Manitoba Hansard — 3 March 2004 (Sitting 14, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-14

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LV No. 14 – 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 3, 2004

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

543 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, March 3, 2004 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PETITIONS Minimum Sitting Days for Legislative Assembly Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition: The background to this petition is as follows: The Manitoba Legislature sat for only 37 days in 2003. Manitobans expect their Government to be ac- countable, and the number of sitting days has a direct impact on the issue of public accountability.

Manitobans expect their elected officials to be provided the opportunity to be able to hold the Gov- ernment accountable. The Legislative Assembly provides the best for- um for all MLAs to debate and ask questions of the Government, and it is critical that all MLAs be pro- vided the time needed in order for them to cover constituent and party duties. Establishing a minimum number of sitting days could prevent the government of the day from limit- ing the rights of opposition members from being able to ask questions.

We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request the Legislative Assembly of Mani- toba to consider recognizing the need to sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. It is signed by Cheryl Conley-Strange, James Millar and Duncan Geisler. Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when a petition is read it is deemed to be received by the House. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 20–The University College of the North Act Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr.

Lathlin), that Bill 20, The University College of the North Act;

Loi sur le Collège univer- sitaire du Nord, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Ms. McGifford: The University College of the North Act establishes the University College of the North as a new, public post-secondary institution, one rooted in our northern communities and com- mitted to ensuring that Aboriginal and northern people will receive a range of post-secondary edu- cation and will have control in matters of their post- secondary educations.

I am honoured to table this legislation, another important step in fulfilling the educational aspir- ations of our northern peoples and in fulfilling our Government's commitment to post-secondary edu- cation for all Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, I know you know that this is a historic day. Motion agreed to. * (13:35) Bill 209–The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would move, seconded by the Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard), the Leader of the Liberal Party, that Bill 209, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, be now read for a first time. Motion presented. Mr.

Lamoureux: I think that this bill can be explained very simply, and that is that in 2003 the

544 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 Manitoba Legislature sat for 37 days. Mr. Speaker, you will find, if you canvass Manitobans, that the overwhelming opinion of Manitobans is that that is not democracy when you only sit for 37 days. For those that claim and make up the excuses, and there are plenty, that those excuses do not justify 37 days of sitting in any given calendar year. So the purpose of Bill 209 is to say that this Legislature will, in fact, sit for a minimum of 80 days in any given calendar year. I think it would go a long way, Mr.

Speaker, in making this Government and future governments more accountable for the types of decisions that are being made. Motion agreed to. Bill 26–The Certified Management Accountants Act Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackin- tosh), that Bill 26, The Certified Management Accountants Act;

Loi sur les comptables en manage- ment accrédités, be now read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Selinger: This is a bill brought forward by a minister because these professions are regulating themselves in the public interest and we ensure by bringing the legislation forward that the terms and conditions under which they self-regulate do, indeed, meet the public interest. Motion agreed to. * (13:40) Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from Riverbend Colony School Grades 9 to 12 students under the direction of Mr. Sam Hofer. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Also in the public gallery we have from Shamrock School nine Grades 9 to 12 students under the direction of Mr. Clarence Hofer. This school is also located in the const ituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain.

I would also like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today Veronica Dyck, Don Robertson, Kathleen Leary, Peter Ge ller, Gina Guiboche and Martha Jonasson. These visitors are the guests of the honourable Minister of Advanced Education and Training (Ms. McGifford). Also in the gallery we have Bryan Hunt and Brian Ammann, who are the guests of the honourable Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski). In the loge to my left, we have Mr. Ed Mandrak, who is a former Member for Assiniboia. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation for Producers Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Oppo- sition): Mr. Speaker, it is now day 289 of the BSE crisis. Our farmers are struggling and it is growing more challenging with each passing day. One would think that members opposite would understand by now how serious this crisis is and the significant impact it is having on rural families, on businesses and on our economy as a whole, but they continue to manipulate the facts and mislead the public.

Yester- day the Premier was making hay about how the largest overexpenditure in government this year is for emergency aid in agriculture. Would he now provide a dollar figure as to how much money has flowed to those 12 000 families and could he tell us what that works out to per family? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): This is day three of the session and I am glad the member opposite is now leading with the BSE crisis, which, I think, is a very important issue. Day one of the session he was com- plaining– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 545 Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to some of the questions about overexpenditures on day one, I did point out and will continue to point out that the largest percentage of overexpenditure in this Budget, in fact in a couple of other budgets, on a percentage basis has been in the area of BSE crisis and agriculture. The member will know the programs we have announced and they have gone through those in great detail.

In the Estimates a few months ago, we announced both directly in the Department of Agri- culture and indirectly in the Emergency Expenditures Special Supplementary Warrant that was signed, that it is well over $50 or $60 million in this fiscal year on an over $100-million budget. Mr. Speaker, we have on top of that provided for low-interest loans which I think have been subscribed close to $50 million by now. It was over $45 million the last time I had an update on it.

When the slaughter program in Alberta, which was agreed to in Kelowna, was not working, we reallocated money for a short-term sl aughter program that was announced. We then announced a transportation subsidy for distances for transporting hay. Without the support of the federal government in November, we announced an amount of money to deal with the cull cow, the usual 8 percent of cattle that had to be culled each year that were no longer able to be culled because of the BSE crisis. We announced $100 and said that that would not be tied to slaughter and urged the federal government to proceed with that program.

I am encouraged that Mr. Bob Speller, the new Minister of Agriculture– * (13:45) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind all honourable members, we have the viewing public and we have guests that are in the gallery. They came all the way here to hopefully hear the questions and the answers, and I hope all honourable members will be co- operative to give them that courtesy. We have 40 minutes for questions and answers. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that the new Ag Minister in Ottawa, Mr.

Speller, has indi- cated that the arbitrary an d unfavourable criteria of required slaughter for the 8% cull program, feeding program, he is looking at that. We are encouraged by that. He is changing that. That will mean for a cull cow that requires a cost of about $350 to $400 per head, to deal with the 8% cull cow numbers for a herd, that will mean that the $100 that we are providing will be matched by about $192 by the federal government, $195. So that will close three quarters of the gap in that feeding gap for those cull cows.

A number of those programs add up to over $50 million, but obviously the primary goal, I think, for all members of this Legislature is to get more of our border opened up because there is no solution inside the Treasury of this Government that will deal with the closure of the border and the requirement to open it up. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, clearly the issue is exactly what this Premier says, all sorts of programs announced but no money flowing to producers. We all know that the vast majority of farmers have not received the financial assistance they are desperately in need of.

This Premier continues to lead and mis- lead Manitobans on the impression that they have all of this money available, but it is not flowing. The fact that the Premier continues to do that is reprehensible. Little money is flowing. The bulk of the finan- cial assistance to provinces make it available in the form of a loan, but Manitoba producers out there cannot access it because they do not want to take on more debt. That is the problem with this Premier's program. Mr. Speaker, this Government is in the middle of finalizing its Budget.

Will the Premier commit today to scrapping the plans to spend more than $100 million on new VLTs and a laundromat for the Government and will he provide a cash advance for those cattle producers? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I recall the member opposite calling on us during the election campaign to replace the machines at the Assiniboia Downs with new machines. So, again, the member opposite deals with issues. They talk about the rural economy and rural hotels and I would remind the member opposite that he himself recommended that low-

546 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 interest loans be provided as one of the alternatives for producers last July. We did that. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the Premier stands in the House today to say that I talked about a low-interest loan, and they listened. I also said at the same time, provide a cash advance. I have been saying that for the past eight months. Listen to me today, do the right thing. Listen to me today and provide a cash advance. That is what the Premier should do. That is what the cattle producers need. Mr.

Doer: The member might not know the meaning of the word "or." It was not "and," so he can thump his fist as loud as he wants, but his signature is on a letter calling on a low-interest loan as an option for producers. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line, though, notwith- standing the shifting sands of their position, one day they are calling for us to run a deficit. One day they are saying for us to break the balanced budget legis- lation. The next day they are saying, oh, do not break the balanced budget legislation.

The next day they are saying pledge to support the balanced budget legislation, stand up for the balanced budget legis- lation. Oops, we changed our minds again. Notwithstanding that, Mr. Speaker, there is lots of pain in rural western Canada. * (13:50) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I think we all acknowledge that the closure of the border pursuant to the May 20 discovery of a cow which, by the way, was not in the food supply in Canada. That has been extremely, extremely painful. We are pleased that boxed-beef is moving south of the border.

We know that members opposite are joining with the minister to go to Washington next week to continue the pressure on the United States to open the border. We think that, no matter what short-term pro- gram is announced and no matter how much money we spend, there is no substitute for this Legislature joining together to continue to call upon the Ameri- cans to have a livestock policy in Canada and the United States based on science, and open the borders today for Canadian cattle. CAIS Program Amendments Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Today is day 289 of the BSE crisis. Our farmers are struggling.

The Doer government says the Canadian Agricultural and Income Stabilization program is one solution. Ontario, Alberta, P.E.I. have negotiated improved benefits under the CAIS program. But, in order for these to take effect, two th irds of the provinces need to sign on to the amended agreement. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Agriculture tell this House what is included in these amend- ments? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, we signed on to an APF agreement last year and one province did not sign on.

When Ontario signed on, they negotiated some amen dments and those amend- ments would be to raise the cap and to cover neg- ative margins. The member is accurate in that it will take other provinces to come to an agreement as to whether these amendments will move forward. Right now, there is serious concern by provinces in western Canada about the amount of money that will be required for this program and, in fact, we are asking the federal government to treat this as a disaster and cover it on the 90-10 instead of asking provinces to pay 40 percent. Mr. Eichler: Mr.

Speaker, obviously the minister does not know the amendments well enough to speak on them. Mr. Speaker, time is wasting. Bills are mounting for our cash-strapped producers. The hardest hit in Canada, we had a growth of over 16 percent. They need answers now to the CAIS program. Will the Minister of Agriculture tell the producers of this House wh at the position is on these amendments? Ms. Wowchuk: I just told the member what our position was on those amendments, and we are waiting for an answer from the federal government. But the member seems to forget that there is a process for an interim payment.

