Manitoba Hansard — 0 ISSN 542 (Sitting 62, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-62

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session -Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 62- 1:30 p.m., Monday, .July 17, 2000 ISSN 0542-5492

Member AGLLJGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, lion. ASPER, Linda BARRETf, Becky, lion. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI , Marianne CIIOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQLJA Y, Louise DERKACII, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, lion. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, I larry FAURSCIIOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold IIELWER, Edward IIICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATIILIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, lion.

Mll lYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie NEVAKSIIONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROC AN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, lion. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCIIUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Kirkfield Park Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. PC . N.D. I'. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

4047 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, July 17,2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MATTER OF PRNILEGE Member for Interlake Apology Request Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an important and urgent matter of personal privi lege. On Thursday, July 13, while I was attending the investiture of the Order of Manitoba at the invitation of the Lieutenant-Governor, and while the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Santos) was in the Chair, the Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) intentionally referred to me as the Honourable Member for Whitehood.

Perusing Hansard this morning, I confirmed this statement and note that it is recorded on page 4036 of Hansard. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this issue before the House. Mr. Speaker, for this member to imply that either myself or any citizen of the constituency of Fort Whyte is racist is completely unparliamentary and out of order. His incorrect naming of my constituency is completely outlandish. While the Member for Interlake and I differ philosophically, it is totally inappropriate for him to refer to me or the constituency I represent in this fashion.

For this member to imply that any of my philosophies are racist is totally inappropriate and it is unparlia mentary. For the Member to make this statement when I was absent from this House borders on cowardly. Mr. Speaker, I believe the comments made by the Member for Interlake breach the rules on order of this House. Should you find that the question of privil ege exists, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), that the Member for Interlake withdraw his remarks and apologize to the House and to the constituents of Fort Whyte. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker: Before recogmzmg any other member to speak, I would remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are to be limited to strictly relevant comments as to whether an alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and whether a prima facie case has been established. Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interla ke): Mr. Speaker, I recall that last week. It was a slip of the tongue. I think I had said, "I am sorry, Mr.

Speaker" at that time and immediately referred to him as the Member for Fort Whyte, but it was inappropriate, and I certainly do apologize to the Member and regret that it slipped out. Mr. Speaker: The apology by the Honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) should conclude the matter. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (Acting Chair person): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for The Maples (Mr.

Aglugub), that the report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Third Report Ms. Linda Asper (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

4048 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Our Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Third Report. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Friday.

July 14, 2000, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ending March 31, 1998, and the Annual Report for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ending March 31, 1999; the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1994, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1995, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1996, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1997, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1998. and the Annuai Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1999.

Mr. Bob Brennan, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Vic Schroeder, Chairman, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Reports and business of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board. Mr. Arthur V. Mauro, Chairman, and Mr. Garry M Hoffman, President and Chief Executive Officer, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Reports and business of the Crown Corporations Council.

Your committee has considered the Annual Report for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ending March 31, 1998, and the Annual Report for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ending March 31, 1999; the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1994, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1995, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the Year ending December 31, 1995, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31, 1997, the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31. 1998, and the Annual Report for the Crown Corporations Council for the year ending December 31. 1999, and has adopted the same as presented.

Ms. Asper: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schell enberg), that the report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. *( 13:35) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Tornado Destruction Pine Lake, Alberta Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House. Mr. Speaker, Manitobans were shocked to hear of the devastating tornado that struck the community of Green Acres campgrounds at Pine Lake, Alberta, on Friday night. It is difficult to comprehend the depth of the trauma experienced by the people and families af fected. Our hearts go out to them today.

We are encouraged to hear that there has been a strong show of support from the community. Hundreds of volunteers from the Red Deer area, the RCMP and the Red Cross are providing assistance in this emergency. We also understand that the Canadian military will aid in the search operations. On behalf of this Legislature and the people of Manitoba, I wish to offer our most sincere sympathies and heartfelt condolences to those who have lost family and friends. Our prayers and concerns go out to those who are now suffering from the in juries and other damages.

May they be granted the courage and fortitude they need to deal with this terrible tragedy. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I know

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4049 that our caucus certainly would want to join with the Government in extending our heartfelt sympathies to those that were impacted and affected by tragedy and death as a result of the campground at Pine Lake being absolutely devastated. One of those things that we have absolutely no control over is the natural disasters that do take place. We are fortunate here in Manitoba that we have not had a disaster of this magnitude, but it seems that the weather is changing.

We should never be complacent and never think that maybe something could not happen within our communities that would devastate us and impact us and those of our loved ones in the same manner that it has in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, we want to thank those that are volunteering their time and their effort and their energy to work with those families that have experienced this disaster and want them to know that our hearts and our prayers are with them as they move through and beyond this tragedy. Thank you. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I ask for leave to speak on the Premier's (Mr. Doer) statement. Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave? [Agreed] Leave has been granted. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I join with the leaders of the other two parties to indicate that there is aU-party support in this effort to convey sympathy to those who were affected by this terrible tragedy and our hope that there win be no more deaths found and that if there is anything that we in Manitoba can do from the point of view of helping those through this tremendous time of suffering, we are ready to do that. Thank you. * * * HmL Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conser vatiml): Mr. Speaker, I want to table the suppf€mentary information for- Mr.

Speaker: Order. Is there a will of the House to revert back? [Agreed] TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conser vation): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table the Suppl ementary Infor mation for Legislative Review, the 2000-2 001 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Labour Legislation Consultations Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): My question is for the Minister of Labour.

The business community was fooled into believing that there would be a new era of co-operation only four months ago when the Century Summit was held and this government heralded co-operation as the agenda of the day. * (13:40) The business community is not impressed when they see the kind of labour legislation that has been introduced by this government. My question for the Minister of Labour is: Did she talk about these specific changes to legislation with the business community at this summit? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, it is interesting that last week members opposite were indicating the sky was falling in terms of the economic situation in Manitoba. I note, over the weekend and in the latter part of last week, Mary Webb, a Scotia economist spokesperson, was very positive about the balance that was in our budget in terms of its impact on people and on businesses. A step-by-step multiyear approach that is going to keep Manitoba's environment on an improving path sends a definite message to businesses. Manitoba has -committed, over a longer term, to reducing the taxes as much as possible.

It speaks about the provincial budget providing a major stimulus both through tax cuts and also through investment. Mary Webb says the NDP is "doing a good job," not like members opposite.

4050 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 Mrs. Mitchelson: I am sure that Ms. Webb, at the time when she commented on how well Manitoba was doing, had not seen the labour laws and the changes that this government introduced. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we will have an opportunity, as time goes by, to hear the kinds of comments from individuals that would indicate that it is a wrong-headed decision by this government. Mr.

Speaker, my question for the Minister of Labour would be: Who on the front lines within our community in Manitoba did she consult with, other than the union bosses and the union organizers, on removing the democratic right of workers by a private vote, by a secret ballot, without fear of intimidation by either manage ment or union? Which front-line workers did she consult with before she took away their democratic right? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite speaks about the individual, Ms. Mary Webb.

Her comments were made in the media and to the media both Thursday and Friday of last week, well after the proposals had been tabled. Beyond that, there was an excellent

article in the Globe and Mail from I believe it was Margaret Drohan last week talking about the 4.4 percent unemployment rate in Manitoba and the kind of work that is going on in Manitoba, because the biggest challenge we have is the lack of skilled workers in this province, and that is why the community college initiatives and some of the positive initiatives that speak to the positive nature of Manitoba, rather than the doom and gloom of members opposite. Labour Legislation Voting Rights-Secret Ballot Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): In 1916 women in Manitoba received the right to vote.

In 1952 First Nations people in Manitoba received the right to vote. In 1996 workers in Manitoba received the secret ballot in the workplace without fear of intimidation or reprisal. Now, on the dawn of the 21st century, this government is intent on revoking the fundamental right of workers to a secret ballot. Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: Why is she intent on taking away the fundamental right of workers to a secret ballot, a draconian move more at home m the 18th century than the 21 st? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, as I stated in answers to questions by the Member last week, since 1947 in the province of Manitoba there has been some form of automatic certification for workers to be able to join a union, either through practice or in legislation. From 1988 to 1996, in particular, under the former Conservative government, the same legislation was in place. There was automatic certification from 1988 to 1996. I wonder why it was not considered draconian then and it is now. Mr. Schuler: Why, Mr.

Speaker, with sports groups, multicultural and church organizations who make decisions with secret ballots, is this minister denying the fundamental right of workers to a secret ballot? * (13:45) Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, there will be an automatic certification only if 65 percent or more employees in a workplace sign a card saying they wish to be a member of a union. Those card signings must take place outside, off the workplace. There is no ability for cards to be signed at the workplace. There is no allowance for intimidation on the part of either manage ment or the union.

We are simply reverting back to a practice that was in place for the last 50-plus years and a practice that was in place through 8 of the years of the former government. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, why does this minister feel she has the right to take away the fundamental freedoms of any group in society? Why are fewer, rather than more, fundamental freedoms necessary with this minister? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, why was it not considered anything but standard operating procedure and good labour relations from 1947 to 1996 in this province to have some form of automatic certification? Under Duff Roblin, Mr.

Campbell, Sterling Lyon, Edward Schreyer, Howard Pawley and the Member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon), for eight years, there was automatic certification. That is what we are

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 4051 bringing back in this province. It was not draconian then; it is not draconian now. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Springfield, with a new question. Labour Management Review Committee Labour Legislation Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday when this minister was under heavy fire for her anti-business, anti-worker bill, she stated: We made an election commitment and restated that commitment after the election that all pieces of labour legislation would go to the Labour Management Review Committee.

Yet it is now obvious that in fact substantial parts of Bill 44 did not make it to the LMRC, in clear violation of the election promise of the NDP. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to all Manitobans why she has clearly broken the NDP election commitment to send all parts of labour legislation to the LMRC? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour ): Mr. Speaker, if the Member had paid attention in the House last week, he would have heard my comments. Every single element of Bill 44 was sent to the Labour Relations Committee. every single element. Mr.

