Manitoba Hansard — 9 June 2004 (Sitting 52A, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-52a

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. 52A - 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 9, 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. VACANT Minto 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. VACANT Turtle Mountain WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

3147 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 9, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering, just to get more time on the bills from committee, is there agreement of the House to have the committee reports from Legislative Affairs and Social and Economic Development, so that we can move to report stage or third reading and concurrence, as appropriate. Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement of the House? Hon.

Jon Gerrard (River Heights): There was some noise in the Chamber, and I did not fully hear what the Minister of Just ice (Mr. Mack intosh) was asking for. Could you make sure? Mr. Speaker: Okay, honourable Government House Leader, would you mind repeating that? Mr. Mackintosh: At 1:30 p.m. we have the committee reports from Legislative Affairs and Social and Economic Development.

Just to get an early start and have more time on those bills from committee, I wonder if there is leave to have those reports presented and then move to consideration of those bills at report stage or third reading and concurrence at whatever stage is appropriate. Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement? [Agreed] COMMITTEE REPORTS Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Fifth Report Mr. Daryl Reid (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its fifth report– An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs presents the following as its Fifth Report. Meetings: Your committee met on Monday, June 7, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. M atters under Consideration: Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques Bill 25–The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les divertissements Bill 27–The Agricultural Societies Act;

Loi sur les sociétés agricoles Bill 30–The Safe Schools Charter (Various Acts Amended); Charte de la sécurité dans les écoles (modification de diverses dispositions législatives) Bill 32–The Provincial Railways Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi su r les chemins de fer provinciaux Bill 36–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route Bill 37–The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail Committee Membership: Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting: Hon. Ms. Wowchuk for Mr. Nevakshonoff Hon. Mr. Bjornson for Hon. Mr. Selinger Mrs. Taillieu for Mr. Faurschou

3148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Substitutions made, by leave, during committee proceedings: Hon. Ms. Allan for Hon. Ms. Wowchuk Mr. Schuler for Mr. Cummings Public Presentations: Your committee heard one presentation on Bill 19– The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques, from the following organization: Brian Ardern, Manitoba Teachers Society Your committee heard three presentations on Bill 25–The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les divertissements, from the following individuals: Maureen Wilson, Private Citizen Marianne Cerilli, Private Citizen Bev Ridd, Private Citizen Your committee heard one presentation on Bill 27– The Agricultural Societies Act;

Loi sur les sociétés agricoles, from the following organization: Lynda Witty, Manitoba Association of Agricultural Societies Your committee heard two presentations on Bill 30– The Safe Schools Charter (Various Acts Amended); Charte de la sécurité dans les écoles (modification de diverses dispositions législatives), from the following individual and organization: Roland Pokorny, Private Citizen Edward Lipsett, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Written Submissions: Your committee received two written submissions on Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques, from the following organizations: Lori Johnson, Winnipeg School Division Wilfred Mackay, Rolling River First Nation Your committee received one written submission on Bill 25–The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les divertissements, from the following organization: Lanny McInnes, Retail Council of Canada Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les écoles publiques Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 25–The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les divertissements Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 27–The Agricultural Societies Act;

Loi sur les sociétés agricoles Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendments: THAT Clause 7 of the Bill be amended (

a) by renumbering it as Clause 7(1); (

b) by striking out “100” and substituting “50”; and (

c) by adding the following as Clause 7(2) Minister’s approval for headquarters within 50 km 7(2) Despite subsection (1), the minister may, on request from the persons who wish to organize a society, permit the society’s headquarters to be closer than 50 km to the headquarters of another society THAT Clause 33(2) of the Bill be amended by striking out “classes of so cieties” and substituting “associations.” Bill 30–The Safe Schools Charter (Various Acts Amended); Charte de la sécurité dans les écoles (modification de diverses dispositions législatives) Your committee agreed to report this bill, with the following amendments:

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3149 THAT the proposed subclause 47.1(2)(b)(ii), as set out in Clause 1(3) of the Bill, be amended by adding “unreasonably” after “discriminating.” Bill 32–The Provincial Railways Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi su r les chemins de fer provinciaux Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 36–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 3–The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment, on a counted vote of yeas 6, nays 4. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Ms. Irvin-Ross), that the report of the committee be received. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), seconded by the honourable–would the honourable Member for Fort Garry take her seat, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Fourth Report Ms.