People can be making their applications under the existing CAIS program right now.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 547 Instead of criticizing the program, he should be out there encouraging people to take advantage and make their application, so money, indeed, can flow from CAIS to producers, Mr. Speaker. Money can flow under the existing program without the amend- ments. The amendments are in discussion. Agricultural Policy Framework Provincial Contribution Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Will the Minister of Agriculture assure producers that the Government will unconditionally fund the Province's 40% contribution under the APF program? Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Manitoba signed on to the APF agreement. When we signed on to the APF agreement, our money was on the table, and our money is on the table for the existing program. Producers can make application, and I would encourage the member to talk to the producers and encourage them to apply for their interim payments because money can flow now. * (13:55) Brokenhead Casino Smoking Policy Mr.

Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Oppo- sition): While this Government should be moving away from their increased reliance on gambling revenue, as long as the Premier continues to make gambling his economic strategy, which means more VLTs and more casinos, that appears to be the reality for our province. Mr. Speaker, his Government has control over who they approve to establish a new casino in Man- itoba.

If this Premier is so committed to expanding gambling, will he at least take into consideration the health of Aboriginal people by making it a condi- tion of the licensing agreement for the Brokenhead casino, that it be a non-smoking facility? Will he do the right thing? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I would remind members opposite that the legislation we have in the House is pursuant to page 20 of the all-party report. The

section in legislation is exactly the same as has been recommended by the all-party report under

section 9.4. Mr. Murray: Each year some 1800 Manitobans die due to tobacco-related diseases. That is slightly larger than the community of Leaf Rapids here in Manitoba, every single year. In terms of smoking, 38 percent of First Nations people are smokers, as compared to 22 percent of non-Aboriginals. That is a rate of over 40% higher. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, based on the best available data, Aboriginal people have lower health status than Canadians as a whole.

Will the Premier respect and protect the health of all Manitobans by guaranteeing that his Gov- ernment will not approve the Brokenhead casino proposal unless the licens ing agreement contains a condition that the casino be smoke-free? Mr. Doer: The matter is before the Gaming Com- mission, Mr. Speaker. But I would point out that members on all sides of the aisle signed a report consistent with–on page 20, and the legislation

section 9.4 deals with the report dealing with clear jurisdiction. I would point out that, even today, the issues of legal jurisdictions are complicated. For example, all provinces in western Canada– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: A few years ago, all provinces in Canada challenged the jurisdiction of the gun registry and the cost and its jurisdictional issues of provinces. We lost, all the western provin ces lost that court case. Today in Ontario, Aboriginal people just won a case against the constitutionality of the gun registration as brought in by the federal government.

That is just an example today why the all-party committee, which his members were part of, signed a report recommending that this smoking ban, which is the strongest in Canada, includes areas of clear provincial jurisdiction. We are honouring this report with the legislation that we are bringing in, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Heather Crowe sat up in the gallery in this House. Heather Crowe contracted cancer due to second-hand smoke. The Premier acknowledges that because it is a fact. If he wants to ensure that no Aboriginal worker will suffer the same regrettable outcome that Heather

548 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 Crowe did, will he do the right thing, Mr. Speaker, because his Government controls the licensing arrangement. Will he do the right thing and ensure that the Brokenhead casino, through the availability of him providing the licensing agreement, will he make sure that it is a smoke-free casino? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, as I stated, the legislation that we brought in is exactly consistent with the all- party report– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: –that was signed off by members oppo- site. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I cannot hear a word you are saying. I want to once more ask the co-operation of all honourable members. If there is a breach of a rule or a departure from Manitoba practices, each and every one of you rightfully expects me to make a ruling on that, but how can I do it if I cannot hear what the breach is if there is a breach? So I ask the co-operation of all members, please. I need to be able to hear the questions and I need to be able to hear the answers. I ask for your co-operation, please. Mr.

Doer: The report that was signed by the mem- bers opposite, assuming the member opposite as a leader has any control or say in reports signed by his caucus, the task force recommends a province-wide smoking ban would apply in all enclosed public and indoor places where th e provincial government has clear jurisdiction. For example: jails, Headingley, Stony Mountain; military bases; First Nations re- serves; airports would not be covered by the legis- lation. Mr. Speaker, Mr. McCrae, in 1996 says– * (14:00) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Please. Once more, I kindly ask you please.

I need to be able to hear the questions and I need to be able to hear the answers. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members please. The honourable First Minister has the floor. Mr. Doer: If I may continue. Mr. McCrae, the Honourable James McCrae, in 1996–I am talking on public health–stated: There are issues that come forward when they respect public health. Our depart- ment has an involvement but the ultimate respons- ibility rests with the Government of Canada. The honourable member knows that, and that was dealing with First Nations communities, Mr. Speaker. I think the all-party report is clear.

The all-party report is being implemented in legislation. It is the strongest in Canada, and we are proud of the fact that we are not implementing more than or less than what was in the all-party report that hopefully was sanc- tioned by the Leader of the Opposition a few months ago, Mr. Speaker. First Nation Casinos Smoking Policy Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, once again, the Premier (Mr. Doer) stated that it would be wrong to have a government-owned casino with smoking operating across the street from a private owner who is not allowed to have his patrons smoke while using VLTs.

I would ask the Minister responsible for the Gaming Control Commission if he believes that it is fair to have workers in Aboriginal casinos subject to second-hand smoke, when those working across the road will receive the protection of the Government. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister charged with the admini- stration of The Gaming Control Act): First of all, Mr. Speaker, we are delighted that there are workers in Aboriginal casinos, and we look forward to there being more Aboriginal workers in Aboriginal busi- nesses. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, as the First Minister has made clear, the issue of jurisdiction is a complex one and that is why the all-party report signed off by members opposite, well, perhaps they were not looking at what they signed, perhaps they did not read it. I do not know. They signed it because they recognize that Stony Mountain Penitentiary is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. Kapyong Barracks is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The issue of federal property or property held by the Government of Canada on behalf of First Nations people is a First Nations federal government issue.

We respect other governments, Mr. Speaker.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 549 Mr. Loewen: I will remind members opposite that I did not sign on to that report, and I clearly asked the Government to remove the clause dealing with clear jurisdiction. We did not talk about casinos. The minister is sending a clear message– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind all honourable members when the Speaker rises all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. I ask the co-operation of all hon- ourable members. One thing, it is very difficult to hear.

The other thing, we have a viewing public, we have guests in the gallery that want to hear the questions and answers. I also remind all honourable members, we have 40 minutes for questions and answers, and the clock keeps on ticking. You are going to be cutting down on questions and answers. So I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, the minister is sending a clear message to those work ing on reserves that he does not care. He does not care about their health.

Is he content to have Aboriginals work in unhealthy conditions, or will he guarantee that one of the requirements of the licensing which he controls for the Brokenhead casino will be that it operates in a smoke-free environment? Will he protect the Abor- iginal workers? Mr. Sale This, coming from a member whose party could not find their way north of the 53rd during the last election. Their great concern for Aboriginal people was expressed by ignoring the entire North last June. Mr. Speaker, our respect for Aboriginal people has to do with agreements on child welfare.

It has to do with agreements on northern development. It has to do with agreements on probation. It has to do with agreements to foster economic development in ethanol, to foster economic development in regard to gaming if that is their choice. We respect their right to govern their activities. We respect the jurisdiction of other levels of government and so did they when they signed on on behalf of the all-party task force. Very convenient for them today to focus on Aboriginal people, not on service people, for example, not on convicts. Why are you not asking those questions?

Those questions would show the hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, of the approach they are taking on this issue. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I should not have to remind the member that I went to Thompson and not only were we advised to include reserves– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Loewen: Yeah. Yeah. That is right. That is right. That is right. Mr. Speaker– Mr. Speaker: Order. Once more, I would like to remind all honourable members that when the Speaker is standing, all members should be seated and the Speaker should be heard in silence. I have been standing for quite a while. At least have respect for the Chair.

It is maybe not me, but for the Chair, because this is going on and on and on and it is getting a little out of hand, and we have the viewing public, we have members in the gallery. I ask the co-operation of all honourable mem- bers, please. We have 40 minutes for Question Period and the clock keeps on ticking and we are going to be running short. We will not have as many questions as we should have. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members, please. Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Speaker, if the minister had the decency to check with any of the members of his side of the House on the committee, he would under- stand fully that not only were we requested by those presenting in Thompson to include reserves, but over and over again they stated how concerned they were with the condition of Aboriginal health in the North. Perhaps he should realize that. The Premier again yesterday stated that he did not personally believe that it was necessary to ban smoking in bars but, to his good taste, he would go with the science.

I would ask the minister today: Does he believe the science does not apply on reserves or in Aboriginal conserve? Mr. Sale: This Government has supported the development of the health of Aboriginal people. For example, we are the only government in Canada that makes a prenatal allowance available to all Manitoba mothers for all Manitoba children, because we care about them.

550 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 Mr. Speaker, part of the process of the whole business of smoking, which is very much a health issue, is a long-term educational process, and I wel- comed, as did I think most members of this House the all-party initiative not simply to study the issue of a ban, but to raise for all Manitobans the question of the appropriateness of smoking in a variety of set- tings. The public has come a long way. There is still a distance to go. The federal government has a distance to go in this regard, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the armed forces and in regard to convicts.

I note, for example, that– Mr. Speaker: Order. * (14:10) First Nation Casinos Smoking Policy Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Since the minister raises the issue, when the Premier (Mr. Doer) stated when the Healthy Baby initiative was brought in to First Nations communities although they did not have jurisdiction, he stated he was doing so because a baby is a baby is a baby, regardless of where they live. I would wonder if a worker is a worker is a worker regardless of where they live, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, one of the 62 recommendations the minister's review committee on improving workplace safety and health called for steps to be taken to ensure that workers are no t exposed to second-hand environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace. Obviously we are seeing that happen today. In fact, they even called the act The Workplace Safety and Health Act. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister respon- sible for The Workplace Safe ty and Health Act (Ms. Allan): Will she advise the Gaming Minister that agreements with Aborigin al casinos must include protection of the employees and patrons from second-hand smoke? Hon.

Steve Ashton (Acting Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to be a small part of the all-party process, and certainly having the opportunity of being the Minister of Labour and now as Acting Minister of Labour, I can indicate to the member that he should be aware that the basis of provincial labour law is clearly, again, one of jurisdiction. There are many workplaces in this province that are under federal jurisdiction, and there are, in fact, separate statutes under fe deral law that deal with those workplaces.