Schuler: To the Minister: What is so important or urgent about this particular piece of antibusiness. antiworker legislation that the Government is clearly breaking an election promise to bring it in? Are special interest groups that interested in this bill that they cannot wait? * (13:50) Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we sent a number of proposals to the Labour Management Review Committee, and we got a very, very positive response back on many of the elements.

There was consensus, as I stated last week, on seven portions or entirely, seven of the proposals that were sent, some of the questions, the issues that were sent to LMRC. There is far more consensus than has happened with Labour Management Review Committees in the past ten years. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, to this minister: Why should Manitobans believe a single thing the Minister of Labour says when it is clear her word is meaningless? First, she will not consult, and now she will not even live up to her own commitments. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, as I stated in the House today and stated in the House last week, we sent to LMRC- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): The interesting event here is that there has just been a supplementary question posed by the Member, and ever since the Member asked the question, he has been talking, yelling continuously, preventing not ju st an answer to be provided by the Minister but preventing people in this Chamber from hearing an answer.

Surely, if he has a question, it is for the purpose of soliciting an answer, rather than trying to force one on the Minister. Mr. Speaker, would you please call the Member's attention to his conduct, which is unbecoming of a member in this House? Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Official Opposi tion House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You know, it is very easy to stand up and be all self-righteous, but all too often we are being drawn into this debate by the statements that are being made by ministers.

Clearly, Beauchesne's 417 : "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." It is exactly those types of answers, answers that say nothing, that provoke this debate. Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. I find it

4052 LEGISLAT IVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 very, very difficult to hear the answers that are given. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members so we can hear the questions and we can hear the answers. * * * Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We sent to the Labour Management Review Committee proposals and questions that are completely reflected in Bill 44. Every element of Bill 44, as an issue, was sent to the Labour Management Review Committee. The information the Member is referring to is incomplete information, as I stated last week.

We have completed and followed through on our commitment to send every single piece of labour legislation to the Labour Management Review Committee. We did not receive consensus on some of the elements that were sent over, some of the proposals that were sent over, but complete or partial consensus was reached on seven of the proposals that went to the Labour Management Review Committee. I will stand in this House and state unequivocally that I have been giving the Member a full, complete and truthful comment about the Labour Management Review Committee. Flooding Agricultural Disaster Assistance Mr.

Jack Penner (Emerson): I rise today, and I want to thank the Honourable Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) for visiting some parts of southeast Manitoba to view the serious flooding that took place over there. We all heard her say that producers are not asking for money now. That was a quote. We all hope that the sunshine we have right now will continue and there will be some good crops in the southeast area. Apparently the Minister is unaware that many of the crops that have been underwater for as much as two weeks now are totally destroyed.

Many of the farmers cannot harvest their hay crops, nor will they harvest any of the other crops. Will the Minister of Agriculture now confirm that Manitoba producers are not asking for money to help them cope with the devastating effects of the repeated flooding of the heavy rains of the last couple of weeks? Is that what she is saying? I will repeat the question for her. Will the Minister now confirm that the farmers were not asking her for financial assistance when she was out there looking at the devastation that was taking place? * (13:55) Hon.

Rosano Wowchuk {Minister of Agri culture and Food): I did have the opportunity to visit in the southeast part of the province on Thursday. Indeed I met with municipal leaders and some producers who indicated that the real challenge that they are facing is the situation that the drainage has been neglected for so long and the excessive moisture has no ability to get away. What they are looking for is a long-term solution to address the drainage problem.

I have to confirm that we have had very few calls in the office asking for financial assistance, and the Department of Agriculture's staff is monitoring the situation very closely. Mr. Jack Penner: I suppose then that the farmers that I have been meeting with over the last week and a half are somewhat different than the ones she has been meeting with because I have constantly been asked for financial assistance- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Now I feel bad, Mr.

Speaker, because I did not get my Beauchesne's out when the Member stood up with his first question. I knew it was going to elicit a citation here. He is on a supplementary question. Supplementary ques tions require no

preamble according to Beauchesne's. Mr. Speaker, would you please ask him to put his question.

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4053 Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. * * * Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Honourable Member to please put his question. Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture take the disaster assistance money she claims is on the table, that they have offered, today and announce a series of programs and measures designed to get aid into the hands of those farmers and farm families whose crops have been totally destroyed and who cannot harvest enough hay for their cattle for this upcoming winter? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, for livestock producers, the ability to harvest hay is a very important issue.

I have to say, as I said last week, we hope that the rain is over and there is going to be some good weather so that hay can continue to grow and producers can harvest. What we are advising producers is that, should there be a specific incident where people cannot get hay to their livestock or there is a shortage, they contact the Department of Agriculture and discuss it with our Ag reps. But, to this point, we have not had calls from people saying that they need hay to feed their livestock immediately. Mr. Jack Penner: Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister now admit that she has not been listening to the farmers in western Manitoba and that she has not been able to provide assistance to those farmers that virtually lost their entire crop in 1999? Will she advise those farmers today that she will visit with them and sit down and discuss with them programs that she could put on the table to assist them, as well as assist those that face that same disaster this year in Manitoba? Will she offer that assistance to them now, and will she meet with them in their communities? Ms. Wowchuk: I will try to answer all five questions.

The Member is wrong if he says that we have not met with the producers of southwestern Manitoba. We met with them on Thursday and had discussions with them, and we met with them a few weeks ago as well. We are making arrangements to go to meet with them in their communities as well. The Member is well aware that we have put a proposal to the federal government. The federal government has decided that they are going to treat the southwest part of the province differently than the Red River Valley or the people who have suffered from disasters in Ontario and Quebec, and that is regrettable.

Grow Bonds Program Funding Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker. since their introduction Grow Bonds have contributed significantly to the economy, employment and investment opportunities throughout rural Manitoba, including my own constituency. In making its announcement that the program would now include the city of Winnipeg, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms.

Friesen) stated in her news release that the rural component of the program will not be affected. * (14:00) Can I have an answer today to advise this House if additional funds will be allocated to the Grow Bonds Program in conju nction with the proposed changes? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will take that question under advisement on behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. Communi ty Round Tables Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr.

Speaker, am also wondering: Is the Minister proposing community round tables within the city of Winnipeg as they are currently being done in rural Manitoba? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

4054 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 Funding Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance: Will there be more funds available for the Grow Bonds Program if it is expanded into Winnipeg, and, furthermore, will the rural areas be allowed to par ticipate in Winnipeg's exclusive programs? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): The expansion of the Grow Bonds Program in Winnipeg requires that the Government of Manitoba provide a guarantee on the investments of local investors.

That guarantee will be provided through the program as it expands in Winnipeg with no detriment to the guarantees provided to the rural program. So there is no proposal here to take from one to give to another, and that was the intent of expanding the program. Sustainable Development Strategy Component Strategies Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, in place of a Sustainable Development Strategy, the Minister of Conservation has presented the COSDI report.

In his announce ment, the Minister of Cons ervation himself admits that the COSDI process was to address those components of the white paper which were not reflected in this Sustainable Development Act. Since the COSDI report does not reflect the core needs of The Sustainable Development Act, as the Minister himself admits, I ask the Minister: Where is the rest of his Sustainable Development Strategy? Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conser vation): I thank the Member for his question.

As I said earlier, prior to making the announcement, I thought I had made it very clear to the House and others that we have accepted the report. I know that it had been sitting there for quite some time waiting for government action. As soon as we were elected into government last fall, we made it our business to take it off the shelf and have a look. From there, we made plans to take it to cabinet for cabinet approval with a plan on how to implement the recommendations of the report. That is what we have done, and that is where we are now. Mr. Gerrard : Mr.

Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister: Where are the component strategies as mandated under the Act? Where are the component strategies for achieving sustainability in specific economic, environ mental, resource, human health and social policy sectors? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, again, I think it was about a week ago that the Member asked those questions. Again, I made it a point to try to be clear in my responses at the time.

As I recall it, I advised him that as soon as the preparatory work is done, the analysis and the assessment, then I will be coming back to the Assembly to make those specific announcements. Mr. Gerrard: My second supplementary to the Minister. I ask: Why did the Minister fail to bring in the component strategies on time, when, as this document which I table illustrates quite clearly, the previous government had done a lot of work in preparation and indeed there ju st was not any follow- through this time? Why did you fail to bring forward your strategy on time? Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Speaker, again, I will advise the Member we are in the process of getting that information together. As soon as I am able to put it into a report form. I will be returning to the Assembly to report as to what the next step will be. We are moving in that direction. I ju st want the Member to be assured of that. Ambulance Service Government Initiatives Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health a question of particular concern to Radisson and Transcona, and it has to do with the shortage of ambulances that has plagued the city of Winnipeg over the last numbers of years and has left citizens across many parts of the city fearful that they will lose a loved one or a friend because of the shortage of ambulances. I want to ask the Minister of Health what accomplishments the Government has had in addressing this serious problem. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for that question.

We attended a press conference on Friday where the Mayor of Winnipeg said that there had been

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4055 more progress in terms of ambulance and emergency personnel in the past six months than there had been in the past six years. The effect of the announcement will see $2.1 million into the Winnipeg ambulance service, and, more specifically, will provide for 16 ambulances, 16 ambulances in peak periods in the city of Winnipeg, which is beyond the 10 that has presently been provided for and even less had been provided for over the past decade.

So, for the people of Winnipeg, once the system is up and running in several months, the service component will be ef fective and will be beyond even the recommendations of the committee. Mr. Speaker, with respect to rural Manitoba, I am pleased to announce, as well, that we have doubled the resources available for ambulance services, the greatest increase in the past decade with respect to ambulance services. Osborne House Labour Dispute Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, it has come to our attention that staff at Osborne House are in a position that they could go on strike on Friday. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) whether she has any contingency plans in place. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): 1 thank the Member for the question. It is a very important issue and one we take very seriously.