Marilyn Brick (Chairp erson of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development presents the following as its fourth report– An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development presents the following as its Fourth Report. Meetings: Your committee met on Monday, June 7, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building.

Matters Under Consideration: Bill 10–The Gaming Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission de régie du jeu Bill 23–The Red River Floodway Act;

Loi sur le canal de dérivation de la rivière Rouge Bill 31–The Floodway Authority Act;

Loi sur la Commission du canal de dérivation Bill 33–The Public Servants Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance des employés du gouvernement Bill 34–The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Université de Winnipeg Bill 35–The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions Bill 38–The Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pêche Membership Resignations / Elections: Substitutions received prior to commencement of meeting: Mrs. Mitchelson for Mrs. Driedger Mr. Goertzen for Mr. Loewen Mr. Faurschou for Mrs. Rowat Hon. Mr. Sale for Hon. Mr. Rondeau Hon. Mr. Ashton for Mr. Santos Hon. Ms. McGifford for Mr. Schellenberg Hon. Mr. Selinger for Hon. Mr. Struthers Public Presentations: Your committee heard 1 presentation on Bill 10–The Gaming Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission de régie du jeu, from the following organization:

3150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Elizabeth Fleming and Valinda Morris, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba Your committee heard 8 presentations on Bill 23 - The Red River Floodway Act;

Loi sur le canal de dérivation de la rivière Rouge, from the following individuals and/or organizations: Dr. James Shapiro, Private Citizen Jack Jonasson, Coalition for Flood Protection North of the Floodway Jim Stinson, Private Citizen Robert Duerksen, 768 Association Inc. Ian Wishart, Keystone Agricultural Producers Maxine Clifton, Private Citizen Paul Clifton, Private Citizen Doug Chorney, Private Citizen Written Submissions: Your committee received 1 written submission for Bill 23–The Red River Floodway Act;

Loi sur le canal de dérivation de la rivière Rouge, from the following individual: Gerry Bristow, Private Citizen Your committee received 1 written submission for Bill 35–The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions, from the following organization: Bob Lafond, Credit Union Central of Manitoba Bills Considered and Reported: Bill 10–The Gaming Control Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Commission de régie du jeu Your committee agreed to report this bill with the following amendments. THAT the proposed clause 57.5, as set out in Clause 24 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), adding "or" at the end of clause (

c) and adding the following after clause (c): (

d) rescinding an order in council that specifies a licensing authority. THAT the proposed clause 66.1, as set out in Clause 27 of the Bill, be amended (

a) in the

section heading, by adding "decisions and" before "orders"; and (

b) in the part before clause (a), by striking out "An order" and substituting "A decision or order." Bill 23–The Red River Floodway Act;

Loi sur le canal de dérivation de la rivière Rouge Your committee agreed to report this bill with the following amendment: THAT Clause 5(2) of the Bill be replaced with the following: Appeal to Court of Appeal 5(2) A decision of the Disaster Assistance Appeal Board under subsection (1) may be appealed upon a question of law to The Court of Appeal with leave granted by a judge of that court. Application for leave to appeal 5(3) An application for leave to appeal must (

a) state the grounds of the appeal; and (b)be made within 30 days after the date of the decision sought to be appealed, or within such further time as the judge under special circumstances allows. Notice of the application must be served on the government in accordance with

section 11 of The Proceedings Against the Crown Act. Bill 31–The Floodway Authority Act;

Loi sur la Commission du canal de derivation Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 33–The Public Servants Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance des employés du gouvernement Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Bill 34–The University of Winnipeg Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'Université de Winnipeg Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment.

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3151 Bill 35–The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions Your committee agreed to report this bill with the following amendment: THAT Clause 3(2)(

b) of the Bill be replaced with the following: (

b) by striking out “French-speaking residents of Manitoba” and substituting “French-speaking individuals who, except as otherwise permitted by this Act, are resident in Manitoba.” Bill 38–The Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pêche Your committee agreed to report this bill without amendment. Ms. Brick: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it would be our intention to have the Committee of Supply meet in 255 to consider concurrence. If you would call the bills reported from the committees in the House this morning, and I understand that arrangements are being made to distribute lists of those bills so that members will know the order of the legislation. Mr.

Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 23(5), the Committee of Supply will meet in Room 254. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Santos), please take the Chair in Room 254. The Committee of Supply will meet in Room 254. Point of Order Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Inkster, on a point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

We are just going to just express some concern that there should have been some sort of a listing on the Order Paper, we believe, in regard to the third reading, but I understand that the Government House Leader is going to provide us a list prior to us getting underway on the debate. We just want to emphasize that we do believe it should have been put onto the Order Paper. * (10:10) Mr.