The spirit in which we have dealt with this issue, I think, has been exemplary. In fact, I am disappointed that when we have almost had consensus, one member refused to sign the all-party report. Mr. Speaker, we are applying a smoking ban that deals with indoor workplaces in this province that are under provincial jurisdiction. I think that is something we should all be proud of in this province. Mr. Tweed: Another history lesson for the Premier. When Jim McCrae, whom he quoted, was the Minister of Justice, he was the one that sent the RCMP onto reserves to deal with illegal gambling.

He did not run and hide and call it a jurisdictional issue. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier said we believe every province in Canada will eventually end up with smoking bans because litigation and second- hand smoke and the causation of carcinogens with second-hand smoke will result in Workers Compen- sation decisions and court decisions eventually ban- ning second-hand smoke. My question to the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation (Ms. Allan): Will she ask the Minister responsible for Gaming (Mr.

Sale) , who signs and creates the agreement with the Aboriginal casino, will he advise that they must include protection for employees, patrons from second-hand smoke? Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the interest of the members opposite in terms of Workers Compensation. In fact, I would encourage them to be part of the review of Workers Compensation that this Government has initiated. I want to stress again and, having the oppor- tunity to be a small part of the all-party task force, that these issues were discussed at the committee hearings. They were discussed by members of the committee.

The report itself is very clear that it is targeted at areas clearly under provincial jurisdiction.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 551 That was the all-party report. That is what the legis- lation is. That is the right thing to do. Mr. Tweed: What the minister fails to acknowledge is that the Minister responsible for Gaming has the responsibility and the ability to include it in the agreement that he signs with First Nations in regard to Aboriginal casinos. He has that authority. But you know, Mr. Speaker, we know that the Premier (Mr. Doer), he believes that smoking should be allowed in bars. I mean, he said it several times in the past couple of years that it is not a bad thing.

It is prob- ably good for people. My question to the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation, or whoever over there would like to answer this: When did excluding employees of Aboriginal casinos from the protection afforded by The Non-Smokers Health Protection Act become the policy of the Doer government? Or is their new policy, second-hand smoke, second-class citizens? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, let us not forget how far we have come in this province in a very short period of time. Even a year ago, the idea of a province-wide smoking ban was not even on the political rise.

Thanks to an all-party committee, and by the way, that all-party committee, the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan), yes, indeed, he deserves a lot of credit for this, travelled the province with the introduction of the legislation brought in by the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau). We will be implementing the all-party task force recommendations that are going to expand within provincial jurisdiction throughout this province, the most comprehensive smoking ban in Canada, Mr. Speaker.

That is something we should all be proud of, and I wish members opposite would remember that they signed on to it with the all-party committee. Farmland Education Taxes Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, in the election last year, the NDP promised to decrease the education tax paid on farmland. Instead of decreases, many farmers are going to see increases this year because of the ap proach the NDP is taking which has reduced provincial funding from 62 percent to 57 percent last year, and it looks to fall further this year.

If ever there was a time to lower taxes on farmland, it is now, because of the situation with BSE, PMU and other agricultural concerns. If this is to happen, it should be announced now, so that school boards will be able to make appropriate plans. I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger): Will the Government follow through on its election promise of last year to lower education taxes on farmland in this year's Budget? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the mem- ber opposite, of course, is very knowledgeable on reducing support to people with the last Budget he voted for in Ottawa. Mr.

Speaker, there are many items where the Province of Manitoba, through successive govern- ments, has eliminated taxes for producers. For example, on the motive fuel tax, farmers spend some $45-million minimum, I think, to Ottawa where they do not spend that here in Manitoba. There are over $100 million in taxes, most of which Ottawa collects, the Province does not collect. A Liberal has no business raising these issues in this Chamber. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this Chamber, I am not going to hesitate to raise important issues to the people of Manitoba and to the farmers of Manitoba.

Why is the Premier not being clear on his commitment, his election commitment? The policies of the Government in pushing through amalgama- tions is leading to major increases in school board expenditures. The announced 2% increase in provin- cial funding is, in fact, much less for many school divisions. The Premier is following Tory policies, which he criticized, in off-loading on to school boards. The delay in the Budget should not delay this decision. The Government has made a promise. Are you going to carry through? * (14:20) Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the figures the member opposite uses do not include the two years of reduc- tion of ESL, $28 million. It does not include the increase in the property tax credit, some $57 million, both measures of which have flattened out in most school divisions.

552 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 In fact, the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, the member opposite represents that area, he will know that the taxes in the nineties went up 69 to 72 percent, and the taxes went down in the Winnipeg School Division with the two measures that we introduced. He should know that. He should know that and bring accurate information to this Legis- lature. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, we certainly have not yet presented our Budget, but I can talk more spec- ifically about measures we have already taken to reduce the portioning in property taxes on the pro- ducers in Manitoba, reducing the portioning from 29 percent to 26 percent, I believe. We did that and that saved farmers $7 million over the Tory portioning policy. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, at this very time, the school board in Portage la Prairie is looking at having increased by 7 percent the taxes on education, including farmland. The same is happening in almost every other rural school division.

In the Borderland School Division, for example, it is likely to be higher than that because, in part, of the result of the amal- gamation and the extra costs. I ask the Premier: Is he going to carry through on his commitment in the election to decrease edu- cation taxes on farmland? Mr. Doer: Every commitment we made on edu- cation funding, on taxes, in our first mandate, we followed; and our mandate on farmland taxation policy, in the second mandate, we will follow through on. It is not like abolishing the GST; we will do it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Before we go on to members' state- ments, I would like to draw the attention of hon- ourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us Mr. Todd Schwartz, who is the U.S. Consul to Manitoba. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Jim and Vivienne Pearn Mrs.

Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I rise today to com- mend the generosity and community spirit of Headingley residents Jim and Vivienne Pearn, who recently announced their intention to donate their entire collection of service station memorabilia, valued at $950,000, to the soon-to-be-built Heading- ley Heritage Centre. The Pearns' collection of rare five-gallon pumps, station façades and signage signify the couple's 35- year-long quest to collect a wide array of artifacts showcasing the role that petroleum producers played in the economy and social fabric of Manitoba's rural communities.

The Pearn collection transp orts visitors back in time to an era when there existed a service station on every corner, and signs advertising White Rose and Red Indian Motor Oil were familiar landmarks on roadways throughout Manitoba. The Headingley Heritage Centre will be housed in a 5000-square-foot addition to the R.M. of Headingley's new recreation complex. It will showcase interactive displays that will appeal to car enthusiasts both young and old. The Heritage Centre will open later this summer with the assistance of an infusion of $300,000, courtesy of the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Pro- gram.

It is hoped that it will become a major attraction for the estimated 20 000 drivers who pass through the community daily. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to thank Jim and Vivienne Pearn for their generous contributions as well as to congratulate the entire community of Headingley for pulling together to preserve the position of transportation and related industries in Manitoba's history. On behalf of all Manitobans, I wish the Headingley Heritage Centre many years of success. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Brent Scales Curling Team Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brent Scales and his curling

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 553 team of Gord Hardy , Grant Spicer and Todd Trevellyan from Swan River, who recently won the Safeway Select Men's Curling Championship at the Keystone Centre in Brandon and became Swan River's first provincial men's champions. I would also like to wish them luck when they represent Manitoba at the Nokia Brier which will take place in Saskatoon March 6 to 14. This recent win has been a moment of glory and pride for the residents of Swan River and has caused great excitement throughout the Swan River consti- tuency, and, I have to say, throughout rural Mani- toba.

There is a high level of enthusiasm about this win because it is some time since there has been a rural representative that has won the provincial men's championship. This is the first time that a team from Swan River has won the provincial championship. We all know that this win is due to Scales and his team's hard work, commitment to training and competition and competing in many bonspiels that has allowed them to achieve this momentous goal. This win was also a tremendous accomplishment, as they competed and won against a four-time cham- pion who was No. 1 seed at the Safeway Select.

The Swan River team was runner-up to the championship over the last two years. Although they were disap- pointed then, they continued to be very determined. Brent Scales and his team have finally reached their goal. The result is a proud moment for the team and their families, who all have a long history of curling at the Swan River Curling Club. We are all excited about the upcoming event in Saskatoon, and we all wish that we could be there, but I can assure the team that we will be watching them very closely.

On behalf of all residents of Swan River and all residents of Manitoba, I wish the Brent Scales team best of luck. We are very encouraged and proud of your determination and your skill that you have developed, and we know that you will be successful. Thank you. Oak Hammock Marsh Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Oak Hammock Marsh is a world-renowned wildlife management area located just east of Stonewall on Highway No. 67. It is home to North America's birding hot spot.

Apart from its vast marshland, Oak Hammock is home to a restored prairie marsh, aspen-oak bluff, waterfowl lure crops, artesian springs, 30 kilometres of trails and some of Manitoba's last remaining patches of prairie tall grass. The Oak Hammock Marsh habitat features over 25 species of mammals and over 296 species of amphibians, reptiles and fish. During the migration season, Oak Hammock Marsh can exceed 400 000 different types of waterfowl. * (14:30) Many different environmental associations have recognized Oak Hammock Marsh and Ducks Unlim- ited for their efforts.

One of their global awards was in the 2002 Environmental Experience category, recognizing and encouraging sustainable tourism initiatives across the globe. To win the coveted prize, the interpretive centre topped entries from Australia, the Bahamas, Kenya, India and Mexico. Mr. Speaker and my fellow members, I am proud that Ducks Unlimited has taken a stake in our environment and is committed to preserving our wet- lands. Like many thousands of visitors from around the world and local students, I would like to encour- age each and every one of you to take time to visit these preserved wetlands.

Our environment is an important commodity, and I cannot stress enough the great work that Ducks Unlimited has done to keep our national wetlands intact. Thank you. Partners in Learning Program Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, students in remote areas of Manitoba and more than 1000 of the province's teachers will be the first Canadians to benefit from Microsoft Canada's new Partners in Learning Initiative just announced.

This historic agreement between Microsoft and the Province of Manitoba will significantly improve the availability of information technology and training for many students in Manitoba. Through this program, Microsoft will make strategic technology and training investments in 134 Manitoba schools. In its first year, the Province will receive $3.75 million in software, services and support. The program's value in Manitoba is estimated at approxi- mately $15 million over the next five years.