I am pleased to inform the House that there is a detailed contingency plan which will begin operation later today and will escalate over the week, because, as the Member knows, it is a facility that admits people for sometimes very short stays but sometimes the stays can go as long as 10 or 15 days in some cases. We will stop admissions shortly. There is a good contingency plan with great co-operation from the community. Osborne House has developed this plan in conju nction with other shelters in Winnipeg and with the staff. So we are confident that there will be security of this service.

There will be a toll- free number to advise families in the exigency of a strike. These are very, very important services, as the Member well knows. I think we need to assure Manitobans that these services will continue in the event of a strike. Mrs. Mitchelson: We all know that when women are in a crisis and in need of an emergency shelter for them and their children, it is important that the services are available. My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Labour: Will she be looking at putting staff from Osborne House under essential services? Hon.

Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): The Minister of Family Services has outlined the contingency plans that have been worked out with Osborne House in conjunction with other service providers in Winnipeg and throughout Manitoba and in conju nction with the staff at Osborne House. Everyone who has anything to do with the services provided to women and children in crisis is well aware of the need to ensure that those services remain and are in place. We are hopeful that those contingency plans actually will not be required to be implemented but that we can come to an agreement with the staff. * (14:10) Mr.

Speaker: Before recognizing the Honour able Member for Lac du Bonnet, I would just like to remind all honourable members the presence or absence of members is not to be raised in the House. Immigration Policy Nursing Profession Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. There is no doubt that jurisdictions across Canada, including Manitoba, are facing a severe shortage of nurses. It is an issue that has been there for many years, and the Minister and I may agree or disagree from time to time on its causes or solutions.

Last Friday I had occasion to have a matter brought to my attention, which I shared with him

4056 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 2000 at that time. That is a case where the Government of Canada, in considering the immigration of a particular individual who has a four-year nursing education, applying under the independent immigrant classification, was told by the Government of Canada that, unfor tunately, the occupational demand for the occupation which you are prepared to follow in Canada, nursing is zero and consequently rejected her application.

I know that I have only made the Minister aware of this letter on Friday, but I would ask him if he is prepared to take this up with the Government of Canada. There are certainly 600- and-some jobs available in Manitoba for that individual alone today. This is certainly unacceptable action by the Government of Canada. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): thank the Member for Lac du Bonnet for providing me with that information on Friday outlining this situation. Of course, it is a serious situation.

As I understand it, currently Canada Immigration does not consider a nurse as an occupation for skilled worker selection under their general occupation list. I understand that is the case, despite the fact that both the previous administration and our administration had made those particular representations to the federal government. Mr. Speaker, I will be attending a federal provincial Health ministers' meeting this week, and I intend to raise that issue during the course of that particular meeting. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Speaker, for the benefit of members, I will table a copy of the letter from the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi. I have removed the information about the specific individual to protect confidentiality. I am glad the Minister has referenced that under both my tenure as Minister and this administration this has been pursued.

I would ask him if he will not only be raising this with the Minister, with fellow ministers across the country, but if he is prepared to take it up with Manitoba's senior cabinet minister, the Honour- able Lloyd Axworthy, who is also Minister of External Affairs, because I am sure this is a serious matter to all Manitobans. Will he be elevating his pursuit of this matter to that particular level? Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I will raise that to the appropriate federal officials.

I understand that CIC, Canada Immigration, is reviewing the whole strategy of worker selection criteria with respect to that, and I understand that is an area under transition. But I certainly will raise it. I can also indicate to the Member for Lac du Bonnet that with respect to the individual case, as we always try to do at Manitoba Health, we will try to see what we can do in the individual circumstances in order to assist this individual where we can. Manitoba Hydro Collective Bargaining Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speaker, the Government, through Treasury Board, provides guidelines to Manitoba Hydro to utilize during contract negotiations with their employees. The independence of Manitoba Hydro provides that following the Government's guidelines is paramount. However, once again, this government is actively engaging in a political interference. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm that his government ordered Manitoba Hydro to withdraw its contract offer after it had already been provided to the bargaining committee? Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): As you know, guidelines are provided for collective bargaining through the compensation committee which is a subcommittee of Treasury Board, and those guidelines are the subject of active discussion with all those implementing those guidelines through collective bargaining, and that was certainly the case with Hydro. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro advise Manitobans and the employees of Manitoba Hydro upon what grounds his government interf ered in Manitoba Hydro's bargaining process?

July 17, 2000 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4057 Mr. Selinger: I would ask the Member to check Hansard with respect to my first answer which I think answered his second question as we ll. I will simply repeat that the compensation committee, which is a subcommittee of Treasury Board, provides guidelines for all collective bargaining. Those were communicated to Manitoba Hydro, as is the standard operating procedure. I would remind the Member that collective bargaining is still in progress. Mr. Laurende au: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter could tell this House if, under the new binding arbitration which this government is bringing forward, the first contract put on the table, be it whether this government withdrew it or not, is the one that the arbitrator will be settling with. Mr. Selinger: Once again, the Member is jumping the gun. Collective bargaining is still underway with the units at Manitoba Hydro, and I think the Member is asking a hypothetical question, which is out of order. Overland Flooding Disaster Assistance Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr.

Speaker, recent heavy rains and overland flooding have created concerns for many Manitobans. Both businesses and private homes have been flooded and the recovery process is only beginning. A number of municipalities have also indicated that they will be seeking government assistance. The provincial government has been called upon in the past to assist with the flood recovery process, such as when there was overland flooding in the Transcon a area in the early '90s. Mr.

Speaker, will the Min ister responsible for the emergency services agreement agree today to est ablish a disaster financial assistance arrangements program to help Manitobans cope with the recent flooding? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): I appreciate the ques tion from the Member opposite, and I can indicate, just to update him, that we have received resolutions from 12 municipalities. We understand that there are 3 more that have passed resolutions.

In addition to visiting Headingley with the Member, I also had the opportunity to visit a number of communities southeast and east of Winnipeg. We will be visiting other communities this week. I want to indicate that we are following the normal procedures that are followed in terms of disaster financial assistance. Municipalities are giving us the resolutions; we have contacted the communities affected. I might add there are approximately 20 municipalities that have indicated some sort of impact.

We are anticipating a response from the municipalities on specific damage, in which case we will be making a decision whether it is eligible under the OF AA process. I am hoping, if we do not hear later on this week, that we should have a better idea by next week, once we receive the detailed information from the municipalities. Mr. Helwer: Will the Minis ter responsible for emergency services agree to set up this program even if the federal governmen t does not become involved at this time? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker, the procedure we are following is the exact same procedure followed by the previous government in 1997 and 1999. I want to indicate the real question that will be followed in terms of the federal government's involvement will depend on the type of situation involved and the magnitude of the damage. I want to indicate to the Member that, just as we have indicated for the 1999 flood, we would expect the federal government to be involved if it meets the guidelines of OF AA, and in fact what we are working on now is getting that information.

As I indicated to the Member, once we have received that information, we will be in a position to make that kind of decision. I do want to indicate, if we receive the magnitude of claims that we have seen in other situations, such as 1993, we would expect the federal govern ment to be involved as well. Mr. Helwer: Will the Minis ter respons ible for emergency services agree to have a disaster aid program approved by Treasury and the Cabinet sooner, rather than later, in order to give these residents some idea of what assistance might be available? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker, we are making every effort to do it on a basis of sooner rather than

405 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 later. Our Emergency Measures Org anization staff have taken a proactive role; they have contacted municipalities. I just want to advise the Member opposite that we are following the same procedures that have been in place for many years, 1993, 1997, 1999, many other emergencies. As soon as we receive the detailed information and as soon as we are in the position of making a decision, we will communic ate that directly to the people.

I understand there is a process that has to be followed here, and the message we have to people who have been affected is contact your local municipality; the local municipalities are the first lines of contact in emergencies. We are working as soon as we can in trying to get a program in place, if a program is warranted based on the disaster information we receive. First Nations Casinos Selection Process Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr.

Speaker, when asked last week whether the Mini ster responsible for Gaming had any contact with the First Nations Casino Project Selection Com mittee or any of the Government employees utilized by the committee to do its work, the Minister would only say that he did not speak to Mr. Nadeau or Mr. Freedman as an MLA or a min ister.

Now that he has had time to talk to his staff, I would again ask the Minis ter responsible for Gaming if he or any of his staff have contacted any member of the selection committee or any government staff that were working on the selection committee that showed support for the Nelson Ho use First Nation casino project. * (1 4:20) Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr. Speaker, the members opposite have increased the size of their fishing net from last week when they asked about the two individuals involved.

I indicated that I never made any personal commen ts or contact with the officials who are involved with that to lobby. That was something that was followed by all members of our side of the House. We felt that it was absolutely vital to have a process that was above and beyond the kind of political lobbying that perhaps the members opposite might have been engaged in, but we did not do that. I in dicated to the Member that I did not lobby and to my knowledge, and I in dicate again, I do not know of anybody that did contact either of those two individuals or anyone to lobby in terms of any specific proponent.

Manitoba Gaming Commission Membership Composition Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Gaming Commission is set up of a committee that is appointed by the Mini ster. I would like to ask the Minister whether he will be making any changes to that committee now that he is Minister responsible for Gaming and whether he feels the confidence by the former min ister in that committee put forward with the committee under the Manitoba Gaming Commission that is now set up. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): Mr.

Speaker, since being appointed as Mini ster responsible for Gaming, I have been reviewing, along with my colleagues, a number of items in the next step in terms of the implementation of First Nations gaming. I can indicate we have not looked at the composition of that committee, but we are reviewing a whole series of items or part of the very extensive scrutiny that is part of the next st age.

I want to reiterate the excellent work done by the former min ister in gaming in having a very detailed process with a great deal of integrity that has ensured that we are in a position now of being able to have a very thorough review of the five proposed locations for First Nations gaming in the province. Mr. Speaker: The time for Or al Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. During Or al Questions on July 4, 2000, took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honour able Government House Leader (Mr.