Speaker: On the honourable member's point of order, for the House, the report of the committee was just received this morning, so it is impossible to list the bills on the Order Paper, because we just had the reports from the committee. Mr. Mackintosh: Just in answer, the report of the committee is being distributed to members, Mr. Speaker, noting the bills th at are before the House along with their description. I think we will just spend a few minutes, because it is important that that list be distributed before we even begin debate. * * * Mr. Mackintosh: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call bills in the following order. These are the bills from Legislative Affairs, 19, 25, 27, 30, 32, 36, 37 and then would you call, as time allows, from Social and Economic Development 10, 23, 31, 33, 34, 35 and 38. As members have received notice there are report stages on Bills 23 and 31. * (10:20) CONCURRENCE AND THIRD READINGS Bill 19–The Public Schools Amendment Act Hon. Gord Mackintosh (M inister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that Bill 19, The Public Schools Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): This bill is essentially an omnibus bill that amends several

3152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 sections of The Public Schools Act codifying rules regarding eligibility of candidates for school trustee, creating new wards for rese rves within existing school districts, defining the form of teachers contracts, allowing electronic school board meetings, and creating the Frontier Collegiate Institute Advisory Committee. Mr. Speaker, just a couple of brief concerns which I have mentioned before certainly in committee, but I will just for the record indicate what those are just one more time.

Certainly, although it is commendable that rules regarding disqualification of school trustees be codified in legislation with standards similar to municipal and provincial candidates, the decision to bar candidates convicted of criminal offences for a period of four years after their sentence expires could be unconstitutional and goes beyond the guidelines laid out by The Elections Act, The Legislative Assembly Act and The Local Authorities Election Act. So I just, at this time, would like to caution the minister that this

section could be challenged and could be found unconstitutional. Another

section is that the bill also enables the minister to make regulations prescribing the form content and use of teacher agreements. We certainly saw at the committee stage where the presentations were made from MTS, and there was also a presentation, a written presentation, submitted by the Winnipeg School Division. I think when it comes to these regulations, when they come forward, I just want to encourage the minister to consult with all stakeholders with respect to this area with teachers' contracts. I think certainly there could be significant costs associated with this.

I think the school divisions deserve to be consulted when it comes to this. Certainly, the Winnipeg School Division in its presentation indicated that if this is within their jurisdiction, the local school division's jurisdiction, there will be costs incurred that those school divisions will have to incur. So I caution the minister to listen to the school divisions, to some of the costs that will be incurred as a result of changing of some of the forms with respect to teachers' contracts.

I hope when he is looking at bringing forward these regulations and establishing these regulations that he ill take those into consideration. w Having said that, I believe that would conclude my remarks on this particular bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I do not need to speak long on Bill 19.

I was there for the committee and heard comments from representatives of the teachers, as has been pointed out from the member from Tuxedo in regard to th e form and also in regard to just the general way in which workers or teachers, in particular substitutes, are classified and there is some concern in that area. The bill itself also deals with prescribed wards for school divisions and other issues of that nature. In general, I think it is a bill that we can be supportive of. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 19, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 25–The Amusements Amendment Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): As Deputy House Leader here, I would like to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, (Mr. Selinger), that Bill 25, The Amusements Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr.

Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): It is a pleasure to put just a few words on third record on the bill that we are debating here today. I know there has been opportunity to hear comments on the bill in committee, and our critic, the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu) has put some comments on the record at second reading regarding the particular piece of legislation. I had a similar opportunity.

Clearly, we have, I think, found some common ground on this particular piece of legislation as it relates to the concern of ensuring that some mechanism, some additional tool for parents to ensure that they have some indication of the type of game that is being engaged in, the type of game that

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3153 children may be playing with, and from that perspective, we find this bill to be acceptable. Having said that, we have raised some concerns regarding how exactly the bill will be enforced, the enforcement mechanism, to the extent that there will be enforcement, and also so me of the concerns that have come from retailers in the industry regarding whether or not there will be an additional fee that would be placed because of this particular piece of legislation.

So, while we have agreement with the intention of the legislation, I think that there have been some very valid concerns that have been placed on the record by our critic on this particular issue, but the general intention of the legislation has found, I think, acceptance here in the Legislature and with the public. Thank you very much. * (10:30) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, very quickly, I did get a chance to speak on it during the second reading and also address it a bit in committee.