As a northern MLA, it is gratifyi ng to see that Microsoft's first two strategic investments under this program in Canada will be made in two northern schools. The

554 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 schools selected are Frontier Collegiate Institute in Cranberry Portage and the Helen Betty Osborne Ininiw Education Resource Centre in Norway House. I am proud to say that I taught, along with the Mini- ster of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau), at Frontier Collegiate Institute for many years. Mr. Speaker, investing in our young people, regardless of the geographic location of their home communities and providing them the skills to excel in the new economy is a critical component of our Province's economic strategy.

This new partnership will provide useful computer equipment, software and training for students and teachers in our Mani- toba schools. I urge all members of the House to support this positive example of a public-private partnership. It is a win-win situation for everyone. I congratulate the Province and Microsoft for taking initiative to create new and exciting opportunities for Manitoba's youth, and I congratulate the communities of Cranberry Portage and Norway House for being the first sites for this exciting initiative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Epilepsy Awareness Month Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I rise to say a few words about this month, which is Epilepsy month. During the last several years, I have several times raised concerns with epilepsy programs in Manitoba, the long waiting lists, the shortage of epileptologists, the lack of attention in this area by the present government. I want to commend Epilepsy Canada and to salute the Manitoba Epilepsy Association, which has been working hard to make sure that there is greater awareness of epilepsy an d that there is more attention given to this important disease.

In Manitoba, it is estimat ed that there are about 23 000 Manitobans who have epilepsy. It is clearly an important condition which needs to be seen and assessed and treated promptly. Sadly, at the moment, the waiting times are six months or longer. It is a sorry and sad state that on the epilepsy month we have a condition where waiting times for epilepsy are so exorbitantly long. Hopefully, this can and must be improved in the future, for surely people with epilepsy deserve better attention than they are getting right now. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call second readings in the following order: 18, 14, 15, 16. Just one other item of business, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: On House business? Mr. Mackintosh: Yes. Would you please canvass the House to see if there is agreement to set aside consideration of Private Members' Business to- morrow morning in order to consider a condolence motion for Jim Penner? Mr.

Speaker: Is there agreement to set aside con- sideration of Private Members' Business tomorrow morning in order to consider a condolence motion for Jim Penner? [Agreed] The honourable Government House Leader, on House business? Mr. Mackintosh: Bills. SECOND READINGS Bill 18–The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that Bill 18, The Improved Enforcement of Support Payments (Various Acts Amended) Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments. I am pleased to introduce this legislation to improve the ability of the Maintenance Enforcement Program to better collect outstanding support payments and to compensate support recipients who do not receive payments as ordered by the courts on time.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 555 With this bill, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba continues to lead the way in making sure that a wide range of tools are available to collect support owed to children and families. In 2001, this Government introduced legislation that prevents support debtors from evading their support obligation, or hiding or depleting their income and assets. The legislation created the ability to preser ve assets and to pierce a corporate veil.

The legislation also provided for registration of support orders in the Personal Property Registry in addition to many other amendments that gave pri- ority to and improved the mechanisms for collecting support debts. Changes were also introduced that made Manitoba children and families the winners when a support debtor won the lottery prize by allowing the Maintenance Enforcement Program to seize any lottery prize over $1,000. Those improvements were substantial but they were only the first step. Today, I am announcing the second stage of the Government's Maintenance Enforcement strategy.

First, I am introducing legis- lation aimed at compensating a support recipient who does not receive support on time. Whether it be inter- est or a late payment charge, there is always a mon- etary consequence when other financial obligations are not paid on time. We are introducing proposed legislation that imposes a late payment charge when the most impor- tant financial obligation an individual, a parent, has, support for the child, is not paid on time. As often as once a month, the penalty would be automatically assessed when support is not paid on time.

The Maintenance Enforcement Program will collect this interest-like penalty that will be payable to the sup- port recipient who has to meet financial obligations on time and provide for their children, regardless of whether or not support payments arrive on time. There will also be a provision allowing the court, when fit and just, to award a compensatory amount to a support recipient who has suffered financial consequences as a result of support being paid late or not at all.

A typical example that a court might consider would be the case where the support recipi- ent has been assessed charges for overdue bills that would have been paid on time if support monies had been received on time. Changes to legislation will allow garnisheeing orders to remain in effect for the duration of a support payor's employment and support obligation. The legislation will be augmented by strict program policies regarding the placement of garnisheeing orders against wages and the length of time they must remain in place.

These changes will give Manitoba Maintenance Enforcement garnisheeing orders the effect of an automatic wage-withholding system where support payments are automatically deducted from a person's paycheque. The advantage of the Manitoba approach is that it recognizes that most parents do live up to their obligations to their children and do pay their support on time. Our legislation only targets support debtors that have failed in their responsibility to support their family. A further efficiency contained in the legislation will allow the Maintenance Enforcement Program to serve garnishing orders by fax.

The earlier gar- nishing orders are received by employers, the earlier wages can be attached and the earlier money will be received by Manitoba families. * (14:40) There will be changes aimed at further breaking down maintenance enforcement barriers between jurisdictions. These changes build on the meaningful improvements achieved with the recent coming into force of the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act. Manitoba will give legal recognition to garnishing orders for support received from other jurisdictions.

This will allow a maintenance enforcement authority in another jurisdiction to attach funds that a support debtor has in Manitoba. This co-operative approach will benefit Manitobans as more and more juris- dictions adopt similar legislation that will speed up the ability to collect support across jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Speaker, the amendment will also reduce or eliminate the need for the Manitoba Mainte- nance Enforcement Program to become involved in straightforward cases involving another jurisdiction, thus allowing the Manitoba program's resources to be put to the best use.

There will also be changes to allow the cost of some of the most expensive and most effective enforcement tools to be passed on to the person that fails to pay their support. For example, registering a lien against a support debtor's property is a very effective method of securing support arrears; however, it is also expensive. If the Maintenance Enforcement Program were to register

556 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 a lien in each case where there are support arrears, the cost to Manitobans would be substantial. The new legislation will allow the cost associated with certain enforcement actions to be borne by the support debtor. This legislation send s a powerful message. Not only must those who have turned their backs on their obligations pay what they owe, they must pay it on time. Families, especially those with children, should not have to go without when they are legally entitled to support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Leonard Derkach (Russell): I move, seconded by the Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that debate on this bill be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 14-The Gas Tax Accountability Act (Financial Administration Act Amended) Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 14, The Gas Tax Account- ability Act (Financial Administration Act Amended);

Loi sur l'obligation redditionnelle concernant la taxe sur l'essence (modification de la

Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Finance, do you have the Royal Recommendation? Could you table the Royal Recommendation? Mr. Selinger: Yes. Sorry. Thank you. At the same time, I would like to table the Royal proclamation of the Lieutenant-Governor, recommendation of the Lieutenant-Governor. Motion presented. Mr. Speaker: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of this bill and the message has been tabled. Mr.

Selinger: The Gas Tax Accountability Act provides for transparent and clear annual reporting to Manitobans of the total revenues raised from taxing road use fuel in the province along with total expenditures on road infrastructure. It will show clearly to Manitobans that the Province is keeping its commitment to invest the entire sum of road use fuel tax into road infrastructure. The proposed new act requires the Province to spend the entire amount it collects in road use gasoline and diesel fuel taxes on road infrastructure.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the road- use fuel taxes and roadway operations and infra- structure amounts must be reported separately in the Department of Finance Annual Report. The first accounting will be in the '04-05 annual report. Under the proposed new act, if revenue exceeds expenditure in a given year, the excess amount must be expended on road infrastructure within the next four years.

Since we have a track record of reinvesting all road-use fu el taxes, and more, into roads, the legislation will not affect the Province's ability to maintain other expenditure programs that are our priority for Manitobans. The federal government collects excise taxes on sales of fuel. However, it does very little to reinvest the revenue into provincial roads. Manitoba and other provinces have repeatedly called on the federal government to invest its fuel taxes in roads and highways. Prime Minister Martin has indicated a willingness to share federal fuel tax revenue with provinces and cities.

The act provides that if the federal government introduces a federal fuel tax-sharing arrangement with the Province and municipalities, that amount must be spent on municipal infrastructure. In this manner, we are facilitating any federal movement on its promise to transfer a portion of its fuel tax revenues to municipalities. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), that the debate now be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 15—The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Police Powers Respecting Unsafe Drivers and Miscellaneous Amendments) Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Police Powers Respecting Unsafe Drivers and Miscellaneous Amendments), be now read a second time, and be referred to a committee of this House.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 557 Motion presented. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, there are some points I would like to bring to the attention of all honourable members with respect to this bill. First, with regard to police powers at roadside stops, Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 2003, the Mani- toba Court of Appeal issued two rulings in the cases of the Queen v. Orbanski and the Queen v. Elias , which limit the ability of police to conduct roadside investigations to determine if a driver is driving while impaired, or is otherwise unfit to drive.

The court ruled that The Highway Traffic Act does not provide sufficient authority to enable police in Manitoba to question drivers stopped at roadside to determine if they have been drinking, or are under the influence of drugs, or to conduct standard field sobriety tests to determine if a driver is impaired by alcohol or drugs, without first providing the driver an opportunity to consult legal counsel. The amendments in Bill 15 clarify the authority of police officers to conduct investigations of drivers at roadside.

This includes the ability to question the driver about alcohol or drug consumption before driving, and the ability to demand that a driver parti- cipate in a standard field sobriety test, if the officer has reason to suspect that the driver has alcohol or a drug in his or her body. The bill also provides that police officers will be able to exercise those pre- liminary investigative powers without having to provide the driver with an opportunity to consult a lawyer.

Drivers who fail a standard field sobriety test will have their driver's licence suspended for 24 hours, and could also face an additional three-month licence suspension and vehicle impoundment if they refuse to participate in or fail a breathalyzer test. Manitoba will be the first province to provide clear legislative sanctions for refusing to participate in a standard field sobriety test. Mr.

Speaker, drivers who refuse to participate will receive an immediate 24-hour driver's licence suspension, a further three- onth licence suspension and vehicle impoundment. m During the last election campaign, there was a commitment to implement vehicle impoundment for street racing. Mr. Speaker, that type of driving behaviour is inherently dangerous, and poses a significant risk to the safety of not only the participants, but also to the safety of pedestrians and other innocent bystanders who can be seriously injured or killed as a result.