Mackintosh) concerning the request made to the Honour able First Min ister (Mr. Doer) by the

July 17 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4059 Honour able Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) to table a legal opm10n. The Honour able Member for Lac du Bonnet, the Honour able Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) and the Ho nourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) also spoke to the point of order. I took the matter under advisement in order to consult the procedural authorities. Regarding the request for tabling of legal opm10ns, Beauchesne's Citation 408( 1 )(

c) advises that a question should not require an answer involving a legal opinion, while Citation 409( 3) states that a question cannot seek an opm10n, legal or otherwise. Beauchesne's Citation 41 0( 13 ) indicates that questions should not seek a legal opinion or inquire as to what legal advice a member has received.

A review of rulings by previous Manitoba Speakers indicates that, prior to 19 90, the practice of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly was in conformity with the Beauchesne's citations, in that questions asking for the tabling of legal opinions were either ruled out of order or were requested to be rephrased. Mr. Speaker Graham intervened on the following dates to either rule questions out of order or to request that the question be rephrased: July 18 , 19 78; May 8, 19 79; April 22, 198 0; May 27. 19 80: June 27, 19 80; July 4, 19 80; July 8, 19 80; July 21, 19 80; and February 16 , 1981. Mr.

Speaker Walding ruled a question out of order on April 25, 19 85 . Madam Speaker Phillips intervened on May 19 , 19 87; July 9, 19 87; and June 12 , 19 87, to rule questions out of order or to ask that questions seeking a legal opinion be rephrased. However, since 19 90, the practice of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly regarding requests for tabling of legal opinions has changed. On March 14 , 19 90. Mr. Speaker Rocan noted in a ruling that it was becoming common practice for minis ters to table written legal opinions.

On that basis, he ruled that. as a compromise between the practices of the House and the procedural authorities, he would allow questions that inquire if a minis ter has received a written legal opinion and would also allow requests to table the opinion but that he would not allow questions that would call upon a minis ter to state his or her own opinion of a question oflaw.

Since the time of the March 14 , 19 90, ruling by Speaker Rocan, questions referring to legal opinions or requesting a legal opinion or the tabling of legal opinions have been allowed on at least 53 occasions without intervention by the Chair or without a point of order being raised. On this basis, I am ruling, since the recent practice of the House has been to permit questions regarding the tabling of legal opinions, that the Honour able Government House Leader (Mr. Mackintosh) did not have a point of order.

I am also ruling that it has been the contemp orary practice of the House to ask if a mini ster has received a legal opinion or to ask that the opinion be tabled. However, it is up to the Minister to decide to answer the question or to decide to table the opinion if asked to do so. It is also not in order to ask a minis ter to state his or her opinion of the legal opinion.

Being mindful that the recent practice has seen a gradual departure from the pronounce ments of the procedural authorities and previous Manitoba practice, if the House wishes to revisit the practice of requesting legal opinions of minis ters in the House, the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House may wish to ex amine this issue. * ( 14 :30 ) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Order of Manitoba Recipients Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recogniz e two exemplary citizens, Mr. Edwin Jebb and Ms.

Sue Lambert, both from The Pas, Manitoba, who have recently been awarded the Order of Manitoba for their dedication and commitment to their local community. As the first in his communi ty to graduate from the Univ ersity of Manitoba with a Bachelor of Arts degree, Edwin Jebb has actively served on several community organ izations, including three years on the museum committee, four years with the Chief on Coun cil, the Gaming and Commission Committee, and has worked to raise the most money in his community for the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

4060 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 Additionally, Edwin is known for his dedication to the development of education al programs for Native people, for the construction of educational institutions within his community, and for promoting aboriginal culture. On a personal note, Mr. Jebb graduated from Frontier Colle giate In stitute in Cranberry Portage quite a number of years ago. FCI is a school at which I was also an educator for 22 years; therefore, it is an honour for FCI and for me to be able to celebrate one more deserving grad like Edwin Jebb. Equally involved, Mr.

Speaker, is Sue Lambert who, for over 30 years, has worked to promote the Trappers Festival, an event designed to commemorate the traditional northern way of life. She was also responsible for developing the Manitoba Org anization of Festivals and Events, which assisted in the development of festivals throughout the province. She has also worked with the Hu dson Bay Route Association to promote the Port of Churchill and the retention of rural Manitoban railways.

I am proud to be a member of the Hudson Bay Route Association and can attest to the fact that Sue Lambert has been a tireless advocate for the Hudson Bay line and the Port of Churchill. As well, for over ten years, she has volunteered with The Pas Health Complex Foundation by chairing the Found ation and assisting with local fundraisers. The Order of Manitoba was established to recognize individuals who have demonstrated excellence and achievement in any field, and who have contributed to the social, cultural or economic well-being of Manitoba and its residents. I am pleased, Mr.

Speaker, to take this opportunity to celebrate the excellence and achievemen ts of both Edwin Jebb and Sue Lambert, two outstanding Manitobans, two great northerners. Labour Legislation Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, a long time ago in a land far, far away, Howard Pawley and his cronies drove Manitoba to its knees by gleefully putting the screws to Manitoba business with brutally high taxes and viciously anti-business, anti-worker labour laws. Now we see the evil empire striking back, and Howard Pawley's storm troopers have returned.

This government of yesterday's NDP seems intent on crippling the business community in this province. Here, in a blast from the past, we see the Mini ster of Labour (Ms. Barrett) introducing the most vindictive, anti-business, anti-worker labour bill this province has seen in years, circumventing the Labour Management Review Committee and allowing her venom for the business community to affect her every decision. It is unfortunate that Manitobans believed the charade of moderation and respo nsibil ity portrayed by the NDP during the election.

We now see the return of the old mentality that a high-tax, anti-business, anti-worker economy is the ideal. Irresponsibil ity is now the agenda of this government. The deep divisions caused by this Minis ter of Labour will never heal. One hopes the Minis ter soon realizes she is supposed to be the referee, not the highest-scoring player and MVP for Team Labour. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba business realizes this government would like to see them leave the province in droves. One can only hope this government is defeated before that happens. Farm Family of the Year Mr. Tom Nevaksbonoff (Interlake): Mr.

Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the family of Gladys and David Gislason, who have been chosen as Manitoba's 2000 Farm Family of the Year according to the Red River Exhibition Association. The award is presented in recogn ition of Manitoba farm families who have an outstanding, innovative farm operation as well as having a record of exceptional service to their community and industry. David and Gladys have farmed in the Geyser area since 1962 and were one of the first Interlake families to begin managing leafcutter bees for the purpose of forage seed production.

David is a founding member of the Leafcutter Bee Association, which later became the Manitoba Forage Seed Association, the

July 17 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 406 1 organization which nomin ated the Gislasons for the award. In addition to serving on a wide variety of agriculture-related organizations over the years, David has served as the Reeve of the R.M. of Bifrost and is heavily involved with the Icelandic National League. Gladys is the financial manager of the farm and is pleased that the family is the focus of the award. Her daughter, Kathy, along with her husband and five children, runs her own dairy and forage seed production farm, setting a fine example of intergener ational continuity in this business.

Forage seed production is a pivotal industry for Interlake farmers for a variety of reasons. It is most appropriate that this family be recognized for its role in bringing the practice into the region. On behalf of the people of Manitoba, I congratulate and thank them for the leadership role they have played. Mr. Speaker, the Farm Family ofthe Year from the Interlake, David and Gladys Gislason. Mennonite History Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the gathering of about 2000 Mennonites at the Fort Dufferin site at Emerson.

The Fort Dufferin c;ite is, of course, the home of the North-West Mounted Police and it is the home of the Boundaries Commission that was established. It is also the disem barkation point for the Mennonites that settled the West Reserve in Manitoba and really the areas of the municipalities of Rhineland and Pembin a. My colleague Peter Dyck and I were in attendance yesterday when they voiced their appreciation to the Government of Canada having given them the right and the freedom to practise their religious beliefs and their ability to refrain from military service when they first came to this country.

It was interesting to note that for 1 0 years the Province of Manitoba has maintained or been part of funding the maintenance of the Fort Dufferin site. Mr. Speaker, I was absolutely appalled when I visited Fort Dufferin yesterday, because it was overgrown with weeds. The Mennonites had been told: If you want to use the site, you have to clean it up yourselves, if you want to use it in this province. I spoke personally to the acting director of Parks. He said: We are having no part of cleaning up Fort Dufferin.

I think that it is clearly an indication of this government's irresponsibility of maintaining a site that has tremendous historical significance in this province, not only for the Mennonite com munity, but for everybody in this province. So I congratulated the Mennonites for cleaning up their own site and putting on a celebration at Fort Dufferin yesterday. Mr. Speaker: Order. Prior to recognizing the Honour able Member for Burrows, could I just ask the co-operation of all honourable members, when referring to other members in the Chamber, to please refer to their constituency, or to mini sters by their title.

I would ask the co operation of all honourable members. Youth Justice Committees Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the important role that local youth justice committees play. These committees provide an alternative for young of fenders charged with lesser or first-time offences. Under these models, offenders are made accountable to both the community and the victim. Last year, around 2000 Manitobans, the majority being young offenders, were given the chance to take responsibility for their actions in a local setting.