There were a couple of areas in which we felt the government could have given at least some consideration or some comment on. One is in regard to the whole arcade issue. This is something that was raised by a committee, a presenter at committee. The issue of the Internet was another issue that I had raised at the committee level. There is no doubt we cannot prevent people from downloading stuff off the Internet, but maybe there is something that government can do in terms of circulation once things have been downloaded.

I think that this is a start, but it is important that we acknowledge it as that, as a start, and there are no doubt other things that we are going to be able to do. One of the presenters, Ms. Cerilli, actually did, I thought, an admirable job in her comments, as did other presenters. There ar e ideas such as after a number of violations a retailer could lose its right to potentially rent and sell. So, if we have someone that has a problem in terms of consistently distributing, and it is proven to be that, to minors, that there is some sort of a penalty, which brings in the issue of enforcement.

I think that this is an area in which we need to have more discussion, more debate, and, hopefully, sometime in the future we will see additional legislation or regulation that will address some of the other concerns that were raised. Thank you. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I would just like to as well put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 25, The Amusements Amendment Act. I think it is long overdue that this act be brought forward. I know that there was a report done in 1999 from the Manitoba Film Classification Board suggesting that there was a need to look at rating these video games.

I know that the member from Lord Roberts, who was in opposition at the time, spoke out quite strongly on this issue. Then, when the report came across in 1999 and they formed government, they did nothing with that report and did not actually bring this legislation forward until now, five years later. Of course, we would have to wonder what took so long for them to bring forward this legislation when they were so opposed to it while in opposition. We certainly agree that this issue of violent video games is one which needs to be addressed.

These games have escalated in their nature, in their violent nature, in their sexually explicit nature, and they are an interactive game, not like watching something on a screen, wher e you are just actually watching something, but these are participatory games in which the person playing the game actually causes the action to occur, which I think could cause some aggression stimulation. These aggressions, I think there is a potential danger here that they could spill over into the daily lives of schoolchildren or people in the workplace or in family situations. So I think there is a need to look at that.

I think there is also a need to have balance here. I think this legislation in no way should pre-empt parents from doing their job and policing, I suppose, if that is the term I can use, what their children view in their homes. We certainly know that, of course, children could get these games in a number of other places, but parents do have a role to play here in educating their children and educating themselves, I think, as to the nature of these games and watching what their children are doing.

So in no way should the legislation be seen to pre-empt or take over what is the role and responsibility of the parents. There were some concerns with this bill brought up in committee. We thank the presenters, who did a

3154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 good job of bringing these issues forward. One of the issues brought forward in the written proposal was, hopefully, that this legislation will not result in increased fees for licencing for video game distributors and retailers. That this would be fairly cost-prohibitive, I think, is maybe the fear here.

As well, the segregation of these games, if there is segregation for these games, they should be put on a separate shelf behind a screen or be under a counter or whatever, but if the segregation anticipated here would be that they would have to be housed in a separate area or room of the video game retailer or distributor, I think that would cause undue hardship for some of the businesses that distribute and rent these games.

Also, another thing, with the technology, how it is evolving at such an exponential speed, I think that we can expect to see some of these video games being downloaded right from the Internet onto your cell phone and being played off the cell phone video screen. I think that this is something that needs to be looked at as well. Are we going to be looking at regulating all cell phone retailers as potential video game retailers? Certainly, in the media there have been conflicting ideas.

Certainly, there have been concerns raised by groups that these games need to be regulated and monitored; and secondly, though, there are people who say, "We have the right to choose what we look at and should not be done through legislation." I think, though, that in cases like this, where there are ch ances that some children will fall through the cracks and be able to get these types of games and play them, to err on the side of caution is always a good thing. As I said before, in no way should parents be thinking that, because there is legislation here, they do not have to worry about it anymore.

I think that would be a very big mistake. I think that education of parents and education of children and the nature of these games has to be addressed. Hopefully, this can be done through educational processes rath er than through heavy- handed legislation and "heavy-handed" is a word that has been used in some cases in this legislation. However, having said that, I think that this is legislation that we can support. Certainly, when it comes to protecting the educational processes of young children, we do want to be cautious here and I will look forward to passing this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 25, The Amusements Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 27–The Agricultural Societies Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. Mc Gifford), that Bill 27, The Agricultural Societies Act, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for the third time and passed.