Bill 15 provides that vehicles used in street racing in Manitoba can be seized by police and impounded for 48 hours in order to provide an immediate halt to the racing activity and remove the drivers from the road. Mr. Speaker, Bill 15 also includes provisions to change the drivers licenc e suspensions for persons convicted of theft of motor vehicle parts, or pos- session of stolen motor vehicle parts, in order to better reflect the nature and seriousness of the offences. Currently, the driver's licence suspensions for those offences are not based upon the value of the motor vehicle parts that are stolen.

This means that persons convicted of stealing a car stereo would receive the same suspension as someone convicted of having multiple vehicle parts in a chop shop situation, for example. The amendments in this bill would introduce a new approach in which the licence suspension will be based upon the value of the stolen motor vehicle parts.

Persons convicted of theft of motor vehicle parts or possession of stolen motor vehicle parts valued at $5,000 or less will receive a lower range of suspension–it is one year, five years, ten years or life–while there will be a higher range of suspension if the motor vehicle parts are valued at more than $5,000. That is five, ten or life. The amendments will also ensure that the same levels of suspension apply regardless of whether the person is convicted of theft of motor vehicle parts or possession of stolen motor vehicle parts. Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to seeing this legislation debated at this stage and being referred to committee. I look forward to the support of this House in having this bill considered and passed. Thank you. * (14:50) Mr. Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou), that debate on Bill 15 be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

558 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 Bill 16–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Denial of Benefits for Offenders) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Mini- ster of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 16, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amend- ment Act (Denial of Benefits for Offenders), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, the Government is proposing changes to the act today to reflect in large part what we have heard from Manitobans. They have told us clearly that drinking and driving and auto theft will not be tolerated, must not be tolerated in this province, and that there must be consequences for those who are involved in these threatening activities. Mr.

Speaker, the MPIC Act currently limits a person's income-replacement entitlement to benefits for a period of 12 months when the person respon- sible for the accident is convicted of the Criminal Code offences of criminal negligence, manslaughter, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired driving and leaving the scene of an accident. Today's changes not only expand the penalties to include death and permanent impairment benefits but also include the auto theft related offences, including theft of an automobile, taking automobile without owner's consent and flight from police.

If the claimant is 50 percent or more at fault for an accident and convicted of one of the offences, the penalties include loss of income replacement indem- nity payable in the first year, death benefit to be reduced by the amount of fault if convicted and 50 percent or more at fault. This Government also knows that when meting out penalties, it must have a compassionate eye to ensure that actions do not penalize the vulnerable. That is why these changes include provisions that ensure that if the claimant has dependants, the benefit reductions are calculated on the sliding scale based on the number of dependants.

It should be noted, however, that permanent im- pairment benefits will be reduced by the degree of fault with no allowance for dependants. For the vast majority of Manitobans these changes have no direct impact. In nearly every case, an auto insurance pay- ment is not related to a criminal situation. However, all Manitobans should know that we are pursuing a clear message that must be sent to those who are engaged in drinking and driving and auto theft. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Gerald Hawranik (Lac du Bonnet): I wel- come the opportunity to say a few words on this bill on behalf of the residents of Lac du Bonnet and, of course, on behalf of our caucus. I would like to thank the members previous for their debate on Bill 17 and, also, for their enthusiasm in debating Bill 16. I look forward to hearing their debate on Bill 16. It is a basic rule of law that those who participate in and are convicted of criminal offences should be punished. There are different ways that individuals can be punished once they are convicted of a crimi- nal offence.

First of all, they can be punished under the criminal law, whether it be a fine or whether it be a term of imprisonment. Either way they can be convicted under the criminal law and punished under the criminal laws of the country. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Another way that they can be punished, of course, is under the civil law, in spite of the fact that they were convicted under the criminal law. They can be punished under different statutes of the prov- ince under the civil law provisions. This is one of those statutes.

This is one of those bills that will depend on a criminal conviction in order to produce a civil punishment in addition to the criminal law that punishes people for criminal infractions. It is a basic tenet of law that those who commit criminal activity which causes a death or an injury, then the perpetrator who caused the death or the injury ought not to benefit from that criminal activity and certainly should not benefit from the criminal activity on a financial basis.

Historically, there have been many cases, before a body of law was created, whereby those who murdered individuals or caused them bodily harm collected on life insurance policies or other policies, even unknown to the vic tim. There are cases where

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 559 perpetrators insure the life of a victim and then take the life of the victim simply to collect on the life insurance policy. Because of this situation, the law eventually recognized the fact that the criminal ought not to benefit from the crime. We have all seen television programs or have read books in which victims are insured for their lives and then the owner of the policy takes the life of the victim just to collect on the life insurance.

We have also heard or seen situations where people's lives are taken by those who know that they are a beneficiary in a will, and, just to speed up the process and to ensure that the testator or the person who makes the will does not change their mind, the beneficiary takes the life of the testator. This is generally speaking the same type of situation that is being addressed under Bill 16 today. Bill 16 amends The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor- poration Act.

Under the act, it currently limits victims or their dependants entitlement to benefits when the victim wilfully causes the accident or is convicted of a Criminal Code offence relating to certain Criminal Code infractions such as criminal negligence. It includes manslaughter, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired driving or leaving the scene of an accident.

So, if an individual wilfully causes an accident or is convicted of any one of those Criminal Code offences, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation already includes provi- sions that limit a victim's or a dependant's entitle- ment to benefits under the act. What this bill does is, first of all, it expands the list of Criminal Code offe nces to include offences relating to theft of a motor vehicle and flight from police. I can understand the amendment by this Gov- ernment to include theft of a motor vehicle in particular with respect to one of the offences which will limit benefits.

The reason I can understand the theft of a motor vehicle is because of this Government's pathetic record with respect to auto theft and their inability to arrest auto theft rates in the province. They have really got a terrible record when it comes to try- ing to reduce auto theft rates in Manitoba. In fact, Winnipeg's auto theft rate jumped 6.7 percent last year from 2002–6.7 percent. MPI spokesman Brian Smiley said that overall vehicle theft rates increased 5.6 percent in Manitoba in 2003 versus 2002 accord- ing to claims received by the Crown's auto insurer.

He further went on say that 6611 vehicles were stolen in Winnipeg last year compared to 6190 vehicles stolen in 2002. In rural Manitoba, 1662 vehicles were stolen compared to 1643 the year before. In every case, whether it is in Winnipeg or in rural Manitoba, the number of vehicles that were stolen in 2003 dramati- cally increased from 2002. This increase comes at the same time that police and MPIC and the Gov- ernment have stepped up efforts to combat auto theft by doing more curfew checks on high-risk teens and bringing in tougher penalties. This all comes in spite of the efforts of the Government.

This bill will further penalize those who have stolen a motor vehicle and cause an accident and then have a claim to MPIC, whether it is for a death benefit for their estate or whether it is disability benefits. I think the Government is looking at this as an extra penalty to help deter motor vehicle theft. However, the effect of this bill may be minimal in terms of deterrence since most motor vehicle thieves are joyriding youths, those between 10 and 15 years of age who do not think of the conse- quences of their actions before stealing a motor vehicle.

I really do not think that they will have this in mind before deciding whether to steal a motor vehicle in Manitoba or in Winnipeg. * (15:00) Smiley, who is the MPIC spokesman, also said in that same

article that with respect to the war on auto theft, Winnipeg has one of the worst vehicle theft rates per capita in North America. That is something that the Justice Minister ought not to be proud of, and all the members on the opposite side of this House should not be proud of. He also added that the best theft preven tion device is an ignition immobilizer. Most of those are now factory installed on many of the newer vehicles. There are after- market immobilizers also available, but most of the anti-theft devices that are currently on the market were factory installed in newer vehicles.

This will only help over time with the older vehicles being replaced by newer vehicles. This will only help over time to reduce auto theft rates. It will not depend entirely on what the Government does or does not do. No matter what programs they have out there, those rates should go down. What we have seen in 2003 versus 2002, those rates have substantially

560 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 increased. When I look at the 1998 statistics for motor vehicle theft in Manitoba, there were 10 539 thefts. When you go to 2002, four years later, there are 12 121 motor vehicle thefts according to Statis- tics Canada, which means e ssentially that there has been about over a 10% rate increase in terms of motor vehicle theft. In Winnipeg in 1998, there were 8590 motor vehicle thefts. In 2002, it went up to 9471 thefts, which means there is almost a 15% increase in motor vehicle thefts according to Statistics Canada.

As I said before, that is not something that the Govern- ment should be proud of. In spite of what they think are effective methods or efforts that they have put forward over the last number of years, it certainly has done nothing to reduce auto theft rates in Manitoba. Another provision that they are introducing in this bill is to include flight from police, in other words police chases, one of the Criminal Code offences to reduce benefits to those who are hurt in that accident or to an estate if an individual is killed in the accident. I can understand why they did that as well.

To be honest with you, I fully support that amendment. The reason I do is because from per- sonal experience, I can tell you that about 10 years ago, my wife's brother was killed in a motor vehicle accident at an intersection. At the time, he was driving along the road innocently and going through an intersection in a green light. An individual who had stolen a motor vehicle, a youth who was out on good behaviour from the Manitoba Youth Centre, was involved in a police chase. The police were chasing him down the street.

He went through the red light and smashed into my brother-in-law's vehicle killing him instantly. It really concerned me about the fact that we found out later that in fact the individual who was the driver of that vehicle who was in fact on bail, or on release from an institution and who was involved after he stole the motor vehicle in a police chase, collected a benefit from Autopac. That certainly did not seem right. It did not seem just and it certainly flies in the face of the principles of natural justice. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, under the current act, if a claimant bears some responsibility for the accident and is convicted of those specified Criminal Code offences which I spoke of, the income replacement indemnity payable in the first year after the accident is reduced. The bill goes further on to double that reduction and similarly reduces benefits relating to any lump sum death benefit payable to the claimant and any permanent injury compensation payable to the claimant. Except in the case of permanent injury compen- sation, some relief is provided if the claimant has dependants.

My concern about that, there is a bit of a concern about that in the sense that, of course, we are not only penalizing the individual who was involved in the criminal activity but we are also penalizing their family members who, of course, should be ben- efiting from any accident. That is why we buy insur- ance. But, in any event, the bill doubles the loss of the benefit compared to what it is today. My concern, of course, is for the young children who may suffer as a result of the reduced benefit that otherwise might be payable.