Youth justice committees provide community justice that is highly effective. Approximately 80 percent of young people who participate in alternative measures successfully complete the program. Recently, I met with representatives from Parks West and Burrows-Keewatin youth justice committees, whose boundaries include parts of Burrows constituency. It is exciting to hear about the types of initiatives undertaken by these groups. As partnerships evolve, so, too, do the roles of these committees. Today, many committees are involved in mediation, community justice forums and a number of other

4062 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 2000 activities. I want to congratulate all those volun teers who donate their time to youth justice committees. These individuals make a positive difference in the lives of youth and help make our communities safer. * (1 4: 40) Committee Changes Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Southdale (Mr. Reimer), that the composition on the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Motion agreed to. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Transco na (Mr. Reid), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Riel (Ms. Asper) for St. Vital (Ms. Allan), St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for St. Boniface (Mr. Seling er). Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings of the following bills in this order: 25, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 5. Bill 25- The

Interpretation and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), Bill 25, The Interpret ation and Cons equentia l Amendments Act (Loi d'interpn!tation et modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the Ho nourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). Is it the will of the House to keep it standing in the name of the Member for Seine River? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to the record on this particular bill, The

Interpretation and Cons equentia l Amend ments Act. I have had the opportunity to review this particular piece of legislation. Although the bulk of it seems to be in my view very acceptable, changes to our

Interpretation Act to clarify the way in which our statutes are interpreted, there are a couple of points that jump to my attention that do give me at least cause for some question and in one particular case cause for concern. One of the provisions of this bill is for what is entitled here the liberal

interpretation of statutes, and I believe it is specifically

section 6 of this bill which indicates that: "Every Act and regulation must be interpreted as being remedial and must be given the fair, large and liberal

interpretation that best ensures the attainment of its objectives." Mr. Speaker, I have always been a believer, in my career in the law as a lawyer and as a legislator, that it is the obligation of legislators to make their legislation clear and as precise as possible, and where it is affecting the life and rights of our citizens that those citizens have the right to rely on a narrow int erpretation of statutes. They should not be entwined in breaching the law because of a very broad inter pretation, that if

an act intends something to happen or not to happen it should be very precise in setting out what that should be. Now, that may not be a view of

interpretation that is shared by all members, but it is certainly one that I raise as a concern. We as legislators have a great deal of power in affecting the rights of our citizens, and when we do so we should be clear and concise in writing our laws so that citizens know ex actly how it affects them. If there is ambiguity in the law, if the law is not clear, if the law is not written so that it is clear to the reasonable person who reads it, then this Legislature and government should not have the right to rely on some broad

interpretation of the statute that would then affect the rights of our citizens in an adverse

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4063 manner when that

interpretation is one that has, in essence, been stretched out of the legislation by very broad

interpretation. Citizens should have the right to be able to rely on clear and consi stent meanings of statutes, and government should not have the right, in my view, to allow having those stretched beyond their clear and precise

interpretation in order to interfere with the rights of our citizens. So I have some concern with that particular provision of the Bill. I also notice for the first time in our Inter pretation Act, the Minis ter is proposing that in

section 8: "No act or regulation is to be interpreted so as to abrogate or derogate from the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by

section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982." I must say that I view this, as I understand, that the Government has promised that they would inclu de this in the legislation, when in reality none of our laws can abrogate or derogate from the constitutional rights of other citizens. It would make the Act unconstitutiona l. So whether there is a need for this provision or not I do not think really is the issue. The Government has, in fact, said that they would include it. I believe that it is already there in the reality of how laws are applicable, but that is fine to include it.

I am pleased that the Minis ter did reference Aboriginal and treaty rights to those guaranteed by the Constitu tion. My experience as a minis ter of Northern and Native Affairs is that often there are rights that are claimed that do not necessarily have a constitution al basis for them, and I have seen that happen with things like traditional use areas for land. There certainly were land entitlements under treaties which I certainly was involved in settling shortfalls under those treaties. It was doubtful that there was a legal right necessarily for a traditional use area.

There may be other common-law rights for that but may not necessarily have been a treaty or Aboriginal right, and yet it was claimed. So the Mini ster has confined this

interpretation to those rights that are defined in the Constitution, as he should. So this clause, I think, is one that is there because of a political commitment to include it, I think to give a comfort level to First Nations people, and I certainly make no ob jection to th at. I do not believe on my reading of this particular provision that it does anything that is not already there, but it makes it clearer, and if that makes it clearer, it certainly gives a comfort level to First Nations citizens. I have no objection to that particular clause. As I have said, there are many things in this act that I have read.

There are some questions that I have, as well, about some specific issues that I will put to the Minis ter in committee. One other comment that I made is with respect to

preambles. I have noticed in my time in this Legislature that there has been a growing desire by governments-the Government of which I was a part did some of it and this new government seems to be doing even more-to include

preambles in legislation. I have always objected to the

preamble. This is a personal view and position. It is, in essence, a political statement. That is what the

preamble has become and is, is a political statement of what government is wanting to do. I have seen some bills come before the House where I often thought that the political st atement was-that is why we had the legislation, in fact, was to make this political statement. I am not a great fan of

preambles in legislation. I think the citizen has the right to have the active clauses clearly defined, what they are intending to do, and to rely on that clear definition without necess arily having a

preamble. So it has been a trend. This Attorney General certainly is not the only one who has advanced the use of the

preamble, so I do not fault him for that, but it is a trouble that I have had personally as a legislator. I see now in the

interpretation in this particular statute that the

preamble of the Act the Minis ter is proposing should be interpreted and be used in assisting and explaining the meaning and intent of the Bill. * (14: 50) Again, my point is that citizens should have the right to rely on a clear wording of the

4064 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 operative sections of the Bill. The ability of that to be supported by our courts should be on a clear and plain reading of the operative sections, not necessarily using

preambles and certainly not having some catch-all liberal

interpretation that allows the clear meaning of that

section to be extended by the use of a

preamble or a liberal

interpretation clause as the Min ister is pursuing. So that is a personal view that I have on the inte rpretation of statutes. It is one that the Government does not share. It is the concern that we have about this bill, certainly I have, but we are prepared to move it on to committee today. Perhaps we will have some more discussion about this when it does reach the committee stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 25, The

Interpretation and Conse quentia l Amendments Act. Is it the pleasure of House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 32- The Victims' Rights Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Ho nourable Attorney Gene ral (Mr. Mackintosh), Bill 32, The Victims' Rights Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les droits des victimes), standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Steinb ach (Mr. Jim Penner). Is it the will of the House to keep it standing in the name of the Honour able Member? Stand? Some Honour able Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Attorney General on this particular piece of legislation, in having the chance to review it and in reading through the Bill, and I look forward to some discussion in committee.

This particular bill, I think, enshrines in legislation many of the things that should be and, I would hope, are happening on a daily basis in our justice system with respect to the rights of victims of crime to be able to access information that they need: information about what is happening in the court process, what is happening in the prosecution, what is happening in the investigation, what services are available to them to seek restitution, to retrieve property that has been stolen and perhaps recovered as evidence.

I have never served as Attorney General of this province, but I would hope that these kinds of practices go on, on a regular basis. within our justice system. The odds are that they do not always, so this particular bill now gives victims the right to have these things happen as a matter of course. I think the Attorney General's most difficult part with this bill will not be the legislative process but to ensure that it is carried out, that the attitude is there within the Department that people do have a right to these things. That is a challenge that is going to be the most difficult

part I think of this process, but it is one that we certainly welcome on this side. and I want to congratulate him for bringing this into law. There are some provisions of this that I, in my notes in reading this bill, marked down as certainly excellent.

Certainly, the provision of information to victims about restitution, the retrieval of property, the kinds of things that a victim of crime are practically going to want to know, have available to them so they can recover their property, seek damages without being sort of pushed off to the civil court system while the criminal law is operating in some other sphere. I also must compliment the Minis ter because many of these rights are, of course, at the victim's request, which does not mean they will happen in all cases.

There are many cases where there is no need for them to happen, there is no interest but certainly I think keeps that victim at the forefront of the Act. One provision does trouble me, and I am going to raise it today in my concerns to give the Attorney General an opportunity to perhaps

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4065 think about it a little more before we get to committee, and it is not that we are of fering him the be-a11 and end-a11 answer. It was a problem for me, and that was in

section 7, the right to information about investigation of offence. I appreciate that this is a delicate balance. You have an investigation going on, charges have not yet been laid, the victim wants to be kept abreast of what is happening in an investigation. It is a difficult time perhaps for the law enforcement agent. How much information can we provide without jeopardizing our investigation?

The trouble I have with this section, and I am not saying I have a definitive problem with it, but the red flag went up; that is, the test of whether or not the agency, the police, the law enforcement agency shall provide that information is one in which the Minis ter is defined as, and I quote: "U nless doing so could unreasonably delay or prejudice an investigation or prosecution or affect the safety or security of any person." I do not have problems with those principles. I have problems within whose judgment that will be made. What is missing from this?

And I would look to the Attorney General in committee to perhaps give me his thoughts on this. As this is now written, this is a general test, but it is not the opinion of the head of the law enforcement agency . It is a test of, I guess, the reasonable person.

The Attorney General may wish to give consi deration to an amendment that would a11ow that test to be one which was the sub jective belief of the head of the law enf orcement agency, so that the head of a police force could decide and make that judgment ca11 as to whether or not providing the information would delay or prejudice the investigation or the prosecution or affect the safety or security of any person. That is missing from this clause today, and my concern is that in the heat of an investigation the head of a law enforcement agency has to make judgment calls.

Sometimes they may be the right one, they may not be, but this provision a11ows that position to be second-guessed by some body outside of the process. I know it is a part of the balance, but I think that in all the parts of this bill, this is the one that is going to be difficult for law enforcement, because they know that every decision they make, whether they provide information to the victim or not, could be second-guessed by an outside body, by the director under the remedial provisions who was not there at the time of the investigation.

I see this as the one place where there is going to be potential friction in here that perhaps could undermine the police law enforcement agency. So, I am not saying that I have the be-all and end-all. It is the one issue that I have flagged with the Attorney General today. I would ask if he would look at it and perhaps we could discuss it in committee. It may be an amendment he would like to consider just to ensure that it would be the opinion of the head of that agency that that test be there. I do not know how that fits entirely with his view of the scheme, but it may, in fact, take away a potential problem.