Motion presented. * (10:40) Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I would like to rise to put a few comments on regarding Bill 27. As we all know, especially in rural Manitoba, I think a lot of people from the city of Winnipeg and Brandon do have the opportunity to come to rural Manitoba and enjoy the ag society fairs and so forth that take place throughout the province. I understand the other night in committee there was an amendment put forward to amend the act the way it came forward.

That was to allow the existing ag societies to make changes if they had to be changed or a name changed, and that amendment I think makes the bill quite easy, and it is ready to go ahead and go into third and final reading. But I know in our constituency of Lakeside we had a situation in the town of Stonewall where the ag society had to be moved due to area, and they had to dissolve that particular ag society and start up a new one. So I am sure the way the Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk) made these changes, and we are glad that she did it on our recommendation from this side of the House, that it will allow those ag societies to go ahead and continue and keep in existence. I know the concern that I had with the act, Mr. Speaker, was quite clear, that being so important to

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3155 rural Manitoba with the ag societies, I would not want to see the limitation on any ag society, especially the existing ones , as it is a dying breed, and I know the Legionnaires are one of the other groups that are having membership problems. We do not want to see limits of 50 kilometres to be put on, especially the existing ones. These forefathers of ours saw the wisdom to keep ag societies alive, and we want to make sure that each little country fair keeps its own niche.

So, having said that, I think we would like to see the bill move on forward to committee and third and final reading and with that, thank you for your comments. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I just want to make note of the fact that we noticed in the act, as it was originally drafted, that it was government's intent to provide a hundred-kilometre limit for ag societies to be organized within the province.

That the limitation would prevent any community or community organization that wanted to set up an ag society to promote agriculture, to promote the advancement and technology in agriculture, to promote the varietal changes in cropping procedures, they would not be able to set up an office within a hundred kilometres of each other. We thought that was extremely unfortunate. We lobbied pretty hard to put forward an amendment to the bill, and we are very pleased that the government saw fit to amend the act to replace the old provision that indicated limitation on office spacing within rural Manitoba.

However, we also note that the minister conceded to be able to be allowed to give ministerial approval even if the distances were less than 30 kilometres. We want to thank the minister for having given that consideration to the changes that we had requested. Once again, I want to thank the minister. I want to say that we are in support of this bill as it currently is written.

We believe it is an attempt to modernize the act to allow for a smoother flow of funds to the ag societies, as well as allow for the significant changes in transition that are currently happening in rural Manitoba, and the disappearance of many of our population in rural Manitoba, which is the saddest part about the comment to make on this bill. Rural Manitoba is changing dramatically as we speak. Many of the young people are leaving this province that were born and raised in rural Manitoba.

It is unfortunate that this government had not seen fit to take meaningful action to stem the flow of young people off the farms into the urban centres, and indeed other provinces to seek their livelihoods there. Thank you very much. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, just want to put a few words on th e record indicating the tremendous value that the ag societies contribute to our rural communities–it is virtually immeasurable. I want to pay special tribute to Lynda Witty and the Manitoba Association of Agricultural Societies.

I think that credit is probably warranted in that area because that is the umbrella group, if you like, that really did the work necessary in order to make sure that this would, in fact, be a good piece of legislation. My understanding is that they actually did considerable consulting with the 62 different ag societies, and I would just commend them on their efforts in ensuring that we have this legislation which will be given third reading vote shortly. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 27, The Agricultural Societies Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 30–The Safe Schools Charter (Various Acts Amended) Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. Mc Gifford), that Bill 30, The Safe Schools Charter, as amended and reported by the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mrs.

Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Just a few comments with respect to this Bill 30. Certainly, as a mother of two young children who will be entering our school system in the next number of years, the safety of our children in our schools is of utmost

3156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 importance to me and to my peers and to a number of parents, certainly, in our province. I believe that children's safety in our schools should be a right and not a privilege. I know the previous member from Fort Garry, the previous Education critic, had spent a great deal of time with respect to bullying in schools and consulting a number of stakeholders in the community. We have been asking the government to come forward with legislation to deal with this for quite some time now, so we are pleased that it has finally come to fruition.

However, there are some concerns we do have with the legislation as it does stand and that is because in some of the local communities the school boards have already done, and some schools have done, a great deal of work with respect to setting out guidelines to deal with some of the concerns associated with bullying in school.