The bill also reduces payments to injured auto thieves, which, I think, is just reward for what they have just done. The amendments in the bill would deny death benefits to a claimant who is at least 50 percent responsible for an accident that caused the death or who is convicted of an impaired driving or related offence in con- nection with the accident. Now the bill is a result of a reaction by the Justice Minister to a very senseless and needless death that occurred in Portage la Prairie in September 2001. This death occurred as a result of an individual who was impaired and drove over his own spouse.

In Portage in September 2001, a Robert Irving, after a night of drinking, returned home with his common-law wife. While details remain sketchy, two hours after returning home, Irving called the police to say that his wife was dead in the lane with the right side of her body and face crushed and tire tracks on her shirt. On May 9, 2002, in a plea bargain, Mr. Irving, twice previously convicted of impaired driving, pled guilty to impaired driving and driving while disqualified. The original charge of impaired driving causing death was dropped at the time.

He received a six-month conditional sentence which, of course, as we know is really just house arrest and is served in his own home. As Mr. Irving was not convicted of a greater offence and because he was outside the terms of the legislation at that

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 561 time, which I will discuss with you shortly, MPI was obligated to pay him death benefits totalling $46,000. If he had been convicted of a greater offence or if he did, in fact, qualify under the MPI legislation, in terms of the strict wording of the legislation, in fact, they would not have had to have paid out any benefit to him at all. At that time, just after that accident and that incident, the minister promised to review the MPI legislation to determine whether any changes should occur to the entitlement of benefits under the act.

The minister, on May 15, 2002, was quoted in the Free Press as saying he has asked MPI to consider whether there should be changes, to who should be kept out of the entitlement to benefits under the act. He also further stated that, clearly, this is a very unusual and, certainly, a sa d situation in respect to that accident, and he recognizes that it has been of interest and concern to members of his department as well as to MPI. This senseless and needless death that occurred in Portage la Prairie, in fact, is what really brought on the amendments that we see here today.

I notice that one of our members as well com- mented with respect to the accident, stating that he found it difficult in the fact that people who are convicted of being drunk and driving can get into a vehicle, kill a Manitoban, and then collect an MPI benefit as a result of it. Now, amendments in this bill amend

section 79(1) of the MPI legislation and what it does, in fact, is to change some of the wording, first of all, in that section. It changes the wording to "all claimants." It changes one word in the legislation under that particular provision to delete the word "victim" from that

section and add the word "claimant" instead. What happened in Portage la Prairie is that, first of all, Mr. Irving did not qualify under that

section as being excluded from the benefits because he was not the victim and nor was he a dependant of the victim. As a result of that, he was able to qualify for those benefits. * (15:10) This bill changes the word "victim" to "claimant," and as a result, he would be impacted by the legislation by the amendments that we see here today. In fact, he would receive reduced benefits or no benefits at all. That is a very small change to the legislation in terms of

section 79(1), but its effect is very far- reaching and, in fact, would have reduced Mr. Irving's benefits. There is also under the proposed bill a new

section which is added to reduce death benefits if a person claiming the benefit is convicted in con- nection with the accident of an offence, including causing death by criminal negligence; causing bodily harm by criminal negligence; manslaughter; danger- ous operation of a motor vehicle; dangerous opera- tion of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm; dan- gerous operation causing death; and so on. This new

section would appear to fulf il, though, the minister's earlier commitments in May 2002 to ask MPI to review the legislation in terms of changes to the entitlement that resulted from the public outrage over the death benefit of $46,000 payable to Mr. Irving in Portage la Prairie. There is a concern by myself and other caucus members that Bill 16 will off-load costs that are normally borne by MPIC onto Manitoba Health and onto all taxpayers of this province.

In fact, there may be a shifting responsibility for the cost of health care from MPIC to Manitoba Health because, depending on whether an individual is convicted of those listed Criminal Code offences and causes an accident and causes death or permanent injury, the cost of that permanent injury may be off-loaded from MPIC, which normally covers those under the MPIC regu- lations to Manitoba Health and, of course, to all tax- payers who will have to pay the medical bills as a result.

This bill just deals with the inadequacies or the shortcomings of The Manitoba Public Insurance Cor- poration Amendment Act, but when you look at other bills or other legislation, inequities could be addressed in those other pieces of legislation as well. I point out to the minister that there are inequities in The Intestate Succession Act of Manitoba, and that act determines who the beneficiary is to estates when a person dies without having left a will. So, when a person dies without having left a will, The Intestate Succession Act of Manitoba applies.

The same in- equity that is seen in the Irving case in Portage la Prairie would occur that had occurred in the Irving case under The Intestate Succession Act. If, for example, Mrs. Irving had died at the hands of her husband and she had no will, Mr. Irving

562 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 would be the sole beneficiary, because a person who dies without a will is compelled by The Intestate Succession Act to leave his or her entire estate to his or her spouse. Perhaps, if we are dealing with Bill 16–to amend The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act–we should be dealing with other amendments to other pieces of legislation, which, in fact, would limit benefits in the same way. One of those pieces of legislation, as I mentioned to the minister, in fact, is The Intestate Succession Act of Manitoba that could possibly use an amendment as well.

The same applies when one dies with a will and leaves everything to the spouse. Take, for example, if Mrs. Irving had died with a will in the same set of circumstances, where her husband was intoxicated, was impaired, and backed over Mrs. Irving and killed her. If she dies with a will and leaves every- thing to her husband under that will, and she died, of course, at the hands of her husband as she did here, should that will be valid? Should that will stand?

If not, if the minister believes that it should not, then The Wills Act of Manitoba should also accordingly be amended similarly to The Intestate Succession Act of Manitoba and The Manitoba Public Insurance Act of Manitoba. It is curious when I look through the bill, in terms of Bill 16 and in terms of reading some of the language in the bill, that, in fact, it does reduce death benefits. It also reduces not only death benefits but also impairment benefits.

But when you look through the bill and try and determine what the formula is, and how, in fact, it does reduce the benefits, I would say that you almost need a lawyer in order to determine exactly what the formula is. So, if we are expecting people to, as a result of this bill, that there will be a reduction of auto theft rates in Manitoba or in Winnipeg–if we are expect- ing that to happen and that the bill is to act as a deterrence, certainly anyone who is reading the bill would certainly not have a clue in terms of how that affects them.

Because of the formulas that are there, I am certain that the language could have been more simplified. It should not really require a lawyer or an actuary to read the bill in order to determine whether or not benefits, whether they be death benefits, or whether they be permanent or partial impairment benefits, to determine whether they are, in fact, reduced. When I look through the language of the bill, as I say, the language of the bill is very convoluted.

I think that improvements could have been done to, in fact, improve the language so that the general public would know that those benefits are reduced, without, as I say, having to hire a lawyer or an actuary. So I am a bit concerned about the language in the bill, although after having read the bill many times, in terms of the formula, I know how it operates, but certainly those who are not legally trained may have a lot of difficulty with that. I would like to close by saying that we can support the principle of the bill at this point.

It may require and may come with some amendments at the committee or third reading stage. I look forward to hearing the comments of the minister at committee and third reading, as well as the comments and the debate that will be put forward by my colleagues here today. Thank you very much. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the oppor- tunity to rise today and put a few comments on the record on Bill 16, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act (Denial of Benefits for Offenders).

Before I do, I w ould like to, just for the record, show that the Minister responsible for MPI is right now holding the briefing meeting on this bill. As the critic, I find it a little bit disgusting that he would call the bill and then perform the briefing on the bill to former members. I am not beating him up on it, but I think it is just something other members might want to pass along to him– Point of Order Mr. Deputy Speaker: Point of order being raised. Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows): On a point of order, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is against the rules of the Manitoba Legislature to refer to the presence or absence of any member of this Chamber, and I would ask the member to recall that rule and to rephrase his remarks possibly.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 563 Mr. Tweed: Same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the same point of order. Mr. Tweed: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that I suggested that someone was in or out of the Chamber. I suggested that the minister responsible was conducting a meeting and I am not making any reference to anybody being here or not being here. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Literally, the member is tech- nically correct, but anybody who can make a deduc- tion or inference from that statement would be able to deduce the consequences.

Everybody, please be careful about the language we use in the Chamber. * * * Mr. Tweed: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I respect your ruling. I would probably suggest that there are people out there that are listening to this or reading this, at some point in history, who will won- der exactly what we were talking about, regardless of how clear or unclear it may be. I did think it was important.

When you are cre- ating and drafting legislation, I know the efforts and times that are put into it by ministers, by their depart- ments, the collection of information, developing it into a process where we can present it to the public, and I just thought it was disappointing, if nothing else, the fact that I am the critic and have not had the opportunity to be briefed on this particular bill before I am being asked to speak on it. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that is an important thing to put on the record. * (15:20) Mr.

Deputy Speaker, whenever a tragedy hap- pens in the province, or in someone's life, it gives people time to reflect. Family is often impacted by an accident or a tragedy, feel the pain and react accordingly. I think governments often do the same. I think we look at certain instances and we try and create and develop laws around those instances to prevent it from happening again, if possible, but to address the conditions that follow. I think this is one such bill.

I can remember, in my previous sessions in this House, we had a young person that was involved with a–I am guessing, or I am saying what I under- stand is, that the person over-imbibed in some alcohol because it was a cheap night, a drink night, and tragically lost his life. The Government respond- ed, they brought back legislation that dealt with that issue, although on this side of the House we had some questions about developing policy based on one accident or one issue. Is that good govern- ment policy? Many would argue that it was, and I think that debate is still open for people.

This particular bill has spurred, again, that type of reaction. It was a tragedy. It was a tragedy that happened in the community of Portage la Prairie. No matter what we do with legislation and the changing of the laws and regulations, the effects of the tragedy will never be brought back. We cannot turn back the clocks of time. What we can do is, hopefully, prepare future governments, futu re law enforcement and future insurance and benefits in dealing with issues like this. I found it quite interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I was reading the briefing note that our staff had prepared for us.

I think we all have been victims of it at one time or another in our lives. That is, we buy insurance, we are comfortable with the insurance that we have and feel that we have coverage on everything that we do, and then in our time of need, our most time of need, we discover either that there is a clause that exits us from this insurance or there is something, another reason why we cannot access this insurance. I think that is what creates a lot of the frustration from all people of Manitoba in all walks of life.

