Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 105 (35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-105

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 42 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocsn Speaker VOL. XLII No. 10 5 - 1: 30 p.m., TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1 993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affil iation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRI EDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GIL LESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON , Bonnie, Hon. ORCH ARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS , Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-L EIS, Judy WOW CHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Welling ton River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Inte rlake Brandon East Tuxedo Spring field Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rossmere Rupertsland The Maples PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

5724 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, July 20, 19 93 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PR ESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Katherine Szadkowski, George Conway, Carl Ridd and others requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the Student Social Allowances Program . READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WH EREAS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and WHERE AS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program ; and WHERE AS several studies have pointed out the cost savin gs of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the Chil dren's Dental Program; and WHERE AS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 1 7 years and has been recognized as extremely cost-effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and WHERE AS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentis ts , nu rses and assistants providin g this service; and

WHEREAS preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform. WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Ass embly of Man itoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. PR ESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Bob Rose (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr.

Speaker, it is a pleasure to report to the House that the Stand ing Committee on Law Amendments has just pulled ahead of the Econom ic Development committee, and I beg to present the Tenth Report of the Stan ding Committee on Law Amendments. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Stan ding Committee on Law Amendmen ts presents the followin g as its Tenth Report. Your committee met on Monday, July 19, 1993, at 9 a.m . in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred.

Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 43- The Mani toba Lotteries Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Fondation mani tobaine des loteries et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi Peter Olfe rt - Manitoba Gov ernmen t Employees Union Dan Lillie - Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 42 Your committee has considered: Bill 43- The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Fondation mani tobaine des loteries et apportant des modif ica tions correlatives a une autre loi Bill 46- The Crimin al In juries Compensation Amendment Act ; Loi modif iant Ia

Loi sur l'indemn isation des victimes d'actes criminals and has ag reed to report the same without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr.

5725 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Af fairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a stat ement for the House, and I have copies to distribute. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a stat ement to the House, and the document which I tabled I will not read in its ent irety because of its length. In co-operation with trying to see the session have an end in sight, I will take some excerpts from the document which I think are important.

From July 27 to July 29, the Hudson Bay Route Association will be celebrating its first half-century of achiev ement . Quit e appropriately, its 50t h ann ual conv ent ion will be held in Churchill, Manit oba, the terminus of the bay rail line in Canada's most northerly saltwater port. The theme of the convent ion is 50 Years of Accomplishment: Directions for the 21s t Cent ury. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and I will be attending the convention, and I am pleased that Leaders of the two opposition parties int end to be there as well. *

(1335) The Hudson Bay Route Association continues a strong and proud prairie tradition of advocacy for a rail road link from the Canadian prairies to the Hudson Bay and support for the Hudson Strait shipping route to Europe, a route for westerners that is about 1 ,000 miles shorter than the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway route. Mr. Speaker, it is well known that, historically, the western Premiers have been strong supporters of Churchill. Their consistent and active support has meant a great deal to the port and to the province.

A few weeks ago during the Executive Council Estimates, Premier Filmon reaffirmed the fact that one of our government's most critical priorities in federal-provincial relations is the securing of the future of Churchill, both by assuring that it has enough tonnage to show a profit, and that is of course grain, and by pursuing aggressively all the opportunit ies Churchill has to offer. This year, grain shipment s will again move through Churchill, though the extent is not clear as yet. We also have received indications that a minimum of two cruise ships will visit the port as well.

The Hudson Bay Route Association will continue to play a significant role in advancing Churchill's cause, and it will have the staunch support of this government, both directly and through init iatives such as the Arctic Bridge agreement with Russia, the rejuvenation of the Churchill rocket range, the promotion of ecotourism and the establishment of a nat ional park in the Churchill area. By working wi th the Hudson Bay Rout e Association and other nonpartisan groups, we can make certain that our ongoing support for the future of the Hudson Bay route and of the port itself are well and clearly underst ood.

Those who might contemplate closure would face a formidable and united opposition that it is not a choice Manitobans will ever accept, nor should we. I invit e members of the opposition to join in congratulating the Hudson Bay Route Association on its achiev ement s as it celebrates its 50t h an niversary. I am confident that every member of this House is com mit ted to en suring that the association can look forward to another 50 years and more of active and valuable services to our province and to western Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would lik e to th ank the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) for his stat ement in the House today. I want to also pay tribute to those thousands of volunt eers across western Canada and those thousands of volunteers in Manitoba who actively continue to promote the vision of a northern seaport in the province of Manitoba, a vision they have held high on behalf of Manit obans and west ern Canadians throughout the years and continue to hold high for the future of our province. I too look forward to attending that meeting next week, along with caucus colleagues.

This is a very im portant associat ion me eting to att end,

part icularly in paying tribut e to the 50t h anniv ersary. I should say though, having been in the community of Churchill some five or six weeks ago, that the members of that community would have some difficulty with the words expressed by the Deputy Premier in terms of the concerns of the Port of Churchill. There are many members of the communit y who feel the powerful int erests in this country do not see

Juty 20, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5726 that sam e northern vision tha t the people of Churchill and people along the Hudson Bay Route Association see for a northern seaport in the Churchill community. They fear greatly when they see that grain shipments are shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway and through the community of Baie-Comeau, and they worry quite verbally that because-[i nterjection] Well, the members opposite and the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) may think it is funny, but some members of Churchill, including the mayor, feel that the whole community of Churchill is at a precipice if they cannot get the 600,000 to 700,000 tonnes of grain commitment from the 3 percent catchment area to ship through the Port of Churchill. You know, the Premier participates in partisan politics, and he should know-[i nterjection] I seem to recall that the Premier of Manitoba had similar sentiments when he heard the last announcement for the shipment of grain to Russia. I seem to recall the Premier expressing the same concerns as we had opposite.

Quite frankly, I am V,ry disappointed to hear that the condemnation of some of these grain shipments from other ports is not now shared by all parties in this House, as it was previously whe n we asked these questions in the Chamber. *

(1340) Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about a Crown corporation, CN railway, which has syste matically proclaimed that they cannot ship the new hopper cars through the Port of Churchill and up through the Hudson Bay line to the community of Churchill, when we know, in fact, the facts are opposite, when we know, in fact , tha t cemen t cars going to Limestone carried equivalent if not higher amounts of tonnage per car than what is now presently proposed for the new hopper cars on that line. We are very concerned that the Western Diversification Program was not forthcoming for the new rocket range proposal.

We applaud the private developers, applaud George Richardson on the announcement of the feasibility study, but we note that some governments were very slow in looking at the new proposals and very slow to support the people of Churchill and the community of Churchill and the vision again of a northern seaport that contains a rocket range. We are in competition with other potential northern sites in Alaska, and it is im portant that we seize the opportunity.

So we look forward to joining the Hudson Bay Route Association and look forward to paying tribute to the 50 years of historical success by the pioneers who developed the Port of Churchill in the great province of Manitoba. But looking forward to that date also means we have to work collectively with all our vigour. There are powerful interests, Mr. Speaker, that do not support our vision of Churchill, and it is important that all 57 members are working together to support the Port of Churchill and the Hudson Bay Route Association, to make true the vision of the North as we saw it before. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand up on behalf of the Liberal Party to commend those thousands of individual Manitobans and others in the work and effort volunteers have put forward, and now we see the 50th ann iversary of the Hudson Bay Route Association. The im portance of advocacy groups of this natu re to take issues that have an impact on the everyday roles or functions of not only the province of Manitoba, but also the prairie provinces because the symbolic and real importance of the Hudson Bay in terms of potential growth, Mr.

Speaker, is there if, in fact, you have a government that is quite prepared and willing to see some further development. After all, if we talk about the Hudson Bay and we put it in terms of up north, in the northern part of Manitoba, and the important role that it has to play in the future of the province of Manitoba, if we neg lect the rail lines that attach us to that northern port, it is not going to be able to survive. It is very easy for us inside this Chamber to give lip service.

I recall a resolution that was brought forward talking about the Churchill rocket range, and the government took the liber ty to pat them selves on the back on that parti cula r resolution. The min ister took the liberty today to stand up and say how wonderful the Hudson Bay Route Association is. Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful organization, and we need to pay tribute to them. Mr. Speaker, this government has a knack of giving lip serv ice to different issues of the day. Let us hope that, in fact, the sincere attempt that is being made by the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) will transl ate in terms of su pport for Churchill, because we do need Churchill.

5727 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 It play s a very pivotal role in the province of Manitoba, not only today but for tomorrow. I encourage, again, all those individuals who are inv olved and who have done a wonderful job representing us. Thank you. *

(1345) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD North American Free Trade Agreement Labour Market Adjustment Strategy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba government has six conditions attached to its support of the proposed NAFT A agreement. Three of those conditions, the government has suggested, have not been met on the proposed NAFT A. Two of those conditions are in negotiations now with the labour adjustment stra teg y and the environmental issues that are before the three countries. Mr.

Speaker, one of the other conditions that Manitoba had was the whole issue of labour market adjustm ent. The government has clearly stated tha t the y were "d isapp oin ted" in the federal Con ser vative gove rnm en t's labour mar ket adj us tmen t strateg ies and su pport after the Canada -U.S. trade agreement. They go on to criticize the reduction in money from 1986 and '87 to 1990 and '91 in terms of federal training dollars from some $92 million to some $60 million.

Given the fact the government ma de this statement in December 1990, I would like to ask the Premier: What progress has the government made to achieve a labour market adjustment strategy with the federal Conservative government? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the Opposition that his portrayal of our position with respect to NAFTA and its six conditions is accurate.

It remains the position of the Governmen t of Ca nada, and it is consistent, whi ch is quite dissimilar to the inconsistency that was pointed out in a recent Maclean's magazine of his federal Leader, Audrey Mcl aughlin, who is suggesting she is opposed to NAFTA, despite the fact that NAFTA fully protects supply management. Yet she is very supportive of GATT, which will likely dismantle to a great extent supply management in this country. It is that kind of inconsistency that characterizes for pure politics the positions of the New Democrats on all sorts of issues, this one included.