I have mentioned this before but I will mention again, that we hope the minister will, in coming forward with regulations, consult the school divisions and the schools, particularly those that have put a great deal of time, effort and money into establishing their own criteria when it comes to how to deal with these circumstances in the schools. Again, I encourage the minister to consult on this and do an extensive consultation process to move forward but, certainly, I am pleased that where we even have the opportunity to debate this in the House, Mr.

Speaker, and I believe probably the members on both sides agree, that any kind of bullying or anything of that nature that takes place in our schools is very, very serious. Certainly, we take it very seriously on this side of the House. We want to ensure the safety of our children in schools. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to move this on. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 30, The Safe Schools Charter (Various Acts Amended).

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 32–The Provincial Railways Amendment Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 32, The Provincial Railways Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. * (10:50) Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I would like to just concur that we will be moving this bill on to third reading, but I just wanted to say that there are a couple of issues that I had asked for in committee. I know when we were discussing this bill on dealing with The Provincial Railways Amendment Act, Bill 32, that raised some conditions that we were asking for around regulations in this bill. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to put it on the record again that the minister has not brought forward the regulations that would be outlining the proportions of a expense that would be incurred by individuals, the part of the various parties in this bill, but I have been assured by the minister, however, that the rates for installation devices, for new installation devices which were 80 percent by the federal government, 12.5 by the road authority and 7.5 for the short-line under the federal Transport Canada jurisdictions, would be honoured by this government in relation to the short-lines legislation in Manitoba.

Of course, they need this legislation to be able to deal with the short-lines in regard to the expenses that they are dealing with because that was not part of the previous bill that they had when these lines were taken over by the Province. So the 80% federal share would become the 80% provincial share, and if the Province was also the road authority, then their share would go up to 92.5 percent leaving 7.5 percent for the short-line.

I feel comfortable that the short-line railroads that we have in Manitoba, from speaking with them, would indicate and have indicated to me that they are prepared to bear that portion of the cost because there are not that many and, of course, it would be somewhat to their benefit if they are obviously are trying to seek that service.

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3157 There is also an agreement, or an understanding, that I had in committee, Mr. Speaker, with this bill in that the costs of maintenance on a line is 50-50, a split between the road authority and the short-line, and that road authority coul d be the municipality or the Province, whichever the line runs through. The concern that I had with this bill, Mr.

Speaker, and I voiced it in second reading, I believe, and in committee, was that there are a number of existing outstanding agreements that need to be settled on costs in regard to crossings that are presently in Manitoba and some of that arises out of the fact that they have been there for so long that with this legislation coming in now, it is very difficult to determine who was there first in some cases, the road or the roadbed or the rail line.

Of course, I think that I would urge the minister to try to look at a separate body or internally, I guess, we do not need a separate body just look internally within the department, to try to settle as many of these with the short-lines as they could. Of course, that would then very much, I think, encourage the development of our short-line industries wherever we can in the province an d provide them with an opportunity to move more freight and more product in the province in the areas where they can.

There are some of those, obviously, that are very beneficial to the citizens in some remote areas and even areas where there is such a short distance involved, even within the city of Winnipeg, that the major railroads, or national railways, today do not really want to be bothered with carrying that particular product. So, ther efore, there is a really opportunity here, not to compete with those national railroads because they do not want the business anyway in some way shape or form. I would never say that those railroads do not like the business, they do.

But there are some products that they would be able to partner with the short-lines to be able to move that product. We need to encourage the development of that where we can. I think settling some of these existing outstanding crossing costs and fees with those persons would be just a very good thing to do on behalf of the government, to move forward in Manitoba. With those few words, I would say that this bill will pass. We would encourage the government to bring this bill forward to a vote and move a bit ahead in the province. I am just delaying, Mr.

Speaker, because I am looking at when this bill comes into force and of course it is on a day to be fixed by proclamation. I think I have voiced my concern there earlier, in second reading, that we need not delay this much further. If we know what the proportions are under the old Transportation Act, I really feel that there is not much point in delaying it unless the government has some hidden agenda in regard to this. I do not think they do in regard to this particular bill.

I think that they have indicated to me, and I will take them at their word, that they have set out the percentages that would be looked at in this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage that this bill be moved on to final assent. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, just to put a few words on the reco rd in regard to Bill 32, prior to its passing. It is interesting, the minister in committee, I believe it was the minister and others, talked about the problems with railway crossings and the need to look at improvements.