I know the concern. Does that mean the police agency will always say just no, we will not provide the information? There has to be some right to it, but again do we always want to be second-guessing the judgment of those who are investigating a crime and have to make some ca11s in the darkness of night without the full light of hindsight as they will be judged by this review? So I would ask him to have a look at that, and I would be delighted to discuss with him in committee. Again, my congratulations to the Minister on this, I think, generally very good piece of legislation. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is Bill 32, The Victims' Rights Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 33- The Highway Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), Bill 33, The Hi ghway Traffic Amendment and

4066 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 Conse quent ial Amendmen ts Act (Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route et modifications correlatives), st anding in the name of the Honour able Member for Lac du Bonnet. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to pass this particular bill through to committee. This represents another expansion, I guess, of our get tough as a province with drunk drivers legislation. I know that the administration of which I was a

part championed that cause under the leadership of the former member for Brandon West, Jim McCrae. The former member for Rossmere, Mr. Toews, took it forward another step. This Attorney General has carried it forward even another. There are issues, I guess, that some might argue that perhaps not all of this is needed. In some circumstances it certainly is, but we are prepared to pass this bill through to committee. I know some of my colleagues may have some commen ts on it at that time or in third reading, but I certainly see no reason for this not to move forward at this particular stage. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 33, The Hi ghway Traffic Amen dment and Consequentia l Amendments Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. * (15 :00) Bi11 34-The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000 Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Attorney General (Mr.

Mackintosh), Bill 34, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000 (Loi de 2000 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives), standing in the name of the Honour able Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing in the name of the Honour able Member for St. Norbert? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, we will pass this through to committee.

The only caveat I attach to that, of course, is that as various critics go through this particular bill there may be a matter that we may have some concern or question with that we will raise at committee. I would hope that the Minis ter will probably leave this as one of the latter bills to go through in this session, because it is a bill that is prepared by staff really to clean up bills, and it is an omnibus, all-encompassing piece of legislation. So I would just ask him and reserve the right that we may have some issues that we may raise as this continues to go through the process. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 34, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 2000. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 36-- The Sum mary Convictions Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Attorney General (Mr. Mackintosh), Bill 36, The

Summary Convictions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les poursuites

sommaires ), standing in the name of the

July 17 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4067 Honour able Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). Is it the will of the House for it to remain standing in the name of the Honour able Member for St. Norbert? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, this bill prim arily, as I understand it, allows where there is a default judgment, in other words a person has not responded to the court summons, to have imposed on them an additional penalty of$35.

The concern that I have with this, of course, is there will be times when the default occurs through no fault, in essence, of that individual. Now, I know the Member, from my reading this, excludes highway traffic offences, I understand, but there are other of fences where a summons may, in fact, not arrive at a residence. A person may be away for an extended period. There may be other justifiable reasons for having not responded, and we will be asking him for some further clarification of the process here, particularly how those circumstances might, in fact, be dealt with.

I would just raise with him, as well, as I have the floor today, during the course of Estimates, I raised the issue of the victims-of crime levy that was placed on various of fences including offences under The Hig hway Traffic Act which was not intended by the former government. I can say that as one of the ministers of that government and that it was brought to my attention last summer that we were charging that levy on highway overweight fines and using it for a victims-of-crimes fund when the damage, if any, was done to the highways.

When we get to committee, I would hope that the Minister may be able to give me an update. It is certainly in the same vein of penalty imposition as this bill outlines. So we see no reason to hold this up. It should now proceed to committee, and we will have those discussions in the Committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the ques tion? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 36, The

Summary Convictions Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 39- The Insurance Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux), Bill 39, The Insu rance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les assurances), standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). Is it the will of the House to leave it standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Pembina? Some Honourabl e Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, am pleased to be able to place a few words on the record regarding Bill 39, The In surance Amendment Act. The In surance Act is certainly an important piece of legislation for all Manitobans.

I do think it is unfortunate, the reputation that is often given to sellers of insurance because they provide such an important service. I know from personal experience the positive relationship I have with the firm that handles mine and my family's insurance. I am certain that the quality of service that is provided is typical of most agents in Manitoba.

4068 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 This bill does, I think, recognize the reality of the insurance business in today's world. It addresses issues such as allowing agents to carry on other businesses under certain restrictions. This seems only equitable as other areas of financial service are opened up to banks, credit unions and trust companies. As well, the Bill ensures that agents, brokers and adjusters carry liabil ity insurance.

I know that this is the case in other jurisdictions and is another thing that will provide peace of mind to purchasers of insurance who should not be punished in a difficult time because of the errors or omissions of an agent. I also note that the Bill will tighten the screening requirements for those seeking a licence through a sponsoring insurer. It is important that people feel confidence in their agent and are comfortable in the knowledge that certain screening requirements are in place to obtain a licence.

Through my contacts with agents and with individuals on the Insurance Council, I am advised that this bill largely meets with the approval of the industry. It is meant to improve the operation of the industry as well as benefit the purchasers of insurance and the loved ones it benefits. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the Bill along to committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 39, The Insurance Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Committee Changes Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) and Morris (Mr. Pitura) for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson). Motion agreed to. Bill 5- The Wildlife Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin), Bill 5, The Wildl ife Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia conservation de Ia faune), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Lakeside. Mr. Ha rry Enos (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, this is bad legislation, and as I indicated to the Honourable Member and to the House on an earlier occasion, I have no quarrel with the members of the Government or the desire, the stated desire of the Government, to curtail or to limit what they refer to as penned hunting. But, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, say it. If the Government does not want to permit penned hunting in the province of Manitoba, say it.

That is what legislation ought to be, clear in what precisely is intended when we pass that kind of legislation. Instead, this legislation sets out all kinds of pitfalls for various different kinds of livestock operators who had ventured into what I call the non-trad itional livestock- bison, elk. They will, in my opinion, be under the threat of needless harassment from host or raft of bureaucratic regulations that may or may not come into force but certainly can come into force under the provisions that we are providing in Bill 5. So, Mr.

Speaker, invite members, committee members or not, to come before the Committee because they will hear from individual livestock producers, particularly from the Manitoba Bison Producers, the Manitoba Elk Growers Association and from corners they least expect, from people who own budgie birds and parrots and have little pets in their homes. This legislation has the potential of seriously impacting on that, and that is where this government is making a serious mistake.

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4069 I know what this government wants to do. They want to prohibit penned hunting, but nowhere in the legislation does it say that. It is going to say that in some regulations, but in the meantime, they empower the bureaucrats in the Department of Conservation all kinds of muscle, all kinds of elbow, to create chaos in what is already and is rapidly becoming important part of our diversified agricultural scene.

So I am going to look forward to the representations made at committee, but I would hope that this is an instance where it is not a matter of denying a government's wish to pursue a particular policy. We are prepared to support the Government in a simple measure and a simple bill that will make it clear that penned hunting is not an acceptable thing to do in Manitoba. This bill goes far beyond that, and presentations made at the Comm ittee will amply demonstrate that to all and sundry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. *( 15:10 ) Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker. I would just like to add a few words on Bill 5.

I really feel that it is going too far. It is going beyond, I believe, what this government had proposed in itially and that is the penned hunting. I am not particularly concerned with that part of the Bill. What I am concerned with, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it could have a very large effect on many farmers in the Interlake area, especially some of the specialized producers that have bison, elk, ostrich. They even have a farmer that produces rabbits that could very well be affected by this legislation.

It gives too much power to the present government so that they could control and could have a detrimental effect to many producers in my particular area. The In terlake has had to diversify because of difficulties in the grain crops in this last number of years and the fact that we lost the Crow rate back a few years ago. This has put a lot of effort on many farmers to look at other options, and some of those are diversifying into some of these special type of livestock. I am afraid this act could have a very detrimental effect on th at. So, I am sorry, I cannot agree with the Act.

I know that a number of my producers, both the elk and the bison, will be making presentations at the Committee to oppose this and to explain why this bill could be detrimental to them. So, I look forward to hearing them. I just want to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot agree with this bill in the present form and look forward to committee stage. Mr. Glen Cummi ngs (Ste. Rose): Mr.

Speaker, my colleagues have outlined some of the same concerns that I have regarding this bill, but let me for the record say that my concern is the uncer tainty that this creates in the agricultural community, in the diversified agricultural community, where we, as the preceding admini stration, enc ouraged farmers to diversify, including some of the species that can well be captured under this legislation.

If the Minis ter and the Government were to be a little bit more forthcoming about the absolute intent of this bill and had brought forward a simple amendment to clarify that position, then I suspect there would not be the unc ertainty that is out there right now. Penned hunting conjures up all sorts of nasty and unpleasant visions in the eyes of many people, but my position was always that the current Wildlife Act bans penned hunting of any animals listed under The Wildlife Act, but there was one anomaly that came under that and that was the buffalo were not listed under The Wildlife Act.

A simple amendment to inclu de them, or an amendment to forbid penned hunting, which would have captured all of the aspects of whether animals are listed under The Wildlife Act or not, would have then solved what I think is becoming a bit of a festering sore in certain specialized parts of the agricultural community. I would also be concerned that this legislation is entirely en abling, at first read, at least. Even at second read, I see it as being very much enabling legislation and might well say: Well, the minis ter of the day should have the authority.

With the stroke of a pen he, however, can change the opportunity for profit or loss for people across rural Manitoba who have a significant investment in certain activities. I am going to take the opportunity, while the person I am going to refer to is not my

4070 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 2000 constituent, I know that there is an operator in this province who has wild boars and has set up what would be known as a hunt farm, not a penned hunt. I would be interested to know, and I have not yet heard any reaction from the Minister or from his colleagues, or from the Premier (Mr. Doer), for that matter, or from the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), for sure. We have not heard any indication or any comments that could give us some clarity, and I hope that in committee we will hear some of these answers.