We will continue to ensure that we do everything possible to convince the federal government that labour ma rket ad jus tmen t is an imp ortant component of any trade agreements we negotiate in the future with any groups in the economy. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Premier a very specific question which he did not answer. I asked the Premier whether there was any progress toward the alleged priority of the government in terms of labour market adjustment. The government stated in one of its conditions in December of 1992 that they were "disappointed" with the Canad a-U.S. trade agreemen t.

They pointed out the decline in support from the federal government. They pointed out the changes that were offloaded onto employers and employees in the UIC changes.

Has the Premier achieved any progress to date that he can report to this House, some seven, eight months later, or are we still in a situation where nothing has changed and he is still "disappointed" in the federal government in terms of labour market adjustment, and it does not meet any of the criteria the government established for itself, given that we are negotiating environment and labour standards today in the three-country negotiations? * ( 1350) Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the Lea der of the Opposition should not try and put words in my mouth when he talks about priorities.

We have put six conditions which we say are necessary for us to support a NAFTA agreement. Among th ose six conditions are a grea ter participation and greater contribution by the federal government to labour market adjustment programs because of some potential disruptions that will take place, that take place any time there are agreements for trade amongst countries. We have also said we are very committed to ensuring there is a stronger protection for our environment, that there is an assurance of the labour force conditions being more equalized amongst Mexico and Uni ted States and Canada.

Those are two of the sidebar agreements that are currently being negotiated, because they are also principles of President Clin ton who wants to have

July 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5728 those things tied down before he is able to agree to NAFTA. The fact of the matter is, we will continue, as I said in response to the question initially, to work to convince the federal government that they ought to have a labour force adjustm ent component that is necessary in order to fund the kinds of retraining and adjustment that will occur inevitably with any kinds of trading agreements country to country. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, th is condition the government placed before the people of Manitoba is now eight months old.

We are not interested in rehashing what they said eight months ago. We are int erested to see what progress they have made over the last eight months. Workers in Manitoba who may be faced with this trade agree me nt are worried about many aspects- jobs, labour adjustment, environment, et cetera, but I was asking the Premier a very specific question.

Is the only progress to date that they are working toward convincing the federal govern men t to implement a program, or is there any thing more tangible that the people of Manitoba can see, after eight months, on the government's work with the federal government on this very important priority of having a proper labour management adjustment strategy, a labour market adjustment strategy, as part of any conditions this government has on the NAFTA agreement? Mr. Fllmon: That is the very point, Mr. Speaker. We had six conditions.

Of those six conditions, two of them are being actively worked upon, one being the ad ditional protection we are seeking for envi ronment, the second being the additional protection we are seeking for labour force harmonization to ensure that as Mexico's economy improves, those improvements will be man ifested in increased wages and benefits to the workers to put them on a more level playing field with Canada and the United States.

A third aspect, a third point we were concerned about was the conti nue d and even greater inv olvement of the provinces in the negotiating process, as we tried to ensure that there were the concerns of the provinces and the involvement of the provinces on the table as we worked toward it. I can say that our province has probably had more participation and involvement, particularly in those two sidebar agreements, than almost any other province in the country. So, again, there is a third point of the six, and three of the six obviously are not bad.

We continue to work to convince the federal government on the other three points, which include the one he is raising tod ay about labour force adjus tmen t packages. Labour Force Development Agreement Consultations Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, in March of this year, Manitoba became the nin th jurisdiction to sign a Labour Force Development Agreement with Canada. The Minister of Education at that time assured us that the next six months would be devoted to consultations with Manitobans on the composition of the boards and the development of programs. Mr.

Speaker, five months have passed and there has been no consu ltat ion with the Manit oba Federation of Labour, surely one of the basic institutions that should be involved in the formation of these labour force development boards. Could the min ister explain to us why? *

(1355) Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): As I did explain in the 70 hours of Estim ates in the Department of Education and Training, the first step was a joint managemen t committee with the federal government, between the Province of Man itoba represented by the Department of Education and Training and the federal government.

With that joint management commit tee, they would be then looking at the process the consu ltation would take , and I explained to the member during the Estimates exactly the progress and where that agreement lies, and we do hope to begin that consultation, announce the consultation process as soon as that discussion is completed, and I expect it to be shortly. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, five months have passed. That agreement runs out six months after that. Wha t has the minister been doing for five months?

Will she confirm that she has any intention of consulting with labour or education in the formation of these groups?

5729 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 Mrs. Vodrey: The member continually shows she does not have any idea how the process works. She does no t ha ve any idea how a jo in t managemen t committee would work. But I can tell her, as I told her in the 70 hours of Estim ates in the Department of Education and Training, that there has been a joint managemen t comm ittee which has been working. Then the six-month period will begin where there will be consultation.

I can tell the member now in this House, to put to rest any fears that she is trying to arouse on behalf of Manitobans, that the consultation process will most certainly take place. Implementation Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): The consultation process she promised would begin five months ago. Will she tell us precisely now how she plans t o create these provincial or regional boards in the one month that is left to her, or are we going to have another press conference with lots of flags, lots of fights , that says, in six months there will be a consu ltation and Manitobans will be involved?

Is that where this is going? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Again, the memb er has no t understood the process, does not understand the time frame. Yes, there will be the six-month period in which the consultation process will occur. That is exactly what I announced. The preparation for the consult ation process there was a joint manage ment committee, the province and the federal government. That joint management committee has worked out how that consult ation process will be taking place.

The consultation process most certainly will take place, and I would like to assure Manitobans of that right now. School Division Boundary Review Co-ordl natlon-Fra ncophone Governance Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased the day "soon" has finally arrived and that the Minister of Education has established a committee to review school division boundaries, something the Liberals have been caffing for for many , many years. We know this review will take 16 months, as the minis ter in dicated toda y, and a report will be handed to her at that time. That will be some time late in '94.

Francophone governance, however, is to be in place by September of 1994. My question to the Minister of Education is: How does she plan to co-ordinate the implementation of Francophone governance and the overall school division boundary review when the two time fines are quite inconsistent? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I can tell the memb er the imp lemen tation com mittee for Francophone governance is currently in place and is working. We will know during the course of this year the number of students and their families who have chosen to register within the Francophone division.

That will then give the existing school divisions an opportunity to see what their student population is, what their demand s are, to present their concerns and their issues to the committee that is looking at boundary review. So the two initia tives are complementary, but I would also remind the member there are, in fact, six interlocking reforms which are going together at this time in education. Ms. Gray: Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister of Education tell us who specifically is co-ordinating the implementation committee for Francophone governance, who is co-ordinating that along with the school divisions boundary review? What exactly is that co- ordination, and how will it work to ensure that, in fact, there is not a waste in dollars and that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Speaker, as the member well knows, it is former Chief Justice Alfred Monnin who is chairing the implem entation commi ttee for Francophone governance, and it is former Mayor Bill Norrie who is the chair of the Manitoba School Boundaries Review. As the information comes forward, we certainly expect there will be a flow of information to the Department of Education and Training and that the information regarding the numbers of students who will be moving into the new Francophone board will certainly be available to the department, will be available to their home school divisions. *

(1400) July 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5730 Committee Members' Per Diems Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with a final supplem en tary to the Minis ter of Education: Can she tell us, with the budget that has been allocated for the school division boundary review, how much of that budget, how many dollars are being allo cated to per diem payments or salaries for committee members? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, just in relation to the last ques ti on, I am not sure if the member is suggesting that the school boundary review should have come first, been com pleted, and then Francophone governance. That simply does not make sense in terms of the budget. I can te ll the member tha t there has been approximately $350,000 set aside for this fiscal year. The per diem paid will then depend upon how ma ny da ys the co mmis sioner s sit. The commission will be meeting for the first time to es tabl ish its hearing

schedule and meetin g sche dule, and th at information then will be available in detail when they have established it. APM Management Consultants Home Care Program Contract Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, the Connie Curran gravy train keeps rolling along. [interjection] But not to Churchill. Ms. Curran is now up in monthly payments to over $400,000 a month plus expenses. There is only one contract that remains to be signed, and surprise, surprise, it is a home care contract, for Ms. Curran and her gravy train to somehow deal with home care.

Can the minister, in light of the tremendous cuts to the Home Care Program, advise whether or not he has signed a home care contract with Connie Curran, and if he has not, will he once and for all say, no more gravy train to Ms. Curran; we can handle home care ourselves? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, just let me, again, correct my honourable friend who is factually inexact.

The Home Care budget has inc reased again this year, as it has every single year since we have had responsibility for the Home Care budget, not the cutbacks my honourable friend talks about, but an increase in the Home Care budget, an increase of the home care attendant services by 11 percent, an increase in the registered nursing services by 9.5 percent, an increase in VON services by 3.6 percent. Mr. Speaker, when my honourable friend tal ks about trains, I recall his speech in the House where he indicated that his train of thought was very short indeed and, again, he has demonstrated that. Mr. Chomlak: Mr.

Speaker, this train is going downhill very, very fast . My supplemen tary to the minis ter-and the mini st er did not answer the question. Is the mi nis ter negoti at ing the contract with Connie Curran on home care redevelopment or not, or is that contract now dead, which it should be in light of the cutbacks in Home Care this year? Mr. Orchard: No, Mr. Speak er, to the la st question. Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the first question. Home Care Program Manitoba Society of seniors Meeting Mr.

Dave Cho mlak (KI Id onan): My final supplementary: Was the minister at his meeting this morning with the MSOS executive able to give them any information about the cutbacks of $3 million in homemaking services, the cutback in the Home Care budget in Winnipeg from $31 million to $28 mi llion and the user fees that are being im posed on ost omy supplies and home care supplies? Was he able to provide any of that specific information, as well as the regulations concerning those changes? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I had a very good meeting with the MSOS this morning, and we discussed a number of issues, some of which my honourable friend has referred to. I consider the meeting to be productive on both sides because one of the issues that was brought up very clearly by MSOS was that they are drawing to our atte ntion that we need to improve .t he management of the program of Home Care.