It is amazing to the degree in which people unfortunately, at times, attempt to try their luck on railroad crossings to the degree where you will see a vehicle pull up and be caught in between the railroad crossings as the oncoming trains are coming to racing trains. Th ere is a need for us to give special attention. You know, most drivers, and when I say most, we are talking absolute majority of 90 percent-plus that respect these intersecti ons of sorts.

In fact, I would suggest to you that it is a very, very small percentage that do put themselves and quite often others in a position of danger by not following closely the rules of the road in regard to railroad crossings. There is an importance for us to recognize the value of maintaining those intersections, or those crossways. This is in essence what this bill is going to be doing. We want those railroad crossings to be safe in themselves. What we find is that over time there is a need for us to ensure that they are properly being maintained.

We look at this bill as one that is enabling for the legislation, which will help in the constructing and maintaining and improving, if you like, a railroad crossing that crosses our highways. The key there is the formulas. We look forward to seeing the

3158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 formulas being brought forward in such a fashion that we will see the act soon be proclaimed, relatively soon after its passage and third reading. With those few words, we are prepared to see it go. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 32, The Provincial Railways Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 36–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act Hon.

Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), that Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): As has been pointed out in the committee in regard to this bill, it is applaudable in the sense that we see the bill in its present form.

The concern is that we trust that the motivations in terms of th e increased fines should not be there to increase ge neral revenues. I have not really had the opportunity to debate the bill in second reading, but I do not see any real need to add more words than what I have just stated, Mr. Speaker. The concern is the motivation with regard to this bill. All in all, it is a relatively positive bill. Thank you. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I was appreciative of the opportunity to put some words on Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, in third reading.

I was just wondering, as we were speaking to Bill 32, if the member from Inkster was really talking about 32 or 36 there for a minute when he had cars stopping on the railroad track, because that is part of Bill 36, and I– An Honourable Member: Well, that is why I did not have to say as much on 36. * (11:00) Mr. Maguire: I know that is why he kept his comments short on 36, he says. I know that there is a new category here, this new category of vehicle, the power-assisted bicycles. This is a bill that is su pported by many sectors of the industry, particularly in our police forces and firefighters.

I am sure the same comments would come from the ambulance and emergency personnel in the province of Manitoba as well, because this is a very, I think, just common -sense bill in regard to something that we would all like to see in relation to the actions in the bill that allow us to do things like stay off of railroad crossings with any part of your vehicle, have a separate category for a power- assisted bicycle, wear helmets and all the regular rules of the road that pertain to riding a bicycle or pertinent to this new category.

Of course, you do not want a type of vehicle out there that is not covered by the laws in that regard. While we do not want to be inhibiting the development of any particular sector, I think we want to make sure that we are in compliance with those areas. A concern that I have had, and I have spoken to this before, is that this government is using this as an opportunity to take more taxes out of citizens by the increased level of fines that they have got. Mr.

Harry Schellenberg, Acting Speaker, in the Chair We know what really needs to be done there, and that is in regard to these funds being in parallel with Bill 12, the Trucking Productivity Improvement Fund bill. That is a circumstance that allows these fines to go into individual levels of pockets of roads around the province of Manitoba so that they can in fact be used for purposes of repairs on those roads. I have just come from concurrence with the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Lemieux), where he has outlined to me the new style that the government is trying to record the maintenance and capital costs in regard to transportation. So it is very clear from these bills, this type of bill, that they ar e doing everything they can to use some funds in those areas to replace the maintenance costs of the present capital budget in regard to highways. I am concerned about that. I am not concerned as much about the actual being able to

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3159 allow enforcement personne l to stop people for not moving over at an emergency site or on highways where there are double lanes that allow them to move over and slow down to the speed limits that are required, particularly at work sites. I note that it is only when working personnel are at those sites, actually construction workers working. Otherwise, they are the same as regular speed limits.

So I just want to say that the main concern that I have with this bill is in the whole area of the increased tax grab that this bill allows the government to work on in regard to the high, high levels of fines that they have increased. There are a few new areas in there that allow them to extend the present tax grab that they are putting on citizens of Manitoba in relation to this bill. While the areas of enforcement are somewhat common sense, I think we will be watching very closely to see what kind of levels they go to on this.

We know that this government is struggling to keep its books balanced and in fact has not been able to for the last four years. So I just encourage them to take a close look. The example that really comes out in my mind is the fine for running a red light, and of course we do not want people to do that. It is not only dangerous for their own lives but the others in the intersection when they are walking or driving. It has gone up five times in January. Of course the government did not need a bill to do that. They have done it already.