Frankly, there is a person that if his penned and I use the term "penned" because that is the colloquialism that many people have applied. He thinks of his operation as a hunt farm, where he has several hundred acres, albeit with a fence around it, but he also would acknowledge that he has several hunters who go in there and come out empty-handed. In other words, it is not a lot different from a normal, natural hunt would be, because of the terrain and because of the cover. Is the Government intending to put somebody like him out of business? Will they compensate him if they put him out of business?

He started this farm, in my understanding, at least, in good faith. He was not breaking any laws. The animals that he had, and they-w ere wild boars as I understand it, the animals that he has are not listed under The Wildlife Act, so he was not breaking any of The Wildl ife Act or regulations, and he did set up a hunt that was difficult. That, I think, does away with a lot of the fear that has been propagated around this type of hunt. It is not a case of putting an animal in a cage and shoving the rifle through the fence and pulling the trigger.

It is, in fact, a sport activity, and some of those who are willing to pay to be involved in this type of activity are, by nature, people who have to husband their time carefully. They want to go to an area where they know there is going to be wildlif e of the type that they are seeking. They have two or three or four days set aside where they can go. They are willing to pay for the opportunity to participate in a hunt of that nature.

I am afraid that what this bill does is create an enormous amount of uncertainty that only one by one will we be able to understand what the intent of the government is as they put the named species and the activity into place and the regulations of this bill. It can easily lead to an abusive authority where, I do not care if it is a director of wildl if e, whether it is a regional director, whether it is the Minister or whether it is the Cabinet as a whole, with the stroke of a pen they can put somebody out of business or they can keep them in business.

I always say that while that may be desirable for the minister of the day, on the other hand, he has a tremendous, onerous responsibili ty. What it does is create a climate of unease, uncertainty. and probably inertia in industries where they are being affected or governed by this type of legislation, because the Minister today may not want to do anything about it, the Minister tomorrow will, or the opposite. The Minister today will take this person out of business and the Minister tomorrow in a new administration might decide to reverse that. If anybody should read this at some future time and say. well.

Cummings is fearmongering himself, I only need to point to what happened in the Swan River Valley, where elk ranching was first of all begun, and then it was stopped, and then it was begun again. We know the legal entanglements, we know the cost to government, and we know the uncertainty that followed that. * (15: 20) That was an example of where it was following the legislation of the day, which at least was clear and required governments to change the legislation before anything different could happen.

Today with this legislation, if it were enacted this summer, by this fall there will be a number of people with their lifetime savings at risk, not because there will be anything specifically in the Act that would put them out of business but that there are provisions in the Act that simply with a change of a regulation, which does not have to come to this Chamber for debate, does not have to go to the pu blic for debate, but simply with a stroke of the pen can have that kind of an influence on operations such as I described. There are other operations out there that will find themselves in a similar predicament.

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 407 1 I find it somewhat ironic. During the election there was a significant difference between myself and the current Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) because of issues about whether or not hunting of species that were designated under The Wildlife Act was legal. Now that he is part of the governing side, I challenge them to change this legislation to make it more specific, to make it more comforting to those who are in business. At least they have the right to know whether or not they are going to be out of business once this legislation is in place.

They certainly need to crystallize whether or not they intend in any way for any of the clauses in this act to influence other operations of a similar nature or if they intend to use the silver bullet to get rid of penned hunting, particularly on elk, which was illegal anyway. Buffalo would be another example of where if there was a penned hunt of any kind it would now easily be made illegal.

I suggest, as my colleague from the Interlake and colleague from Gimli said, it would be far better to have written a simple piece of legislation that would have pinpointed what the philosophical direction and what the issue was that the government wanted to deal with. En abling legislation in and of itself is far, far more dangerous in the hands of any politician, no matter what their stripe, than legislation that is, in fact, straightforward and specific so that people can understand-yes, I am shooting from the lip-and straightforward and easy for those who are in the industry to understand. Mr.

Speaker, I have pretty well concl uded the thoughts that I have on what I see as the shortcomings of this bill. Without speaking to the specifics of the Bill, it is the principle behind being able to legislate regulating powers that are yet unknown. You know, how quickly the worm turns. I remember some of the members of the current government saying when we introduced legislation, well, not only should you have your legislation more clear, you should, in fact, write your regulations and show them to us before we are going to deal with your legislation.

Well, maybe that is a challenge we should throw out to this government on this bill. If the Minis ter and his colleagues are so sure that this bill is the way they want to go, and obviously it is because they introduced the Bill, if they are that certain about it, then I would give them the challenge: Let us have a look at the regulations. We all know the esteem or lack thereof that the word of politicians of any stripe are held by the public today. So Jet us see it in writing. Let us see what it is that they actually intend to do.

If they are prepared to do that then the debate can deal with the specifics of either the problem or the assets of the Bill. But until we see that, until we see some comment that can be verified, that the government can be held account able to, or what their intent is beyond ending penned hunting, what their intent is in the introduction of this bill, making it as broad as we bel ieve it could be, if there was someone in government who chose to abuse it, and I choose my words carefully, because I am sure the Mini ster and the government of the day will def end themselves and say that I am attacking their honour.

Well, let us just talk about it philosophically. It is not any particular minis ter, it is the potential of a minis ter at some point in the history of this bill making changes that, in fact, will be detrimental to the little guy out there. I emphasize, the little guy. There are a few operators out there that have significant dollars. In some cases the people who are going to be affected by this bill find themselves owning land that is marginal, that is heavily covered with bush.

There are demands on them to keep the natural aesthetics of the land and at the same time earn a living that is viable for themselves and attract tourists, hunters, and others into the communi ty, because those communities, bel ieve me, are very often a little bit more remote in location than where we are standing today. Mr. Speaker, on that basis I look forward to what I see in committee and what the government may be able to do to ease the concerns that we have collectively raised. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Just a few minutes to put a few commen ts on the record on

4072 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 2000 Bill 5. What I find most int eresting about this bill is that it is the wrong bill to deal with a perceived problem. There is a group of people out there that have obviously been in touch with this government and members of this government . Members of this government, quite frankly, and I think they would be the first to admit it, have no knowled ge of what goes on in rural Manitob a. They have no knowl edge of what kinds of situation farmers are being forced into these days.

The federal governm ent walked away from the farm community when the Liberals were first elected almost eight years ago and made it very clear that they intended to cut the farm community loose and let them go out on their own. They got rid of the special grains programs, were instrumental in getting rid of the GRIP program across this country, except On tario and Quebec. They were instrumental in getting rid of the Crow benefit, which was a $750-million subsidy on transportation to the railways, and basically have said to the farm community: You are on your own, kids; you either run or you cut bait.

So the farm community decided to run. They are not going to give up that easily. The farm community said, well, if we are going to be forced to be on our own, we are going to become inno vative. So many of them did become inno vative. The farm community asked the previous Conser vative administration whether it would be possible for them to get into the same kind of business that Saskatchewan farmers were into, mainly elk ranching, bison ranching, emu ranching, ostrich ranching, and, indeed, raising birds for pet shops, raising animals for pet shops and all those kinds of things.

The previous administration said, yes, we recognize how diversified you will have to become in order to just stay alive. I know many of these people across the way who now sit in governm ent do not understand what that means. It means that canola prices over the last year-and I would like to say to you, Mr. Speaker, especially you, Mr.

Speaker, that if you would have taken the kind of hit that canol a producers, grain producers and specialty crops producers have taken in the last year, if you would have taken that kind of reduction in your salary, I guarantee that you would not be sitting where you are sitting today. To any one of the min isters sitting on that side of the House, if you would have taken a reduction of 70 percent on your salary, I say to you, you would not have stayed there. You would have gone looking for a job somewhere else. * (15: 30) Our canola prices have gone from $9 a bushel to $4 and I believe 63 or 70 cents today.

I am not quite sure what the price did this afternoon, Sir. Barley prices have come from $3.50 a bushel to less than $2, and if you sell to the feed market and to the Wheat Board, you get an initial price of less than a dollar. Now, that brings me to the next point. I know there have been many people here who have said it is great for us to have a board and to average in pool stock. A number of the speakers have spoken strongly in favour of pooling. Well, I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, and the rest of your colleagues in this House, how could you survive if all your salaries were pooled, first of all at a 70% reduction in your salaries, and then pool them all and say, now you are all going to be equal and you are all going to get the same price. The reason I ment ion this, this has forced farmers to become very inno vative. Yet when I look at the regulations and the legislation that this governmen t is foisting on that same farm communit y-and the absolutely derogatory way that the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk) has portrayed the livestock industry by putting out her publication on livestock is absolutely unbelie vable. Here we have another bill, Bill 5, that talks about almost every live animal and names them under The Wildlife Act and designates them all under the same category as wildlife. I know the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) is much more knowledge able than most people are because he talks about the dead parrot act. Well, this is no dead parrot that we are talking about.

These are live rural families that we are talking about, and they are only trying to etch out a livin g, even though the Member

July 17, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4073 opposite does not want to pay for food across the table, even though he only picks up less than 14 percent of his salary, I would suggest less than 8 percent of his salary, but 14 percent of the average salary of people in this province goes toward food these days. less than 14 percent. I think that that is a shame that we will not even allow those farmers out there to make a living so that they can support their families. This bill is a further indication of how little this government knows about rural Manitoba and how rural Manitoba functions.

Most of the farms in many parts-yes, you can shake your heads all you like, you do not know. Most of the farms in this province are fenced. Like it or not, the reason they are fenced is because you have animals in them. Animals graze grass and they eat little twigs of f trees, and believe it or not, in some of these fenced areas, which we call pastures, Mr. Speaker, we actually are now being told that these will no lon ger be fenced pastures; these will be pens. Some of these pens will be thousands of acres in size. Matter of fact, most of these pens will be hundreds of acres in size.

Yet the perception of the members opposite on the Government side and, I bel ieve, even the Mini ster, is that the pens will be no larger than this room, that you will lean over the edge of the pen and point the gun and fire and kill the animal, maybe, if you are a good shot. If not, then you will shoot it again and again and again until it drops in this little pen. Well, that is not reality. You know that. You are probably one of the few people in this Chamber elected on the Government's side of the House who knows this.