That is the kin d of obser vation from the consumer end that really we value because that is exactly, Sir, what we hope to achieve in terms of better management of the $68-million resource we currently spend in the Home Care Program . A couple of other issues came up, and on further ques tions from my honourable friends in the opposition, I am willing to share the information with

5731 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 them, but, Mr. Speaker, we did come to grips with a great deal of inaccuracy that came out in the most recent Manitoba Medicare Alert Coalition, Tim Sale. One might remember him as the defeated NDP candidate in the by-election of Crescentwood, wherein he has put out some rather inaccurate, alarmingly inaccurate information on the personal care home charges. I regret that a man who classifies himself as a health consultant would be so ill-in formed and so mis leading in his public pronouncements. Northern Manitoba Highway Maintenance/Repairs Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, for over a year now, we have been writing to the Min is te r of Hig hways and Transpor tation conce rning the condition of northern roads including Provincial Roads 280, 391 and others. My colleagues from northern and rural Manitoba have also drawn to the attention of the Minister of Hig hways the deplorable condition of provincial roads in their constitu encies. In fact, department staff from the minister's own department have ind icated that northern roads need major work, but there is no money in the budget.

Can the Minister of Highways and Transportation indi cate why he is willing to commit mil lions of dollars to maintain highways in southern Manitoba when it is obvious that the $1 0-million cut to his department's budget this year is hurting northern Manitoba? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, we spent 20 hours going through my Estimates.

We did not spend an awful lot of time going through my Capital program, but I will take the question as notice, and I will bring back a lis t of all the projects of high way construction that are taking place on 391 , on 373, all the work that is taking place on Highway 39, and I will bring back a list of the projects that are taking place this year in the northern part of the province. Mr. Reid: The RCMP have now said that poor highway conditions on Provincial Highway 384 have caused the injury of three Manitobans, due to the poor highway conditions.

What steps is this minis ter prepared to take to address the very poor condition of northern roads in this province, Mr. Speaker? I will table a copy of the RCMP's stat ement. Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I wish you could table the phone calls, all the phone calls I am getting on conditions of roads based on the weather conditions we have had. We have had consistent rain, more than we have had for a long, long time in the last month. It is virtually impossible to keep all our roads, the gravel roads, in the kind of condition I think we would like to see them. We are making all efforts. Mr.

Speaker, the member says there is a letter there where people got injured on one of my roads due to the road condition. In the flash flooding that took place in the Swan River area where bridges, culverts and roads were washed out, those were dangerous condit ions. My staff , I want to compliment them, worked excessively hard to try and get the access available, and did a tremendous job. The roads are open again and everybody is moving. Mr. Speaker, the fact that we still have the bridges out and they have to be repaired, that work is going to be an ongoing thing and is taking place right now. Mr.

Reid: My final supplementary is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Considering that Highways staff have said there is no money in the budget and the roads are in poor condition, and the RCMP have indicated the sam e, that conditions of the roads have contributed to accidents, when can we expect, since this minister would not commit during the Estimates process to repairing these roads, that his department will undertake the maintenance work for 384, 391, 234 and others in the province that are literally falling apart? Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I find this amazing.

A little over five years ago when I took over this department, the Capital spending on highway constructi on was $83 million. This year, our Capital program is at an all- time high of $110 million. The member says the roads have deteriorated. I tell you, they deteriorated under that member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). The member for Dauphin is the one who allowed his budget to be cut from $1 00 million in 1981, when that member was the minister, down to $83 million, and now the member for Transcona is out here criticizing. *

(1410) July 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5732 Taxicab Board Chairman-Resignation Request Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Taxicab Board. Over the last couple of days, we have had a number of presenters who have come before the committee. There is a great deal of concern out there within the industry, an indus try that employs directly approximately 1 ,800 people and has an impact on just less than 6,000 members if you include their families.

The consensus or the overwhelming opinion that is coming out of this is the fact that there is no confidence in the chair of the Manitoba Taxicab Board. My question to the minister responsible for the board is: Will the minister do the responsible thing and dismiss Mr. Norquay from his responsibilities so that we can achieve some form of a consensus? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the question. We have been sitting in committee two days now. We have heard four presenters, and basically that issue has not come forward.

What we have experienced in committee is the NDP and the liberals fighting for turf out there to see whether they can garner some votes out of it. I find this amazing. Mr. Speaker, I want the member to go back, once Hansard comes out, and read the presenters and basically tell me and show me where they have asked for the resignation of the chairman. It is this member here. In his min d, he is trying to garner up this kind of a position, and it is a cheap attack on a very capable chairman. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the minister.

Had he been doing his work, what he was supposed to be doing--- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member knows that. The honourable member for In kster, with your question, please. Chairman-In dustry Confidence Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): How can the mi nister say that ?-and if, in fact, he was con sul ting with these ind ivid uals, the 25-plus individuals who have been attending there every day, he will find it very clear. The industry as a whole, not only through this particular bill but over the last number of years, Mr.

Speaker, has found it cannot work with thi&- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question now, please. Mr. Lamoureux: My ques tion to the minister is: How does this indus try as a whole, or the public, benefit when there is no possibility of achieving a consensus with the current chairperson? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think it is an insult, the comments the member is putting on the record here. The taxicab indus try has been a very complex and difficult thing since the time I inherited it, a little over five years ago. Mr.

Speaker, I want to say that the industry, in the last few years, there has been a dramatic improvement in terms of the service and the cars. It is a difficult indus try to be in. There are people who are working for very little money. It is not a money-making industry for most of the people involved. I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker. We are trying very hard to try and address some of the concerns. It is very complex. The chairman of the board at the present time, as he has been since I put him in as the acting chairman, has done a very capable job looking at all interests. Mr.

Speaker, it is a service industry. There are two elements to this. It is a quasi-judicial board of a regulated indus try, and he is trying to meet the concerns of both sides, the users as well as the suppliers. Driver Representation Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask the minister responsible why it is he would not allow a representative from the in dustry, a driver-owner or a driver, to be represented on the board so decisions that are being made are based on some knowledge from the industry direct, from all of the stakeholders. Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I ga ve the undertaking that I had one more position to be filled on the five-man board, which I will do, but I have all the confidence in the people who are on the board

5733 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 right now who are looking after the int erests of the general public. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you someth ing. The presenters have basically spent less than an hour of all the time we have spent. The rest of the time has been spent with the opposition members playing politics with this is sue. They are not serving the indus try well. If they try and work with the indus try instead of both trying to outdo each other as to who will be getting support out there, we would be able to make a lot more progress. Social Assistance Employment Creation Strategy Mr.

Le onard Ev ans (Brand on East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) . The Ci ty of Winnip eg has proposed an employme nt program for welfare recipients in Winnipeg called Community Investment '93. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has urged that the province take a hard look at this proposal. Last week, the Acting Minister of Urban Affairs took it as notice . I wonder now whether the Minister of Urban Affairs can tell us whether an agreement has been reached or is about to be reached with the City of Winnipeg. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, the City of Winnipeg has brought forth a proposal which the government has been reviewi ng. Un fortuna t ely, the federal government had not been advised of the project, and we have had to, in recent times, make them aware of some of the details of the project, because certainly without federal involvement, a project cannot go forward. Some of the details of the project have been sent back to the city for their review, and I believe they have it under consideration at this time. A lot of work sti ll has to be done before we will reach agreement either on a pilot project or a larger project. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that information, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could advise whether he would give this a priority classificati on and use his good offices to expedite the program, because, as the minister knows, there are 17,000 welfare cases in Winnipeg alone, and Winnipeg has the worst unemployment rate in western Canada. So I ask, would he give it the priority that this particular matter deserves? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the member that putting people back to work and looking at the caseload that is accessing social allowances both at the provincial level in certain areas of the province and at the municipal level is a priority of government. I have met with mi ni sters from across the country. There is a lot of new thinking coming forward on how we deal with the large increase in social allowance recipients. Ontario, even though they are not going to put any detail around it until 19 95 or '96, has brough t forwar d a broad framework of some of the changes they foresee.

I can tell you that other provinces along with the federal government are actively pursuing some in itiatives in this area. One of the things we would like to see is to have the federal gov ernment ma ke the Ca nada Assistance Plan more of an active plan, rather than a passive one. So I can assure the member we are working on that. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is a preceden t for this because the federal government in the mid-'80s, the Honourable Jake Epp, agreed to a sim ilar program of cost-sharing with the provinces in providing jobs for welfare recipients using welfare funds. Mr.

Speaker, my ques tion to the minis ter is whether he would be prepared to look at other municipalities, the City of Brandon, the City of Portage, Dauphin and elsewhere, to see whether he could design a similar program. I note, because we are all concerned about saving money and so on, that the position of the Winnip eg Cham ber of Commer ce is that the infrastructure renewal program will save money in the long run. Mr. Gllleshammer: As the member knows, I was not in governm ent in the mi d-'80s when the member was here.

I do have constituents who ask me about some of the mak e-work projects that were brought forward in the mid-'80s and what the lasting effects of those projects are. It is difficult to find any lasting benefit from some of those projects. I can tell you that taxpayers who are wanting on the one hand their taxes kept low are als o

July 20, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5734 int erested in job sti mulation and certainly are saying very clearly that if government is going to be involved in creating work and jobs, they want some lasting benefits and not simply a signage program that leaves nothing lasting after that money has been spent and, furthermore, not leaving that lasting debt that other governments have to pay in future years. Rural Manitoba Gasification Study Ms. Ro sann Wowchu k (Swan Rive r) : Mr.