It is the comfort of knowing that you have got insurance, but it is the discomfort of finding out that it really does not cover some of the things that happen to us in our lives. I think we all can share personal experi- ences, but I do know of friends of mine that had a cottage at a small lake, and it burned to the ground. They had insurance, so they were comfortable with that. Unfortunately, the insurance had a clause in it something like if the fire happened between one o'clock in the morning and four o'clock in the after- noon they did not have insurance, and, I mean, it devastated them.

That is part of, I think, what this legislation is trying to cover off and trying to make sure that people understand some of the issues and some of the concerns that they have. I noticed when we reviewed the ad that there was a new

section added to it which reduces death

564 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 benefit if a person claiming the benefit is convicted in connection with the accident of an offence includ- ing. Now, I understand that if you were a lawyer that might all make sense to you, but, I think, like most Manitobans, we either trust the people that we are buying it from to understand it and to have knowl- edge of it or perhaps we could go back in our termi- nology and put it in more layman's terms so that I can understand it and I suspect so that most of my colleagues can. I want to read that again because I think it is important.

It is an important issue about lawmaking and it is an important issue about insurances and coverages for people. There is a new

section added which reduces death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is con- victed in connection with the accident of an offence including. I do not know about anybody else, but I find that very confusing, but it even confuses me more because it is involved in connection with the accident of an offence including. I did not even real- ize this, but these are the things that were not cov- ered in prior legislation that are now being covered– caused death by criminal negligence.

I would have just assumed that anybody in- volved in an accident that causes death by criminal negligence would be under the criminal law system and charged. From what I understand, the benefit side of it did apply before that and now does. It reduces the death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is convicted in connection with the acci- dent of an offence including caused bodily harm by criminal negligence, again, something that I would have assumed would have been in our laws now. It seems like this type of issue highlights what we have not covered for people.

I do not think any- body wants to be over-regula ted. But I think perhaps common sense would suggest that some of these things, whether in writing or not, probably should have been at least thought of and included at some point in time in the process. Manslaughter. I mean, who would have thought that manslaughter would have allowed you to collect the death benefit on the person that died? It does not make sense to me, but somewhere in the laws of the past they neglected to include that. Now, they are doing so. Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

I would expect that if I was operating a motor vehicle without due care and caution and created an accident in which a benefit had to be paid, I should not be paid if I was negligent in the first place. Whether it was there or not, it is now being included. I think it is a good thing. I just question–it is kind of a pox on all of our houses–where we have been for the last 20 years when these issues arise. I suspect that these issues have come up over time, and we have had no way of dealing with them except going back to the rule book.

That is quite often where people get frustrated about rules and no understanding of what was the intent when the legislation was written and were there any notes around it. Quite often the intent is more important than the actual words that are put down. This legislation will clarify some of those issues. It reduces a death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is convicted of an offence in connection with the accident, including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm. I suspect that could be all encompassed when they talk about dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

If you are in an accident in a motor vehicle, I am not sure what the statistics are, but I would suspect that it is high that there is some sort of injury involved, be it a sore arm, a bump in the head. Again, perhaps for clar ity and for understanding with people that have been in the system, they need this type of language to make it more understandable to people like me. The new

section added reduces the death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is con- victed of an offence in connection with the acci dent, including dangerous operation causing death. I would suspect that we would all have believed in the past that if we were in a vehicle operating it and we ran over somebody or had an accident where a death was involved, we would be unable to collect the death benefit from that person's tragedy that we were responsible for. Yet it was not in the previous legis- lation. Common sense would suggest that it should have been. There is another

section in here that talks about reducing the benefit if a person claiming the benefit is convicted in connection with the accident of an offence including failure to stop at the scene of an accident. I thought that might fall under the old saying that we always stop and help our friend and

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 565 neighbour no matter what the situation is. Now they are suggesting that we should not collect the benefit if we are directly responsible or if we fail to stop at the scene of an accident. That would be perfect common sense. It says "reduces death benefit," and because I have not had a complete briefing on this, I would look to other people for qualification.

Does it actually reduce it to zero, or does it just reduce the amount that you can collect? * (15:30) I am not sure, but it is something that we probably should ask the minister, and perhaps in future deliberations, we will get that opportunity to ask him. In reality, if you are partially or fully responsible for any of these, I am not sure why anybody should be able to collect a benefit from it. By using the word "reduces ," it creates that question as to the fact that maybe they are not saying you do not collect any, you just get less.

Then I might suspect that the law really is not the way it is meant to be or should be or the way the public would want it. I do not think anybody in the general public in Manitoba would agree that someone should be able to collect the death benefit from someone that they were directly involved in harming and creating that tragedy. They talk about impaired driving causing bodily harm or impaired driving causing death. Again, I think, that would be a natural that we would all understand, that that is the way it should be. I look forward to my opportunity to discuss this with the minister about the reduces.

I think just that, when you say the word "reduce," you are actually not, you are maybe absconding, or, I am not exactly sure of the right word, but you are acknowledging the death and the responsibility but you are still going to pay a certain portion of the death benefit to the person claiming it. I would have to ask my colleagues on both sides if they feel that that is something that we would want to do. Obviously, as of today, we are still doing that. It might be something that we might want to correct and correct completely.

The three articles, and I talked about the first two: impaired driving causing bodily harm; impaired driving causing death; failure to comply with the demand for a breath sample. Again, I thought our laws said that if you refused to take a breath sample, you are guilty. I presume that that is still the way things are. You are considered to be impaired, it may be charged as refusing, but you still face the same punishment as if you were impaired.

In fact, I think the former Minister of Justice, now the sitting M.P. for Provencher, brought that rule forward and was recognized by his colleagues across Canada for being a leader in the impaired driving situations. There is also, and, again, I think that these are being done for clarification, but certainly good that they are including it. Again, I think the general public would assume that they would be. It talks about that you would get a reduced death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is convicted in con- nection with the accident of an offence including flight from a police officer.

I would hope, again, that anybody who is prob- ably running from the police has a reason to do so. I suspect that they would– [interjection] Yes, as stated from the member from Steinbach, perhaps not a good reason, and would fall under this new act and under these new regulations or I guess the new act, denial of benefits, that they are putting forward. Another issue that they bring forward on it is talking about reducing death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is convicted in connection with the accident of an offence including theft of a motor vehicle. It would make sense to me.

It would make sense before I read this that it would be good legislation and would probably make me think that it should have already been in that type of legislation, or common sense, I think, might be the word. The last one of the new

section added reduces death benefit if a person claiming the benefit is con- victed in connection with the accident of an offence including take motor vehicle without consent. I guess the onus would be on one or both parties to prove that there was no theft involved or that there was theft involved and that the person involved in the accident had done so without the consent of the person's car or vehicle that it belonged to in the first case. We know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this legis- lation is being brought forward because of the history and because of the Portage example. A trag- edy occurred. Unfortunately, life was lost and a per- son charged. Although that person was sentenced to

566 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 a conditional sentence, he did collect the benefits, and Autopac, Manitoba Public Insurance, was obli- gated to pay him $46,000 in death benefits. Not fully understanding the circumstances and the issues involved, on first blush, I think most people in Manitoba would be offended to think that someone would be able to collect a benefit from an insurance company based on what would be sug- gested an accident that they caused to happen creating that loss of life. I think that was the reaction of Manitobans.

They were mad, obviously, frustrated enough to raise the level of attention by the Minister of Justice and the Minister responsible for MPI (Mr. Mackintosh) to act upon this. I know that our members on this side had asked the minister, there is one thing to have law and have legislation and have policy, the other is to give it the ability and the strength and the power to actually act on that legislation. We see many circumstances throughout our lives where there is a law, but actu- ally the implementation of that law or the outcomes of that law are not necessarily what we expected because someone else's

interpretation, or someone else's understanding of that particular law is pre- sented to a group of people in a different manner. They agree with that person or his argument as opposed to the intent of how the law was first presented to the public. I suspect that is how lawyers make their living. They interpret all the laws in a way that they can best serve their client. Many of them, as we know, try and get into the Legislature as early in their career as they possibly can.

I am not sure if there is a sug- gestion of trying to escape one profession to get into a higher calling, or if they are perhaps trying to escape a profession to–maybe I just will not go there. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that the minister has been asked many questions about this and has responded. I am hoping that the minister has gone out and discussed the issues, not only with MPI, the insurance provider, but also with the impacts from families and situations. The amendment to

section 79(1) will now allow for all claimants to be impacted by the reduction of benefits where the claimant wilfully causes the accident or is convicted. My big- gest concern is in the word "reduces" death benefit. If anybody is involved where it can be proven that the person claiming the benefit has been convicted in connection with the accident, that person should not benefit from that particular accident. I would hope that is what this bill actually means and what it states. * (15:40) I know that there have been some concerns out there expressed by people.

One is the fact that this bill may offload some costs normally borne by Mani- toba Public Insurance. I am assuming, or hoping, that the minister has addressed these issues in the briefing that he has prepared. I know that the concern was the fact that MPI would actually shift costs or offload costs onto Manitoba Health instead of the insurance company which people pay into with the expectation of insurance. I would not want this to become a taxpayers' issue as opposed to an insurance issue. I think the bill is timely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I think that it addresses many of the things that people believe to be already there. I suspect, if we were to go out and take this bill to our constituents, many of them might suggest to us, I already thought that is the way it was or the way it should be and might even question how we write laws, and, sometimes, why could we not figure that out ahead of time and, perhaps, not have to have it make front page news before we respond to something as tragic that has put us in this position today. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I lo ok forward to further debate.

I am sure that there are many people in this Legislature that would like to speak on it. I look forward to members opposite, members of the Gov- ernment who, I believe, will be supporting this bill. I think it is beneficial for us all, from both sides of this House, to hear the Government's position and hear some of their members speak on a bill that they are going to be asked at some time to stand and support by their Government.

We on this side look forward to their comments and some of their concerns, and, perhaps, as the debate moves forward and into the committee stages, members on this side of the House, after reviewing the briefing that was given by the current minister, we may have some suggestions or offers of improve- ment. But I certainly look forward to some members opposite's position on this bill, and I look forward to the continued discussion on this same.

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 567 Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in the House to put just a few words of comment regarding the bill before us here this afternoon, Bill 16, The Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act. Certainly, I think I would like to begin by com- mending the comments that I just heard from my colleagues. Previously th e honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Hawranik) put some words on the record.