The rest of them have not got a clue of what they are talking about when they passed or put forward this kind of legislation. Penned hunting is something that we wanted to stop. The little pens as big as this room or maybe even larger, we would have stopped that.

But I do not think that we would have said to the farmers out there when they raise bison, when they raise elk, when they raise any of the other species named under this act: No, you cannot do that, or, no, you cannot issue a licence to somebody to come in and kill a bull bison that is not going to make it until next year or the year after because they are old. Mr. Speaker, it presented an opportunity to some farmers to encou rage foreign tourists to come into this province and pay a decent fee to allow them to shoot something that they had domestically raised on their farm.

This government is saying: No, you cannot do that. That is unfair. It is nothing but unfair. You are encroaching on the ability of individuals to make decisions to make a living for themselves. That is what is wrong. That is what is wrong with this government. We are looking at some other acts-the drainage act. The Water Rights Amendment Act is a similar kind of piece of legislation. I know the Minis ter said: Oh, do not worry, Jack, we are not going to come to your farm and stop you from making a ditch across your quarter section. Well, then, take it out of the Bill.

If you do not want to do it, then get rid of it. Do not do it. But he said: Yes, but we want to keep it there. We will not do it. Do not worry about it. We will not pass regulations. Similarly, you are now talking about doing the same thing with The Wildlife Act. You are naming all of them, designating them all, in that respect, as wildlif e. That is what is wrong with this legislation. There are a number of pieces of legislation that you could have used to accomplish the same thing. The Mini ster of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), I bel ieve, has some sense of knowledge in that respect.

How she would have allowed her colleague to put forward this kind of legislation without properly analyzing what it will do to her farm commun ity-and she is supposed to be the proponent for agriculture in this province-just totally, totally confuses me. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, give some opportunity, enco urage the members of the Government, and I say to the Minis ter, ask your colleagues to reconsider what you are doing to their farm community and get them to set this bill aside.

Get them to set this-[interjection] She says, no, no, we are not going to do that, but get them to set this bill aside and use a different bill to ensure that what their true intentions are, are, in fact, happening and will be encou raged to happen by legislation and regulation but not this so-called draconian approach to control in

4074 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 regulation an industry that is already deeply hurt and is being deeply hurt. Ms.

Bonnie Korzeniowski, Acting Speaker, in the Chair So I say to you, Madam Acting Speaker, that would only encourage the Minister and the other ministers in cabinet, before they put this bill forward for reconsideration and finalization at third reading and in committee, I would ask them to seriously reconsider putting this bill aside and letting the farm community have a say in what and how legislation should be drafted to ensure that "penned hunting" is, in fact, what is controlled and not total confinement hunting in all the rest of the province, because the next thing you are going to find is that you are going to see that your Minister of Conservation (Mr.

Lath lin), if Ms. Burns and others have their way, you will be stopped from hunting white-tailed deer in this country and from hunting elk in this country because you will not be able to let them be hunted in fences. * (15:40) I know the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) says, oh, phooey. Well, if she would look at her own community, she would know that virtually every farm is fenced and has a fence around it. It is confined hunting.

It is confinement, and it will be seen by those who are the proponents of this bill as confined hunting, and they will come after the Minister and say to the Minister, now, stop this; you are breaking your own law. I know what I speak of , Madam Acting Speaker. I know what I speak of, because when I took a trip by snowmobile into the Mantario area which is a restricted area, which should not have any motorized vehicles in it, I took a snow mobile trip to go look at a naturalist camp in the middle of that area. It should not have been there either, but it is sti ll there, by the way.

When I took a snowmobile out there to look at this naturalist camp, I was told by that minister that I had broken my own law, and I did, and she will be breaking her own law. The Minister of Conservation will be breaking his own law, and all the farmers in this province will be breaking their own law if they allow white-tailed deer hunting and elk hunting and/or any other hunting in fenced areas, because that is what this bill speaks to. That is exactly what it speaks to.

So, Madam Acting Speaker, I only ask that we set aside this bill and let it be debated another while by the agricultural community and let the agricultural community truly have a say in what should be or should not be in this legislation. Thank you. Mr. Leonard Derkacb (Russell): Madam Acting Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill to put a few comments on the record with regard to I think the perception about this bill from people in my constituency and indeed many other Manitobans whom I have had the opportunity to talk to about this particular piece of legislation.

Madam Acting Speaker, I do not think the Government really paid a lot of attention when this bill was drafted, because had they paid more attention to the drafting of this bill I do not believe that the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) would have allowed this bill to be drafted in the way in which it was. Secondly, I believe in all honesty that the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin) would have probably said: We had better take a little more time in how we present the information or how the information is presented on this bill.

I think the Minister of Conservation had the right attitude in the beginning when he scheduled the series of meetings across rural Manitoba to consult on this legislation, but somehow his cabinet got to him and did not allow him to proceed with those hearings. I think Manitobans were somewhat outraged at the fact that they knew there was an opportunity coming where they could debate the intent of this legislation, and then they were cut off from the discussion. Today they are left with nothing more than an opportunity to present during the second reading of the bill.

Madam Acting Speaker, I was interested in looking at some of the statistics with regard to how many wildlife are taken by hunters in any particular species in a given year. You know, over the course of time, with the hunting regulations that we have in our province, we have actually been able, with good conservation

July 17 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4075 practices, to enhance the numbers of species or enhance the number of animals in the variety of species that are hunted. For example, today, if you look at the numbers of black bear in the province of Manitoba, they are higher than they were 20 years ago. If you look at the number of white tailed deer in the province of Manitoba today, they are higher. If you look at the numbers of elk, we are down in the Riding Mountain in the numbers of elk, but that is largely because of the loss of habitat, not as a result of hunting, because the hunting is contr olled.

So the legislation that we see before us today comes out of a lobby by a very select group of people who are termed, if you like, tree huggers and animal huggers, and have no concept about the reality of animals and how animals are treated by people who live with them on a daily basis. These people, like Ms. Vicki Bums, have no clue about what it takes to raise animals, what it takes to ensure that animals are protected in their environment and to ensure that they can propagate in a natural way. This is a sensationa list, this Vicki Bums. who merely wants to stop any kind of hunting of any kind of animal. Mr.

Speaker in the Chair I have to tell you that I would bet my bottom dollar that there are more animals put to sleep by the Humane Society in a given day than any hunter will take in the course of a lifetime. So I would say to people like Vicki Bums and those who are such proponents of this legislation that they should become more realistic in their approach towards this kind of an issue. Mr.

Speaker, the other thing that we have done as a society is that we have encouraged farmers throughout Manitoba to diversifY their operations, because having a single source of income, whether it is from grain or from livestock just has not been able to do it for most farm families in this province. So through the course of our administration we encouraged farmers to diversity. I have to say that I have at least two hunt farms in my constituency that are operating today. Now, these are not pens. These are large tracts of land that have been fenced where there is I guess what you would term wildlife.

The two farms that I know about have wild boars in their fences. Yes, there are hunters who come in, they pay a fee, and they are allowed to go out and hunt an animal. But it has got to be a particular animal. It cannot be just any animal that is out in that preserve, if you like. The animal is going to be identified. There is going to be a guide that accompanies the hunter. That hunter simply cannot take any animal that is within that fenced region.

Once again, you will be lucky to return at the end of a day with your game, because I would dare say that given the density of the cover of those lands that the animal has a very, very good chance of escaping. It is not like going into a particular area with a group of hunters. Rather, you are going into that hunting area as an individual. You are hunting as an individual, and, at most, perhaps two individuals and a guide. Mr. Speaker, I think one has to actually visit a hunt farm to appreciate what it is and what value it brings to that community and to that family.

The value just does not come to that family; it comes to that small community as well because the hunters that come are unlike the fishermen who come or unlike other hunters who come to hunt in a region. They do spend their dollars here in our province and here in our communities. So those are badly needed dollars in a rural economy that today is finding it dif ficult to make ends meet. The other situation, in my part of the world, is that right across the border to the west, Saskatchewan does allow for hunt preserves and hunt farms.

I think the figure was given to me that something like $5 million has come in, in the past year, in new money into those communities and into those hunt farms as a result of the establishment of those hunt farms. So now we have the species listed under The Wildlife Act, species that we had worked for a long time to incor porate into the Department of Agriculture, today are back in the Natural Resources Department. That is another concern because what is going to happen to those spent

4076 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 2000 animals, specifically the spent bulls in Manitoba. I can tell you what is going to happen to them. They are going to go over into Saskatchewan, and the Saskatchewan hunt farms are going to add value to these animals, because they are going to put them into their hunt farms. They are going to attract the hunters to allow these animals to be hunted.

Now, if you were to think about this legislation a little more carefully, and if the Government were to think about this a little more carefully, they would ask themselves the question: How can we work it so that we can co ordinate hunt farms in Manitoba with the expansion of the elk industry and perhaps even the bison industry? But, instead, the Government took a reactionary approach, and they said we will cut off any ability for these people to be able to diversity their economy because somebody sensationalized a complaint. • (1 5 :50 ) Mr.

Speaker, during the election campaign, the Minister of Agricu lture said that I said during the election campaign that we would not. That is legislation that I would fight against, because my constituents depend for their_ livelihood on such initiatives as hunt farms. So I simply say that I think this position needs to be rethought. I think the Minister of Conservation has to take a very close look at this and perhaps to bring in amendments. Now, I do not know what the term "penned hunting" means.

Does it mean hunting within a small area, or are we really talking about the concept of penned hunting as it relates to hunt farms? It is a very different issue. A hunt farm is one which is large in area. You could put a minimum size on it if you wanted to. If you wanted to put a quarter

section as a minimum size, fine

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-62
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 62.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	79492fcde9c5a29237321e0c280e0e5c19ff199d

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