Speaker, since having been elected to this House my colleagues and I have been very concerned about the lack of opportunity for development in rural Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, we have been encouraged that this governmen t has said they are proceeding with gasif ic ation of rural Man itoba, but I am disappointed that we have not seen any results of their study, alth ough they have made a commitment to it in the budget. My qu estion is to the Minister of Rur al Development. When will we see a copy of the study that is being done on gasification of rural Manitoba? *

(1420) Hon. Le onar d Derkach (Mi ni ster of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker,! have great difficulty with the member's

preamble, especially in light of the fact that just recently we have seen a petition by a member of that opposition party-or supporting a petition to kill the Ayerst indus try in rural Manitoba. Additionally, we saw a question with regard to another development regarding the potential of a ski hill in rural Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, it appears that every time there is an opportunity in rural Manitoba, members of the opposition find some way to try and scuttle that kind of opportunity, so I have to question their genuine interest in rural Manitoba. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Prior to recognizing the honourable opposition House leader, I would like to remind the honourable minister to deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. I think that is why the honourable opposition House leader is up. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that Beauchesne is very clear that answers should not lead to debate, should deal with the matter raised. I think the minister should deal with the question on gasificati on, a very legitimate question asked by our member, and I would appreciate an answer. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

I had already dealt with that matter. Swan River Area Natural Gas service Ms. Rosann Wowchu k (Swan River) : Since there is a tremen dous amoun t of in teres t in developing an ethanol plant in Swan River and this is tied very closely to gasification, can the Minister of Rural Development tell us what is the statu s of getting natural gas into the Swan River area? Hon. Le onar d Derk ach (Mi ni ster of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, there ar e man y opportunities in rural Manitoba, and they exist in value-added processing, whether it is in southern Manitoba or whether it is in other parts of Manitoba.

In order to do this, we have to be able to extend services such as natu ral gas to ma ny of our communities, as well as make water available to other communities, so indeed these plans can go ahead. Mr. Speaker, we have been working very diligently at making sure we can find ways in which we can extend those kinds of services to rural Manitobans. Once we are in the position where we can make those announcemen ts with regard to those projects being feasible, I will be only too happy to stand up and make those announcemen ts at the time. Ms.

Wowchuk: Obviously, there are no answers for the people in Swan River who are looking for the- Mr. Speaker: And your question is? Ethanol Industry Government Study Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Can the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fin dlay) or Rural Development tell us, since there is this tremendous interest in ethanol development in the province, has this governm ent in any department done any

5735 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 studies on the value of ethanol production in the province or looked for markets? Has any work been done on ethanol production? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, there has been a substantial amount of information that has been gathered with regard to an ethanol industry in our province, with regard to a feedlot industry. If you go back in history, indeed, we have seen the successes of an ethanol plant in this province. If we can exten d those opportunit ies to othe r communities, we certainly are in favour of that. Mr.

Speaker, it is for that reason that we have put programs in place in this province, such as Grow Bon ds, such as RE DI, that help ind ustries throughout our province to establish in the rural parts of this province, and we will continue to work toward that end. Foster Parents Training Support Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Family Services. Yesterday, in response to one of my questions with regard to training, the minister indicated that there was some $571 ,000 that should be spent by the Child and Family Services agencies for training of foster parents.

Of course, what he did not tell the House was that this was not new money. This was money to have been taken from dollars that had been previously spent on service for those children. Can the minis ter today table any-and I want to emphasize the word "an y"- training program modules presently in effect in Child and Family Services agencies in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, yes, I did indic ate yesterday that 50 cents a day per child, of days in care, is dedicated within the funds that are flowed to agencies to provide that trai ning that was previously provided by the Fos ter Fa mily Association. We have indic ated that all of the functions that were in place before are now in place, and funding has been dedicated to that. The question of training for foster families was a subject I think we touched very briefly on in the Estimates process, when we did spend some 30 hours on the Department of Family Services.

I do not have items here I could table today, but I would be pleased to provide for the member some of the training manuals that are used by agency staff as they work with foster families. Child and Family services Agencies Foster Parent Contact Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain his comment in the paper over the weekend which said that the child and family caseworkers were seeing foster parents on a monthly basis?

Can he explain that, in light of discussions I have had with caseworkers, some of whom indic ate that in the last six and a half months, they have not even met 14 or 15 of the foster parents within their case load? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I would take a moment jus t to clarify my stat ement. What I did indic ate was that the protocol the agencies operate under is that agency staff should be seeing foster parents at least once a month and that contact should be made once a month. There have been indications that some agencies are not following that protocol.

I have ind icated to the staff of the department that they should be working with those agencies to be sure there is regular contact and that we work toward that goal of making contact between the worker and the foster family at least once a month. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, will the mi nister admit today that the reason why these contacts are not being made is that the caseload is so heavy that they simp ly do not have the time in their workday, let alone their now limited workweek, to make the contact required? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I would reject that.

The agencies develop protocols and plans whereby front -lin e workers work with thos e famil ies-certai nly have tremendous respect for the very difficult work they do with children who come from dysfunctional families, who are placed with foster parents or in ins titutions to bring them through their formative years. The agency, I think, in the future has to make a priority of the contact between workers and families. Some workers do that on a regular basis, and part of the supervision that the agency must

July 20, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 5736 provide for all workers is to see that this contact is made regularly. Mr. Speaker: Ti me for Oral Qu estions has expired. Nonpolitical Statements Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Johns have leave to ma ke a nonp olit ical stat ement? [agreed] Ms. Ju d y Wasylycla-L els (St. Jo hns): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I rise today on the occasion of the 75th anniv ersary of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, a meeting of Ukrainian Canadians on July 18 and 19, 19 18, at the Ukrainian commu nity hall in Saskatoon gave birth to this church and to an ins titution that has served its members and our whole community well for three-quarters of a century. The Uk rainian Gr eek Orthodox Church of Canada was formed as a result of the dynamic elements of the Ukrainian-Canadian community in response to changing needs in the newly settled communities in Canada. Mr. Speaker, it ministered to both the spiritual and secular requirements as those communi ties grew and contribut ed to Canadian society. Mr.

Speaker, recentl y, we celebr ated the centennial of Ukrainian immi gration to Canada. The Ukrainian Canadian Greek Orthodox Church has played a signi ficant role throughout much of that 1 00-year history and has been both a vibrant and vital part of our provincial an d na tional mosaics. Today we celebrate 75 years of contribution by the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada to the cultural, economic, social and spiritual life of our province and our country. Today , we also celebrate the international contribution of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada.

At a time when Uk rai nian orthodoxy was sev erely repres sed by the Soviet state , the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada was a major force in keeping Ukrainian orthodoxy alive and well and has parti cipa ted in the re-establishment of that tradition in the Ukraine in the current post-independence period. So tod ay, Mr. Speaker, is a time for us to congratulate the pioneers, the founders, as well as the current leaders and members of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada for contributing so much to our society and enriching the lives of so many individuals.

I trust that all members of this Legislative Assembly join me in commemorating and celebrati ng the 75 th anniv ersary of the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada. *** Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minis ter of Health ha ve leav e to ma ke a non political stat ement? [agreed] Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I was unable to make this nonpolitical state men t yes terday because of the event I attended. It was a very interesting kickoff by the Canadian National In stitute for the Blind who are celebrating their 75th year of service to the sight impaired of Canada.

They are undertaking a nationwide tour of a bus, which was in my constituency for, I believe, the first event in the province of Manitoba on this national tour. It is a bus which has been donated and converted to display for all Manitobans the types of technological advan cement that are available to the sight impaired of Canada that provide them with, I must say, Mr. Speaker, jus t absolutely incredible abi lities to read books , to read prescriptions and any number of materials.

Where one's sight is totally lost so that they have no sight whatsoever, the technology moves from a sophisticated magnification system for the severely sight impaired to one where you can lay a book on top of a sc anner and a voice synthes iz e r intercoupled with a computer will read the book to the sight im paired. It is just an absolutely marvellous display of technology that is the leading edge and has been sponsored by the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Sir, the reason I make this nonpolitical state ment is twofold, firstly, to congratulate the CNIB for 75 years of incredibly marvellous service to the sight impaired of Canada. One might remember that the history of the CNIB commenced post-Wo rld War I, where a number of our veterans returning from the First World War had lost in part or in whole their sight because of their service in World War I, and that was the genesis of a very unique world organization which has se rved Cana dia ns exceedingly well.

5737 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 Secondly, the reason I make this nonpolitical statement is that this bus is touring Manitoba and will be at communities such as Thompson and, I believe, Brandon, Winnipeg, Portage Ia Prairie and Dauphin, and a numb er of other commun ities throughout Manitoba. I would take this opportunity to encourage all mem bers of the Legislature, if they have the opportunity, to take the guided tour of this bus. It is truly a ma rvell ous disp lay of the kind of technological advancement that is available to help assist in ind ependent living by sight-im paired Manitobans and Canadians. •

(1430) Committee Changes Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Util ities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) for St. James (Mr. Edwards). Motion agreed to. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Steinbach (Mr.

Driedger); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson); the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister). I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). Motions agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Govern ment House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in this order, please: Bills 51, 35, 45, 47, 50 and 52. If there is time after that, maybe we can consider report stages after that. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS 811151- The Municipal Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 51, The Municipal Amendment Act (2) ; Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur las municipalites, standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake, who has 34 minutes remaining. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to just complete my few comments on Bill 51 so that some other members may want to debate the bill and pass it on to committee. Yesterday I was in the process of making a sentence: Now, the municipalities do not have the option of not appointing their own or not requesting auditors to put tenders in. If they do not get their own auditors, the government would, of course, appoint audi tors for them, the grace of time permitting.

I believe it is six months. The concern there again is the fact that for those remote communities, municipalities, jurisdictions, of course being in a location that is of great distance for auditors to travel and that, I think that is one of the concerns that we do have. It may become a problem in future for these communities. I had the pleasure of going over Bill 51 with the honourable member of St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and the minister's staff .

I have had discussions with the MAUM people and the UMM executive on this bill, on these changes, and there really is not anything that we can see, that I can see, will be a problem for the future for municipalities. I know that most mu nici palities have put resolutions in and worked with the government to make some of these changes. The one part that I qu estioned was

section 712.1 wher e the municipalities requested immun ity from action on a nuis ance at one of their conventions. In Resolution 3, they had requested this provision for absolving municipalities from liability in whole or in part from nuis ance claims. Mr. Speaker, I had a problem with that. I have received information. I do not see a problem now with it; I understand it a lot better. It still leaves open the fact that with municipalities we are not

July 20, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5738 sure exactly how much liability they would be responsible for in case of a sewage backup or a claim of nuisance, and it created some problems between them and their insurers and, of course, anybody who would claim any liability against a municipality. Mr. Speaker, I know ther e will be some representation in committee on Bill 51. I have had the pleasure of dealing with the municipalities and the minister's department on this. I do not see a problem with it. I know my colleague from Swan River would like to make a comment.