Again, I think it is important to note that in preparation to speaking towards this bill we rely very heavily, I would say, on the advice and on the briefings from the Member for Lac du Bonnet. As he did yesterday on debate on a particular bill in this House, he did an admirable job for our caucus. I know each member of our caucus would thank him for the work that he has done in putting forward those records. Just prior to me, I had the pleasure, and it certainly was a pleasure, to listen to the comments that were placed on the record by my colleague and my friend the Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed).

Always, as a new member, I find it instruc- tive and informative and very useful to listen to the comments of those who are more senior than me in this House, and certainly the Member for Turtle Mountain is no exception. I have had the opportunity to know him for a number of years and to be able to hear the advice that he has given on this bill is helpful to me as a new member. Certainly, I would know that it is probably somewhat ironic in these days of increasing fees for MPIC and of various licences that I would stand in the House today and support legislation that would reduce benefits under MPIC.

It is perhaps ironic that while fees are going up I am in fact going to stand up and support legislation that will reduce benefits for those who are participants under the MPIC scheme in Manitoba. The support will be found on this side of the Legislature for this particular piece of legislation because it follows a fundamental principle in law that we know that those who commit crimes, that those who participate in criminal activities should not benefit as a result of that particular participation.

I think that this bill, Bill 16, takes a step in that direction by ensuring that those who are participating in and then ultimately convicted of certain offences are not able to be benefited under the MPIC scheme. Without doubt, I think that fulfils that important principle of law. I think that it is why it will find support from members throughout this particular House.

I note that the bill will expand the list of Criminal Code provisions to which offences that are undertaken and ultimately result in a conviction in a court of law, that those who participate in Criminal Code provisions such as theft of a motor vehicle and flight from police will not be able to claim benefits under The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act. That, I think, makes perfe ct sense. It does lead us to ask certain questions as it relates to theft of a motor vehicle.

Certainly, the Government will have some motivation in this current time of increasing motor vehicle theft in Manitoba to remove it from the coverage under MPIC, not only because it makes sense as legislation, as a principle of justice, but also because of the increasing numbers. We do not say that lightly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard some of the statistics that were put on the record by previous speakers. I think that they bear repeating, not because they are good statistics, but in fact because it is time I think that certain issues are addressed as they relate to vehicle theft in our province.

We know that there are a variety of reasons that thefts continue to increas e. One of them, I would note, would be the proliferation of gangs, organized crime in the province. A variety of gangs, of junior gangs or senior gangs like the Hells Angels, have participation in these crimes. That causes the rates to go up. We know that the current government does not have a very good track record, does not have a very good track record at all as it relates to organized crime in our province, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is something that has been considered in this House, and it has been debated.

Whether in the context of Question Period, whether it is in the context of various bills, that is an issue that simply has not been addressed properly by the Government, that has not been taken seriously, that in fact there has been a great deal of paper that has been used. There have been a great number of trees that have fallen in the sacrifice of news releases of what the particular government is doing on issues of organized crime, but the results have not been there.

568 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 Certainly, that is a concern to myself and to my colleagues on this side of the House. I daresay that it is a concern to all Manitobans across this great province that there is not any type of substantive effort being made to ensure that organized crime and the resulting crimes such as vehicle theft are reduced in this province. But I mentioned that it would be worth it to put some comment on the record regarding the sad statistics, the increase of vehicle theft within the province.

Certainly, I noted in one of the statistics that I recently saw that in 1999 there were just over 10 000 motor vehicle thefts in Manitoba, not a number that anyone is pleased with. We would like to see that number to have been down. But then we look in the year 2002, for example, there were over 12 000. So we see the increase of vehicle theft in Mani- toba over that very short period of time. I suspect that if we did a corresponding study to also look at the increase of gang activity and gang proliferation within our province, we might see a corresponding number.

So it is not obviously the only cause of increased vehicle theft in the province, but it is one that needs to be considered, and certainly it is one, I think, that needs to be addressed. In the context of this particular legislation, when we look at things such as vehicle theft in Manitoba, I notice that there were some comments by a spokes- person for MPIC, Mr. Brian Smiley, who said that overall there was an increase of 5.6 percent in Mani- toba in 2003 when it comes to vehicle theft. * (15:50) Mr.

Speaker in the Chair It makes one wonder what the overall plan is of this particular government to have a reduction in those numbers. We have seen news releases. We have seen press conferences, probably more press conferences than I can remember, more press con- ferences than the media can remember, but that has not really changed the statistics. In fact, the numbers continue to grow and grow each year.

Manitobans, I think, who are victims of this crime become increasingly frustrated, increas- ingly disappointed that they do not see any real plan of the Government to bring those numbers down, that they do not see a real movement or any kind of initiative or creative initiative of the Government to bring it down. So it is not anything that we are proud of when we see in the newspapers that a spokesperson for MPIC states that Winnipeg has one of the worst vehicle theft rates per capita in North America. It is not something that we will be putting on our licence plates.

We will not be removing the slogan of "Friendly Manitoba" and "Welcome to Manitoba." We will not be putting on there, "Welcome to Manitoba, the Vehicle Theft Capital of Canada." An Honourable Member: Of the universe. Mr. Goertzen: Of the universe, my honourable colleague from Springfield suggests. It is not something that we would be proud of. One wonders what kind of real measures this Gov- ernment is prepared to take rather than just simply sending out another press release, rather than simply issuing another statement and having a press confer- ence.

It all sounds good and probably, for the supper news, it might convince a few Manitobans that action is happening. When you look at the statistics, the real raw data, you realize that nothing positive is hap- pening. In fact the only thing that is happening is negative, as numbers increase and they increase and they increase. We know that, in the context of the current legislation, there are also those who are convicted of, for example, impaired driv ing do not receive certain benefits under MPIC. I think we would suggest, all members of this Chamber, I would daresay, would suggest, that is a good thing.

There again, it fulfils one of the principles of justice that those who parti- cipate in crime or criminal activity should not benefit from their participation in that particular activity. It also brings the questions about the incidences of impaired driving within the province. There has been a great deal of attention that has been brought regard- ing stricter punishments of those who are convicted of impaired driving. I think each of us would say that that is good. A lot of the initiatives were brought in by the former Conservative government, bringing in some of the strictest legislation against drunk driving.

I know the former ministers of Justice that were involved in that particular government took very

March 3, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 569 seriously the crime of drinking and driving and led the country in terms of bringing in punishments. It has served a couple of purposes and the principles of justice and of sentencing when we talk about specific and general deterrents. One wonders in the state that we are in if the Government is doing enough, not just on the punish- ment side or the conviction side, but what is hap- pening on the preventive side.

When you talk about prevention, I would say that all of us would hope that the Government is doing all that it can to ensure not just those who are convicted of drinking and driving are punished but there is some type of scheme, some type of overall policy to ensure that there is pre- vention of drinking and driving. One element of that is education. That is an ongoing type of concern that we have in the province–to ensure that there is enough education so that th ere is an awareness that drinking and driving will not be tolerated in the province.

You wonder if there are othe r things that the Government could do in terms of providing resources to our police officers and ensuring that there are enough resources on the ground to ensure that there was also a reduction. I understand that the current minister of highways and transportation is considering allowing photo radar in rural Manitoba. There again is an issue of education versus pun- ishment. One wonders if the Government is also as committed to putting up such things as reader boards for speeders.

There are a number of my constituents who have said that those particular measures like reader boards, when they se e them, it causes them to slow down and causes them to be aware of their speed immediately at the time that they see that. That truly is a measure of prevention because it causes somebody to slow down or be aware that they might be speeding in that particular area, and it brings safety right at that moment.

Issuing a ticket two weeks later to somebody in the mail might have a particular punitive effect and, perhaps, over the course of time, if there ar e statistics, perhaps there would be a general deterrence. I am not certain if even those statistics are available, but there is the contrast between punishment and prevention, and about education and punishment. The cautions that I put forward in terms of trying to reduce the number of instances of theft of a motor vehicle, I would ask the Government to take to heart.

In some ways I think it is unfortunate that issues like theft of a motor vehicle or perhaps if I could relate it to hallway medicine or the amount of time people wait trying to get diagnostic care, trying to get serv- ice in an emergency room, it seems that these are issues that people have learned or it seems that the expectations of Manitobans perhaps are not as high as they once were.

I would certainly recommend that the Gov- ernment not only look at the punishment side of offences as relates to motor vehicle infractions, but also that they would look at the prevention and the education side, because that , certainly, is an impor- tant component of any legislation that comes forward. I know that I have mentioned in this House before about the voluntary measures that I have taken to educate myself about the work of the police in our province. I have had the opportunity in recent months to do voluntary ride-alongs with the RCMP. I stress that they were voluntary.

Certainly, they gave me an insight as to the work that the RCMP does on a day-to-day basis. There is no doubt that one of the significant concerns that they have is regarding drinking and driving and also vehicle theft. We note also, and it was noted by my colleague from Turtle Mountain, that also included now in the Legislation will be reduced, and I believe it is reduced, benefits for those who are involved in flight from police. That again, Mr. Speaker, seems to be a common sense addition to this particular Legislation and probably one that is overdue.

On that ground, I would say that the Government has taken a positive step. We know that often the public perceives that we do not agree on anything, on issues within this Legislature. But we know, as those who are here every day, that there are of ten things that we agree on, often things that we can say that this makes sense and we know we have to move together on this in agreement and consensus.

Certainly, the addition and the expansion of the bill to include Criminal Code offences of theft of a motor vehicle and flight from police would be one of those times where I think we will find a wide range of agreement in this House and will be thankful for the bill and move forward in a positive way. They have become frustrated that there is a long waiting time for diagnostic treatments and there is a

570 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 3, 2004 long waiting time for care within hospitals. They become frustrated that in fact there are a great number of thefts. They have almost become desensi- tized, in a way. I think that that is unfortunate. I do not think that there should ever be a time when a Manitoban would look and say that it is acceptable to have 12 000, 13 000 and 14 000 cases of vehicle theft a year. I do not think there is ever a time when a Manitoban should think it is acceptable to be in a waiting room for eight or nine hours waiting for the attention of a medical professional.

I do not think it is acceptable for somebody to be in a hospital hallway for days on end as they await a room. It is one of those cases, I would say to you that we have to expect better from our Government. We cannot simply say that this is the way it is. We cannot simp

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-14
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 14.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9feb7bf524224d7b44a434681578672df22bbd05

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