose sta ndard of living has actually now caught up with and exceeded that of Canada. A large part of that is due, I believe, to the trad ing bloc of the European economic community. What has happened out of that is that, in fact, the people now are leaving Canada in favour of moving back to countries like Germany and Italy, because people are getting together as opposed to being split apart. I think we are heading in the wrong direction if we are to be seei ng communities being separate d-- *

(1550) Hon. Harry Enns (Mi nister of Natural Resources): Where do we stand on free trade ? Mr. Maloway: The Minister of Natural Resources asks about free trad e. I do not think there is any question that the New Democratic Party has been in favour of free trade for years and years and years , because we recognize that tariff barriers are a problem long term. What we have always said, and the minister should re member this, that we opposed the trade deal that was established in this country three to four years ago now. We opposed that particular deal.

We never opposed a sectoral free trade deal based on a sector-by-sector approach to it, so need not the minister cast any aspersions here, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we would not want to leave any false impressions on the record. I do think that we are heading in the wrong direction here, and I do not believe that the people necessarily in Headingley are being well served by separ ating away. Once the people of Headingley are able to leave the city, then where does that leave Transcona, where does that leave the rest, and St. Germain?

Where does that leave the other areas that may have grievances that can be now worked upon by local parochial thinking politicians? If all of the suburbs start to break away, then what does that leave in the city of Winnipeg? It leaves a core area that has been neglected for years and years and years , been neglected because of the Conserva tive and Liberal philosophy of allowing urban sprawl essentially.

We know that over the years we have a situation, particularly in the American cities, where people because of the policies of development that are fostered by Conservative- and Liber al-type government s-w hereby the developers call the shots. The developers have the local Tory and Liberal politicians in their back pocket and snap their fingers and the local politicians respond to their every whim.

That whole philosophy, that whole approach has led to uncontrolled expansion and development and basically a total neglect of the city core of these cities, because afte r all there are no bucks to be made in it so the developers are not Interested in reworking and re-establ ishing th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-42
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 42.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	433476903e44263562110d19cf1ebe8a989e42ae

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