If she has something more to add, she may do so. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, it can go to committee, and I thank you for the opportunity. Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 51. It gives me great pleasure. I would like to thank the minister and his staff for giving us the briefing. Since 1988, the government has introduced legis lation whic h has made a number of modifications to The Municipal Act. Most of these changes or improvements were intended to meet the needs of those most directly affected by The Municipal Act. Mr.

Speaker, changes to the old act are largely gen erated by requ est from the association of municipalities. Many of the changes merely bring policy elsewhere in the province in line with what exists in Winnipeg, for example, in the case with 317(3) which gives the council of a municipality broader powers of expropriation for urban renewal and development, which they did not have the power for before. Mr. Speaker, the act also allows a municipality to appoint their own auditor, I think which is very im portant. This was previously done by the province, even though it was the municipality who paid for the auditors.

The only somewhat contentious issue or change is an addition in 71 2.1- 1 think the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) mentioned it-designed to eliminate the nuisance claims about sewer and wate r problems. The clause states that an individual cannot bring an action against the city for anything the ci ty does under the act without negligence. This may be seen to mean an individual has to prove the munici pality is negligent before that individual can begin a suit for damages. This seems like a lot of protection for a municipality wanting to avoid negotiating a damages claim out of court. (Mrs.

Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) *

(1440) Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) presented this bill to the House, he men tioned that much consult ation between the rural municipalities and urban municipalities had taken place in order to effect these changes. I feel the consultation is very important in order to bring forth the legislation that will meet the needs of the community. However, public input is also very important. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be the only one speaking on this bill. We are prepared to let it go to com mittee and see tha t it goes through the legislation in this session.

With this, I conclude my remarks. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to just make a few com men ts on Bill 51 before we pass it to committee. Madam Deputy Speaker, as my colleague from the In terlak e has indi cated , many of these amendments that are brought into the assess ment act are amendments that have been asked for by the various municipalities and have been lobbied for by the municipal bodies. We have very little difficulty with most of them.

There are a few areas of concern, not major concern, but some concerns that I have with what is happening within rural dev elopmen t and some of things tha t are happening under this government's ju risdiction as it relates to rural Manitoba. I guess that, when I first saw the two bills that were brought in by the Minis ter of Ru ral Dev el opment (Mr.

Derka ch) , I was qu ite disappointed that the minister did not take the opportunity to address a concern that has been raised in the Swan River area and one that I have raised with this governmen t since I have been elected to this House, and that is the issue of the taxation on the Swan River airport. As you are aware, I tried to raise that matter under a private member's bill, but I was not able to do that. I have raised it with the previous Minister of Rural Development and this Minister of Rural Development, and I was quite sure that, when amendm ents were being made to The Municipal

5739 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 Act, either one of the amendments, the minister would address those concerns. I am disappointed that he has not taken that opportunity to address a minor change that would have taken place that would have benefited the people of the Swan River area and all the surrounding municipalities. I would hope that he would have taken this suggestion very seriously from the people, but we are not seeing any action. I can assure him that we will continue to lobby very hard over the next little while to have the changes made.

Perhaps, when he is looking at the review of the whole Municipal Act, he will give very serious consideration to the concern of not only the people of the Swan River area, but I believe that there are other areas that also have the same situation in them. It is not fair that one community -namely, the community of Neepawa-should have the exemption, the ability to have exemption on their airport, but the other parts of the province do not have that ability. So I would encourage the mi nister to address that concern very soon.

The one part of the bill that I am pleased to see is brought in is the ability for munic ipalities to invest their money in different ways. I recall a time when I was on council, and we had an administrator who was quite shrewd and had the ability to inv est money and, in fact, did invest money in some areas where they should not have been invested in. He, in fact, got his hands slapped quite quickly by the auditor. As a municipality, we made some fairly good in ves tments, but they were not legal .

This amendment will give all municipalities the ability to have the flexibility to make investments in different areas and gene rate some revenue, because certainly they do need revenue. With the cutbacks that we have seen this govern men t ma ke to municipalities, the offloading we have seen them make, the municipalities have to be aggressive and look at ways that they can be resourceful and raise some revenues, so this will giv e them the opportunity.

As I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, municipalities have certainly felt the impacts of the actions of this government, particularly in the offloading of roads which took place a few years ago. I look at those offloading of roads. In my constituency, that was a great concern because, with some of the roads that were offloaded, the municipalities just felt they could not maintain. They were beyond their ability. That, in fact, is happening right now in the R.M. of Ethelbert. One of the roads that were offloaded into the R.M. of Ethelbert was devastated by the flooding.

It is just an indic ation that with some of these roads , if there was no t the di saster assistance funding, the municipalities would just not be able to pick up these extra costs. Certainly, the munic ipalities are feeling im pacts in other areas, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The area of the municipalities having the ability to appoint their own auditors seems to be fair in giving the municipalities more power, but I wonder if there will be difficulty for some of the municipalities that are in more remote areas for them to find auditors in their communities, and if that is the case, whether the department will still be able to be of assistance or appoint them. I also am concerned that this could be of higher cost to some munic ipalities than they were when there were government-appoint ed auditors, and that will be something that will be int eresting to follow.

Certainly, I think that it is very good that all of the reports-a nd I do not know if this is a change or whether you al ways had to have all reports available to the public. If it is a new change, then I commend the government for making that change because many people are interested in what all the ot her boards an d comm ittees of the local government are doing. The area of immunity from nuis ance, if this is bringing it in consistency with the other parts of the province, then I think that is a good amendment. When I have talked to the municipalities in my area, they are in support of most of the changes.

I have not heard very many negative comments about what is being brought forward in this legisla tion. We look forward to it going to committee, and certainly once the changes are made and there is a problem for municipalities, we will certainly bring those problems to the minister's attention and work towards getting them rectified. So, with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will close my comments. Thank you. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second readin g of Bill 51 , The Municip al Amendment Act (2).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [agreed)

July 20, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 5740 Bill 35- The Fisheries Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on sec on d reading of Bill 35 (The Fi she ries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia peche), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain st anding? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Deput y Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will only be speaking very briefly on this bill.

The reason I do want to speak is because I represent a number of commun ities that are very depen dent in terms of fishing, and I want to indicate, first of all, that it is pretty tough times for a lot of fishermen in my cons titu ency. This is reflected in low prices. It has been something that has been hurt significantly, an ind ustry hurt by cuts in terms of the freight subsidy that took place two years ago. I have many people who are currently faced with quota restrictions for conse rvation measures; it is a very tough situation for many people in the fishing industry.

My view in this bill is that when we are dealing with quotas, there has to be consideration of possible impact in northern Manitoba. I know the min ister is saying this is largely aimed at the larger fisheries on Lake Winnipeg, and indeed it will be interesting to follow what has happened in the fish in that area. I do want to indicate that we feel that if there is going to be any sale quota syste m, there should be some opportunity for local commun ities to have right of first refusal, first option. That is important.

I think it is important to keep control of the quota wi thin the resource areas of the loca l constituencies, Madam Deputy Speaker, and this is something we will be con tinuin g to raise in committee. *

(1450) With those comments, I want to stress again the very difficult situation facing commercial fishermen at the current point in time. I think all too often when we look at the fishing indus try we look at the coastal fishing industries; we do not look at the freshwater situati on. I want to take this opportunity on this particular bill to really ask the govern ment to look very seriously at some of the concerns being expressed by people in the fishing industry. I have pursued some of these with government representatives.

We will be doing so in the future, but something has to be done if we are going to save a very important source of employmen t for many comm un ities, particularly in northern Manitoba. Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to make a few com men ts on this bill before we let it go to committee. Many of my communi ties are affected by the fishing in du stry. There is the com munit y of Winnip egosis, Camperville, Duck Bay, the reserve of Indian Birch, Shoal River and Red Deer Lake and fishermen from other communities.

Certainly, as the member for Thompson has indic ated, right now the fishermen are going through a very difficult situation. There are many problems within the fishin g community that the provincial government should be addressing and also that should be raised with the federal government, but unfortunately these matters have been raised many times. The difficult economic situation in those communities has been raised, but to no avail. The whole problem of stocking the lakes and the freight assistance removal in some of the communities is making it more difficult.

The unemployment in surance requirements, the people from Winnipegosis, Camperville, Duck Bay raised those matters with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and asked that he would address these with the federal government to try to get the inland fishermen the same kind of treatment as the fishermen on the east coast, but to no avail. We have had no answers on those very pressing issues, but instead we have a government that is bringing in legi slation that will affect thes e fishermen, allow for the sale of quota, but they have done very little consultation.

I think that is one of the issues that has to be addressed. Before this kind of legislation is brought in we have to allow the people to have input. I think that should happen before this legisla tion is passed. The governmen t representatives should go to

5741 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 those communities and see what the impacts are. As we understand it, the request for the sale of quota has not come from the fishermen. In fact, it has come from the banks. The CEDF and other financial groups are the ones that are lobbying for the sale of quota. That causes great concern. I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that before this legi slation can pass , ther e has to be more consultation with the communities. We have to be assured that the communities have the right of first refusal, that is, that northern communities can have control .

There is a real concern that when the opportunities to sell quota arises, some of these people are desperate right now and may sell off their quota and then when the price of fish improves or the prices go up, they will not have the ability to make a living off these lakes. There is a concern that the control of all the quota could fall into the hands of a few. As I say, there is a desperate situation. People need money. They may decide to sell their quota and then not have the ability to make a living. So, if someone else has a control of that quota, when the prices are high, they may come in there to fish.

When the prices are low, there will be no economic activity in those communities and that will only in tens ify the problems that we have in those communities. Another concern is the whole issue of First Nations and their right to quota. What will be the impact on the First Nations, if the quota is sold and it leaves the community, if this is a violation of the rights of the First Nations people who do have the right to sell fish? If that quota is sold off, are their rights being violated? Is the government going to en d up buying back this quota to meet the requirements of the First Nations people?

So I think we have to look. The governmen t has overlooked that part of it. They have not addressed the part of treaty rights , and this could be an oversight on their part. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are some serious concerns with this bill, and I do not think the government has done its work on it. When we get to com mit tee , we will be bringing in some amendments to the bill.

I hope that the government will give those amendments serious consideration so that if this bill passes, it will at least meet some of the needs of the people in the community, and assure that the economic activity stays in those communities, particularly when we look at the high un employmen t rates in many, many of those communities. We want to see economic activity there. We do not want to see everything drained off as we have seen in other ins tances. With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I close debate. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The ques tion before the House is second reading of Bill 35, The Fisheries Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [agreed) *** Hon. Darren Pr aznlk (Deput y Governmen t House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, to accommodate some work of the House leaders, I would ask if you could please call, instead of Bill 45, Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2). Bill 47- The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act

(2) Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on sec ond rea ding of Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia location a usage d'habitation), standing in the name of the honour able member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain stand ing? Hon. Darren Pr aznlk (Deput y Governmen t House Leader): Yes, I believe we will grant leave to al low the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) to speak after the memb er for Bur rows (Mr. Martindale) during the course of the debate today, but not to leave it sta nding. Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): I knew that I was going to be speaking on this bill today, and so I was thinking about it this morning, but I was thinking about how irrelevant it seemed to have to come here and speak today in debate, since this morning I was working at Habitat for Humanity, as I was yes terday along with my colleague the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). I believe that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) was there yes terday, and our Leader, the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), was there yesterday, along

July 20, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 5742 with former President Jimmy Carter and about 700 volunteers. It seems much more satis fying to actually work on building a house than to debate legislation that affects tenants, even though this legislation will affect thousands of people.

There is a great sense of satisfaction in actually building a house and seeing the results of your labour, as compared to speaking when you very seldom see the results of your labour other than in print form in a bill, although I would certainly say tha t housin g legislation has a great, great impact on a very large number of people.

Nonetheless, it is thrilling to be on a work site and see 18 houses being built all at once, especially the first day when all you could hear at eight o'clock in the morning was the sound of nails being pounded and nothing else, just the sound of- well, I do not know whether there were 700 people, but I think there were about 1 0 to 20 people on each work crew working on 18 houses simultaneously. By the time I left yesterday at noon we had the roof trusses up on our house. This morning when I got back they had shin gled the roofs, and we were working on drywalling when I left at noon today.

When I go back tomorrow, they will probably have the drywall all taped. It is really quite amazing to see people move into a house on Friday afternoon or Saturday morning that was only a foundation and a floor on Monday morning. So I commend all the volunteers and the other members in this Legislature for being a part of that. *

(1500) The housing legis lati on, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2), Bill 47, has a very interesting history. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) referred to some of that history, and I would like to do the same because it has had a very long and in teresting history. In fact, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made some unfair comments about my party and what we did or did not do during our term of office.

Her memo ry was rather selective, because she failed to point out that in 1982 the government of the day, the Pawley NDP government, brought back rent control, which was a very signi ficant piece of legislation. They brought it back because the Sterling Lyon Conse rvative government had removed rent control, I believe, in 1980. So that was the fi rst ma jor piec e of legislation affecting tenants that the NDP brought in in 1982. In 1985, they appointed a landlord and tenant advisory committee, a review committee, and I was an alter na te delegate on that com m ittee representing low-income tenants.

It was very interesting to be a part of that process and to sit down and talk with representatives of landl ord organizations and property manager organizations and civil servants. The review committee tried to act on the basis of consensus, and so, in our final report, the recommendations were either based on conse nsus or near conse nsus. Most of those recommen da tions were acce pted by the government of the day who drafted legislation but were not in governmen t when it was brought forward. One of the major parts of this bill has to do with security deposits.

Certai nly, security deposits were one of the more controversial items that were discussed by that committee, along with things like condition reports. It is very interesting to be on a committee where people have somewhat different in terests and different viewpoints. The small landlor ds were represente d by the Manitoba landlords league and the large landlords were mostly represented by the Property Managers Association, and there were middle-income tenants and low-i ncome tenants represented. On some things, we had agreement.

There were things landlords asked for that they got sometimes because tenants made concessions. There were things they ask ed for that they did not get. Similarly, with tenants, there were things tenants asked for that they got, and there were things tenants asked for that they did not get. So there was some horse tra ding.

There was a great attempt to balance the interests of landlords and tenants, and I woul d say th at the origin al Resi dential Tenancies and Conse quen tial Amen dme nts Act which was pro clai med September 1, 1992, was really a compromise, and I think a rather careful balancing of the interests of landlords and tenants, which I think is why it got all- party su pport when it wen t thr ough this Chamber on December 14, 1990. But some things naturally were controversial, for example, conditi on reports. The property managers said, we do not want condition of suites reports to be mandatory because we already do

5743 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 them. It is widespread in our industry. And the small landlord said, no, we do not want to do this. The tenants said, we think it should be compulsory for all landlords and tenants that they must fill out a condition report on the condition of a suite before moving in, and the result in the act is really a compromise of those two positions. Sim ilarly with security deposits, particularly low-income tenants who feel that many, many land lords take advantage of them over their security deposits.

Low-income tenants and their representatives on the review committee wanted the security deposit provisions to be tightened up considerably and wanted ideally for the department to hold all security deposits in trust. There was some support for that position by civil servants, because they knew firsthand some of the problems. One of the problems that we had proof of from our experience in the community was trying to track down secu rity deposits , particul arly when a company was owned out of province or when buildings changed hands and the security deposit did not seem to be readily available.

In fact, I had experience in that regard because I represented a tenant who moved to Vancouver, and it took two years to track down a security deposit in the amount of $60. This tenant had lived in the same building for many, many years and so had put down a very small secur ity deposit maybe 10 or 15 years previously. It took two years to get it back plus the interest because the department had to trace the ownership of the building and try and get the secu rity deposit back from whoever was responsible for it.

I remember very clearly the staff on the review committee saying that a third of all their staff time was spent tracking down security deposits, so they were very sym pathetic about tight ening the provisions around security deposits. So we saw a major change in that area where all landlords were required to put security deposits in a trust account or to have a bond or some other kind of security or surety for that amount of money so that when tenants moved out the money would be there.

Now I understand that one of the reasons for this bill is that landlords were given a one-year grace period to set up those security deposits in trust, and since the bill was proclaimed September 1 last year, the deadline was September 1 this year. I think that the real reason for the major change in here around security deposits was that some landlords did not have the money to put in the security deposit because they have been using it for operating funds.

In fact, that is something that tenants groups and their spokespeople and myself and others alleged in the past that the landlords frequently did not have the money when tenants moved out because the money was not there because the landlords were using it for operating expenses. In fact, I did a little bit of research on this. I phoned my landlord and I said, what do you think of this change? Are you in favour of it? Do you think it is a good change? He said, oh, yes, I like that change in this bill because now I can use that money for my operating expenses.

He proved what we had been saying all through the 1980s, that landlo rds used the money for operating expenses, did not have the money in the bank, so it was not there when the tenant moved out. This may not be a problem for large companies who have a large cash flow, but it was certainly a problem with small landlords, the slum landlords who were taking advantage of their tenants.

This becomes a severe problem with people on social assistance, because if they move out and they do not get their security deposit back, if they are entitled to it because there has not been any damage, then where do they take their money for the next security deposit? The social assistance rules have been considerably tightened up on this. They used to give you a second security deposit. They do not anymore. You have one, and if you lose it, the money is deducted from your cheque. What are people to do?

The only discretionary funds they have are either food allowance, special ne eds -no, pardon me, food allo wanc e or household needs or personal needs. Those are the only three discretionary items in a welfare budget. The largest one is food, so they take the money out of their food allowance for a security deposit for the next place to live. Then what do they do to eat? Well, they make the rounds of-o r they go to a food bank to help get them through the month. It may seem like a small issue to the majority of people who maybe have the money on hand or can

July 20, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 5744 get the money or have a stable income or a large enough income that they can replace the security deposit. When people are very poor, when people are on social assi stance , it becomes a major hardship. I know this from personal experience, from working in the community with these people and hearing their stories. Security deposits have always been an important issue, and they continue to be an important issue. So why is this government doing it?

I think they are doing it because of pressure from their land lord friends who did not have the money, who did not want to set up the trus t accou nts and had a deadline of September 1. I believe this govern ment is letting them off the hook. I have talked to staff. I have been briefed. I have been told that the reason for this change is that they only want to deal with the bad actors, that they only want to have tough provisions in this bill in order to call in the security deposits of the land lords who are trying to take advantage of tenants.

Perhaps, when we get into clause by clause, we can look at this bill and see whether that is actually going to happen, whether this bill does give the Residential Tenancies Branch more authority to actually do that. We have been told that they do, but I wonder about that. When this bill was introd uced, I asked the minister in Question Period, who was consulted, what tenant groups, what landlord groups? The min ister refused to answer those questions. I was dis appointed in that, but that was her choice, although she did tell me later that she would be quite happy to table a list.

When she was given the opportunity, she did not. I suspect that she has met with lots of landlord groups. I do not know of any tenant organizations. There is the housing coalition, but I think there are very few tenants on it. It is a group mostly of people who work in the inner city, work in the community, work for various organizations. They have made recommen dations to the minister. I have copies of some of their correspondence, and I think they made some good recommendations, but I think that the overwhel ming numb er of representations made to this mi nister was by landlords. *

(1510) Another major concern, particularly of low income tenants, that I think is not addressed by this bill-in fact, I would say that this bill makes the situation worse-is tha t lan dl ords will be compensated out of the security deposit funds for unpaid rent and cleaning. I think this is a signi ficant departure, because I th ink when you set up a security deposit it should be for one reason only. The only purpose, and I think in the past this has been the only purpose, is to use that money to compensate a landlord where the tenant has caused damage.

No one quarrels with that principle, but I believe this is a signi ficant departure when the landlord can use that money for unpaid rent. I would have to compare the act and this bill and see if that is true, but cleaning, I do not recall that landlords ever in the past have been allowed to use security deposit money for cleaning. Cleaning an apartment may seem lik e an insigni ficant thin g , but it is not, becau se unscrupulous landlords use cleaning an apartment either to fleece tenants or to get money that they would not ordinarily be entitled to.

Allowing them to use the security deposit to do that makes it much, much easier, much, much simpler for landlords. In the past when somebody moved out they would send them a bill for cleaning, and tenants had almost no recourse to challenge the validity of the bill. I have had many, many people complain to me saying, look, we moved out and the place was clean and the landlord gave us a bill for $100 or $200 for cleaning. Why is he doing this? I doubt very much if a branch wa nted to investigate complaints like this, or if they did, if they had any power to do anything about it.

But who is going to monitor this and say it was a reasonable cleaning bill or an unreasonable cleaning bill or whether it actually happened? The tenant is not going to get back in to see the suite. Is the branch going to send somebody out to look at the suite and see whether it was cleaned at all, and if so, whether the amount could be justified? I do not think so. I do not think the branch has that kind of resources. They do not have enough staff to do that. I think this is a huge loophole for some landlords who are going to take some tenants to the cleaners with their cleaning bill, unfair cleaning bills.

We will be watching to see if this new gift, this new loophole for landlords, is going to be detrimental to tenants, particularly low income tenants who do not have the wherewithal to fight for their rights.

5745 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 Really, what this kind of legislation is all about is about power, and whether or not the government of the day is willing to balance the power relationship between landlords and tenants or whether they are going to tip it in favour. As I said with the original Residential Tenancies Act, there seems to be a reasonably fair balance of power. I think this government is tipping that balance in favour of landlords. Landlords have always had more power than ten ants, regar dless of whether the re was legislation, because most landlords can afford to hire a lawyer.

People who can hire a lawyer have a sign ificant advantage because you do not even have to be an expert. You hire the lawyer who is an expert on your behalf, and lawyers can get a copy of legislation. They can read it; they can use it to the advantage of the person they represent. In almost every case, that is not a tenant. That is a lawyer. Very few tenants will go to the trouble or can afford to hire a lawyer. There are some changes that have been made that mean people do not need to use lawyers anymore. The Residential Tenancies Act set up a housing cou rt or Residentia l Tenancies Commission .

People can go and present their case in person to the commission, and they do not need a lawyer. In fact, I went to the commission because I was helping some tenants with a rent increase appeal. It was very interesting because the landlord was there and there were about 20 tenants there. They had two or three people who were speaking on their behalf, and I spoke briefly at the end as well. The tenants really did a marvellous job, Madam Deputy Speaker. They were very well prepared. They had a computer printout of their rent in creases for the last number of years for every suite.

They had really done their homework. They had done a lot of research as to how much the rent was for each apartment before and after rent inc rease s. Regrettably, they lost their rent increase appeal. The most fascinating thing was that there was an individual, who got up as a spokesperson for himself and for other tenants, who questioned the landlord. I watched the commissioner, and he had a most bemused look on his face and for a very good reason. I found it bemusing as well, because this gentleman, who actually works in this building and whom I see almost on a daily basis here, did an excellent job.

I am sure he has never been trained in the law, but he was in terviewing and ques tioning the landlord as if he was a lawyer. His questions were dead on. They were just excellent questions. He was really putting the landlord on the spot, and the commissioner just let him go for about 20 minut es or half an hour, asking just a stream of excellent questions. So that is one thing that I think, at least from my one observation of being at the Resi dential Tenancies Commission, my experience in my brief and short observations there, that suggests it works reasonably well.

Certainly, it is much easier for tenants to go to a housing court and speak on their own behalf than to have to hire a lawyer and go to the Court of Queen's Bench. Probably they would not be allowed to represent themselves at the Court of Queen's Bench. I think the judge would require that they have legal representation. Well, I should ask my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), if someone goes to the Court of Queen's Bench are they supposed to have a la wyer?

Would the judge require them to have a lawyer normally? (interjection] They are not required to have a lawyer, but, certainly, people would be at a disadvantage if they went and the landlord had a lawyer and the tenant did not. It would be an unfair contest. The system would prefer that they have a lawyer. So that is one good thing about the Residential Tenancies Commission.

Now these tenants were very disappointed and did not understand why they lost their rent appeal because they thought that they had an airtight case, but most tenants do not realize that what we really have in Manitoba is not rent control but a rent pass-through syste m, so that if a land lord can justify their costs almost any legitimate capital expense can be passed through to tenants. Most tenants do not understand that until they appeal a rent increase, and then they are forced to confront the law and what it really says in the rent control provisions of The Residential Tenancies Act.

I would like to spend a little bit of time talking about the minis ter's debate on second reading. I noticed that several times she referred to my absence which is unparliamentary. The rules of this House say that we are not to refer to the presence or absence of members. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) did that two or three times in the course of her

July 20, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 5746 debate, and I am sorry that nobody corrected her or the chair did not correct her. The minister mentioned that she had reviewed the legislation which had been in place for 1 0 months, and as I have already said, I believe that the minister is acting with undue haste. I think, with such a major act, probably waiting a year or two before amendments would have been reasonable. I think this min ister had a reason for doing this now. The reason is that the one-year grace period is expiring on September 1 , and this minis ter was under pressure from landlords to get this changed before the act took effect. •

(1520) If some smart legal beagle wanted to go to court they would probably win on this, because it is in the act and the grace period is not in the act. I do not think the grace period is in the regulations. I think it is just an understanding between the minister and her staff and landlords that they are given this grace period. If somebody went to court and challenged it they would probably win. The minister talked a lot about how landlords and tenants and staff had suggested improvements. We ll, I am sur e tha t her staff had sugges ted improvements.

I would be particularly interested in knowing which landlords sugges ted improvements and how many of them and which te nants suggested improvements and how many of them, but I do not think we are going to get that kind of information from the minister. In fact, it would have been much preferable if the mini ster had set up some kind of review committee with landlords and tenants and civil servants on it to review the legislation, and then we would have felt that there was a much fairer process for introducing these amendmen ts.

The minister talked about the cost of auditing landlord security deposit trust accounts. I realize that anyth ing which is a cost to government, particularly if it is a signi ficant in crease, is not desirable. I am wondering if the minister looked at alternatives or if she had alternatives. For example, if the department holds all the security deposits in trust, then there is interest earned on those trust amounts.

Some of that money, of course, would have to be used to give the tenants their inte rest on the security deposit, but some of it possibly could have been used to pay for the staff cost of keeping the money in the branch. I think that is one alter native that the minister could have considered. Another one is that perhaps the min ister could have asked the landlords to submit an audited financial stat ement of either their busi ness operation or their security deposit trust accounts and let the landlords bear the cost of auditing rather than the department. Instead, the minister has chosen to go her own way.

The minister said that the cost of staff for her department was of no concern to the member for Burrows. This is certai nly not true, as I have already said . The min ister said that landlords fail to return their deposits very rarely, that they have had very rare cases of this happening. I think there are two different situations. There is the situation of what gets reported to the department by individuals who say, the landlord did not return the security deposit.

The other situation is what is happening out there in the community that never gets reported, because there are large num bers of people who do not know their rights. Probably very few people take the trouble of going to Queen's Printer and paying $12 for

an act like this and reading it and understanding it, because it is rather complicated legislation. People, first of all, do not know their rights. They do not know where to complain, and they do not know what to do, so when they get ripped off they do not do anyt hing. I hear about it when I go door to door in apartment buildings. Other MLAs hear about their problems when they meet their constituents on the doorstep. Some organizations that work in the communi ty hear about these problems. I think, in many, many case s, the Residential Tenancies Branch does not hear from these people.

In fact , frequently I get phone calls in my cons tituency office from people aski ng very elementary questions. I have no problem with that. I am there to serve the public. My office is there to serve the public, and we certainly do not min d giving people a phone number. Frequently people do not know which level of government or what department it is or how to look it up in the back of the phone book and even get something which to us seems a very simple thing, and that is the phone number and the right department to phone when you have a complaint or a problem.

5747 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 Certainly these kinds of people do not know where to phone to complain if they do not get a security deposit back. They do not know their rights, and they do not know where to go. They do not know what the remedy is, and they do not know how to go about getting it. There are ma ny, many reasons why this happens. I mean, we are talking about people, many of whom are il lite rate. Canada has an amazing, a shocking, a disappointing illiteracy rate where a great many people are fun cti onally illiterate.

In fact, I am on the Open Doors advisory comm ittee for the Open Doors Adult Literacy prog ra m, and there are people from our com muni ty, from our neigh bourhood who are learning to read and write. Perhaps they dropped out of school early or they never did learn to read and write properly, and now as adults they are going back to school. Those kinds of people are not going to pick up The Residential Tenancies Act and read it and understand it.

The original act had 207 clauses, 119 pages, and this is fairly complicated legislation, as anyone who would com pare Bill 47, the amendment that we are debating with the original act, would readily conclude that we are talking about complicated legislation. So ma ny of those people are functionally ill iterate. Many of those people have so many personal problems to deal with, which can best be described as survival, that they do not have time, and they are not going to take the trouble to do something which to us would seem obvious and important, like getting a security deposit back.

That is tragic because they take the money, as I have said before, out of their food allowance, and then they are forced to do things like go to food banks. Very, very tragic. I think there are many more people than this min ister is willing to acknowledge out there in the community who do lose their security deposits, who do get taken advantage of by landlords, who are being ripped off. They do not seek a remedy, and they should. There are very understandable and obvious reasons why they do not. I believe that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Af fai rs (Mrs.

Mcin tosh) has a responsibilit y to educate consum ers of rental accommodation, to inform them of their rights, and to inform them of where to go if they need help. I have been trying to do that as well. In fact, I would like to thank the minister because her staff, when I sent out mail to all the tenants in Burrows constit uency, I checked with the director of the Residential Tenancies Branch to make sure that it was accurate, and I appreciate the director of that branch taking the time to check what I had said about tenants' rights for accuracy.

I sent out a mailing to every apartment building and every house that was rented that we could identify in Burrows consti tuency, and I know other members have done that as well. Similarly, with these amendments, I would hope that the Min iste r of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs would do some educa tion , not jus t to landlords who are going to find out about these amendmen ts, but also to tenants so that they know how they will be affected. An Honourable Member: Can you figure out what to do on that? Mr. Martindale: We know what to do. An Honourable Member: How much time left? Mr.

Martindale: The member will be interested to know that I am almost finished. We know why the government is bringing in this bill. We know who has been talking to them and how they have been influenced to bring in this legislation. We believe that they are tipping the balance in favour of landlords and against the interests of tenants. It is unfortunate that they have taken this view and decided to do this for a number of reasons, but that was their choice.

They have done it, and we believe that when tenants find out the true impact of this bill, they are going to be extremely disapp ointed in the actions of this government. The mi nis ter men tioned that she is giving landlords and tenants more time to resolve security deposit disputes. In fact, I think in several places these amendmen ts say that the amount of time has been changed from 14 days to 28 days. I think that might just give landlords a longer time to earn interest on the tenants' money. I am going to concl ude in ta lking about the ten ants' money .

I think wha t we have to remember, and I do not think the government has remembered this, is that when we are talking about security deposits, we are talking about tenants' money. In Manitoba, I believe the minister said, we

July 20, 1993 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 5748 are talking about $25 million. We are talking about who controls and what kind of controls there are on $25 million of tenants' money. So any changes that are made have to consider the interests and the rights of tenants, because it is their money. In fact, you could also argue that it is the taxpayers' money because a lot of this money paid out in security deposits is paid on behalf of people on social assistance and so the government needs to ask, are they get ting good value for the taxpayers of Manitoba?

In many cases, they are not, because this money is being paid to slum landlords. It has been estimated that there is something like $60 mill ion paid in rent to people on social assistance in the inner city in Winnipeg, $60 million a year. That is a lot of money. I believe that it should be spent wisely and it should be spent to purchase decent affordable housing, not slum accommodation. Regrettably, much of it is going to slum accommodation. *

(1530) In many cases, this leads to expenses in other government departments. I went door to door in an apartment building last wint er where I ran int o people who were moving out because it was cold and they could not get the landlord to fix things up. In fact, in January when it was very cold in this apartment building the landlord was in Florida. When I phoned his property manager they said, oh, yes, we will fix it up, or it has been fixed up. When I went back to see the apartment nothing had been done .

Almost everybody in that building was some body whose in come was from social assistance and so this government was paying the rent. In one case there was a mother who was a student at Red River College. Her infant had been sick three times, had been to the hospital and this child had had pneumonia. So here is a direct cost to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) for medical care for this infant because the landlord would not provide heat, would not fix up the premises and the taxpayers were paying money to this slum landlord.

Unfortunately, it was another example of where tenants did not know their rights and did not know what to do. I went door to door with work order requests and told the tenants how to fill them out and where to send them so that the Residential Tenancies Branch could try and enforce work orders so that there were repairs so that people did not have to live in very, very cold apartments in January. With those remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my time on Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act. Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to this legislation, Bill 47, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, and the impact that it has upon, in particular, people of my community and others, of course, as the member for Burrows has indicated through his own personal experiences, and the way this legislation will impact upon others that he is familiar with and people he has dealt with over the course of his time as critic for Housing.

Of course, he has an ex1ensive knowledge and background in dealing with housing issues, and we rely greatly on that experience for some guidan ce in dealing with issues that might affect members of our own community. I look back, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the history of The Residential Tenancies Act and when it was brought into being to deal with issues to resolve, as a mechanism to deal with in a fair and impartial manner issues that might come from time to time into dispute between landlords and tenants.

There has been a sheet that has been prepared that reminds us of the history of The Residential · Tenancies Act. In 1985, there was a revisiting of the 1970 Landlord and Tenant Act where the landlords, tenants and government were to investigate and make recommendations on The Landlord and Tenant Act as a means of giving both sides the opportunity to air their concerns and to provide advice to government, so that government might come forward with legis lation that would be beneficial to both sides, both the landlords and the tenants.

In 1987, I believe the government released a report that had 139 recommendations. It is my understanding there was a full consensus from all parties that were inv olved in that report. In that sense, you would think that there might be, from time to time, some areas that would be in dispute where both parties might not agree and there might be a minority report that would be filed, but that was not the case in this, where there were 139

5749 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA July 20, 1993 recomm en dati ons. In fact, there was a full consensus on all of those 139 recommendations. In 1988, the government of the day then had annou nced a bill in the throne speech that was going to come forward to act on the recommen dations. Of course, the events of the history are known to most members of the House and to most Manitobans. The government changed, and that bill did not get introduced into the Chamber at that time. It was over a year later that the new government decided they wa nted to bring forward the legislation.

They had promised they would bring in the legislation in the spring of 1989. That did not occur. It is my understanding that the then-Minis ter of Housing waited until September, until the fall of 1989 to in troduce Bill 42, The Residential Tenancies Act. Now, when that bill came in, it acted on some of the recommendations.

At that time, it had created some problems for the government of the day, for this particular government, in that it created some problems for the landl ords, and the landlords I believe brought some pressure to bear upon the governmen t because they had concerns about specific portions of the bill. The Minister of Housing promised that the bill would pass durin g that session. That session carried over of course into the spring of 1990. The minis ter had said, and there is a quote here: There is not a chance of lifting this bill, we are not going to do it.

So the minister said that he was going to follow through wit h the bill and that he agreed and supported the legislation. In fact, he went as far as saying that he and his department did not spend 18 months working on it to have it die somewhere. That reference I believe was to do with the bill dying on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, it was not long after that, I think it was some three days later that the minister, under pressure I believe from the landl ords and in fact from his own Premier, withdrew the bill.

It may have been that the Premier intervened on behalf of the landlords to actually kill the bill before it passed. In fact, I think it was the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), who, three days after that point, after having some suspicions that the landlords had a hand in what was taking place and, in fact, had lobbied the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to withdraw the legislation, had tabled letters from developers and landlords showing and, in actual fact, proving that the Fi lmo n gov ernmen t had sided with the landlords, overruled the minister and, in fact, killed the bill.

It is unfortunate that special interest groups like that-e ven after they had been in full agreement with the earlier report, which had 139 recommen dati ons, it was obvious that the landlords had ag reed to those recomm en dations as well, because it was a full consensus for that report had put pressure upon the Premier to withdraw that legislation, something that the government had agreed to and that the landlords and tenants had all agreed to .

Yet the landlords felt because , I suppose, they had a friendly ear in the government benches, that they could put pressure and lobby their friends to withdraw certain portions that they felt were not in their own specific interests. It was after that time, of course, following the election in the fall of 1990, that the government brought in what we consider to be a revised or watered -down version of The Resi den tial Tenancies Act. Unfortunately, the bill was passed, but it was not proclaimed. We believe that it was a compromise bill.

It str uck out a compromise position for both landlords and tenants, and, in that sense, we were supportive. Even though we had some reservations about certain portions of it, we thought it was a reasonable compromise. The mi nis ter said that it should have been proclaimed by February of '91, but of course that did not happen. Then there was a cabinet shuffle in 1991 , and there was a change in the Minister of Housing, and, of course, the current Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) says that work was continuing in completing for the proclamation of the bill.

Now, I am not sure what work was continuing after the bill had passed through the Legislature; ma ybe it was the regulations that were being worked on. I am not sure, or I am unclear on that part, but we know that, during that period of time when the new Minister of Housing had taken over, it was about the time that the housing authority was abolished, and the minist er, in fact, fired some 600 volunteers in this province. So not only was the bill not proclaimed after effective lobbying obviously on the part of the landlords, but they got rid of 600 volunteers for the housing authorities.

Instead, the mini ster sti ll refused to act on that residential tenancies act.

July 20, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 5750 Now, I guess it is something that only the government members, cabinet members, would know, or maybe even the caucus members of the Conser vativ e Part y woul d know , why the governm en t would only lis ten to one special interest group, and would not want to represent the balanced int erest of even members of their cons tituency who mi ght liv e in rental acc ommo dations. They chose in stead to represent only one specific interest, and that being the landlords. In other words, in 1992-[inte rjection] I am surprised that even the Minis ter of Health (Mr.

Orchard) did not decide that he wanted to represent any renters who mig ht be in his community. I would think that since there was a full consensus in 1987 on the part of landlords and tenants, the Minister of Health would have thought that it was a reasonable compromise to protect renters in his own community, but even the Minister of Health senses that it is more politically advantageous for him to represent the landlords' interests than it is his own tenants. *

(1540) Now, l hope that the members of community who might be in rental accommodations would sense that the Minister of Health, in that sense, was not representing their interests. But I am sure that the Minister of Health will be prepared to explain that to them should that opportunity arise. In 1992, Madam Deputy Speaker, the debate continued. My colleague the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) continued to ask questions about the Minister of Housing why the act was not being proclaimed.

The minister kept saying that the target date for proclamation of the legislation had been late spring or early summer '92, but she said that that remained her target. Unfortunately, that did not come to pass. Then the minister said that they were continuing to consult with all groups and planned to have it finished in the spring or summer. Well-[inter jection] Yes, it would be nice if there was some sharing, because members on this side of the House are usually used to sharing any goods or any produce that we have. I know the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr.

Pallister) was gracious enough to share produce from his community in the sense of strawberries, by way of the Strawberry Festival. I know that it was a success, and I thank the member for Portage Ia Prairie for bringing in the straw berries that he shared with all members of the House. That, Madam Depu

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-105
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 105.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8c4d736287e17660a10aba789a037415f199b006

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