This bill is just another area that allows for more fines to be levied and extends the kind of dollars that can be grabbed by the New Democratic government in the province of Manitoba. It is to try and help out their own funding. So fines like $5 a kilometre and fines for speeding offences occurring in identified construction zones, once you get to a certain level that is over and above th e regular ones, there are many that are much higher than that; $12 a kilogram over some of those areas of weights are also a concern.

I think that rather than go through the seven areas that I did in second reading and in committee that I will leave it at that. As I said earlier, we will be recommending that this bill be passed, Mr. Acting Speaker, that it move on, because we believe that as I said the areas that are outlined are common sense in regards to the types of situations that we are faced with. We too are on the side of the emergency personnel in this area, and we want to make sure that we protect those citizens that are out there looking after policing, ambulance and emergency services and those areas, and our firefighters as well.

So, with those few words, I would move that this, recommend at least, that this bill move on to being accepted later in the session. Thank you. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): Any further speakers? Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. The Acting Speaker (Schellenberg): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Bill 37–The Labour Relations Amendment Act Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. Mc Gifford), that Bill 37, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; la Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, reporting from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and now be read for a third time and passed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): Moved by the Minister of Finance, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education, that Bill 37, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, be reported from the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs, be concurred in and be now read for a third time and passed. * (11:10) Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr.

Acting Speaker, I want to put a few comments on the record in regard to Bill 37, a bill that we believe is an attempt to try to make a bad situation look a little bit better. If you watch a lot of the TV shows that are out now, you have these extreme makeovers for homes where contractors go in and repair and rebuild old

3160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 homes. If Bill 44 was one of these homes, unlike on these TV shows where they rip out rotten wood, where they take down walls and do serious repairs, what Bill 37 does for Bill 44, the previous labour bill, is it just wallpapers over all the glaring errors and mistakes of Bill 44. I would like to point out to the government, like I did on previous occasions, that not just did Bill 44 usher in the dark Doer government days of 1999 where we have had strife, where we have had union pitted against employers unlike seen ever before in the history of this province.

Bill 44 was poorly thought out. It was poorly written. It is anti- democratic, anti-worker, anti-business. We sat in this House until almost the end of August, debating a bill which damaged the reputation of the province, which damaged our ability for business to move forward. We pointed out to the government, we pointed out to the minister at that time, that this was poorly written and that forever in time the government would be coming back and would be, once again, trying to paper over the glaring mistakes that were in that particular piece of legislation. Thus, we have today in front of us Bill 37.

Bill 44 is sort of the first

chapter of the dark Doer government days of labour relations in Manitoba. We have seen come out of that the floodway fiasco where we have seen an enormous kickback, I mean I would almost say of federal Liberal proportions, taking place here in Manitoba by the Doer government and the NDP. We are seeing labour management relations deteriorating, and, again unprecedented, where we see labour and manage- ment, where we see our business community and labour groups fighting it out in the media, duking it out in our newspapers.

Unparalleled, unheard of before in the history of this province, and it started with the dark days of Bill 44. I think I have mentioned the example, and I will mention it again and again. A really good case in point was made to me where someone said Bill 37 is an attempt to fix the rust on the Titanic after it sank. Bill 37 is a bill that tries to make a little bit of good out of an awful lot of bad, and we believe it does not succeed.

We believe, if the government would have had the courage to do the right thing, if the government would have had the courage to do the proper thing, what would have been in the best interests of all Manitobans, for all working men and women, for the business community, for democracy and fairness, they would have brought forward a bill that would have amended the mistakes of Bill 44 and would have given the democratic vote back to the workers instead of what we are seeing right now with the floodway, forcing men and women under the heavy boot of government to pay fees for something they do not ask for, something they do not want, something they do not desire.

It is just a typical dark- days Doer government, heavy fist going after the working men and women of this province, and that is very unfortunate for Manitoba. Bill 37, which is under the shadow of Bill 44, which has shown us how poor this government is at managing labour management relations, Mr. Acting Speaker, is not a bill that is to be supported. We will wait for the day when government comes back to its senses and corrects those terrible, terrible mistakes that were made. Again, of the more than 700 letters that were sent out by myself as the critic, the responses we got back, what does Bill 37 do?

It divides labour and business. Maybe that was the entire intent of the dark-days Doer government. Maybe that was the intent all along, that they would divide those groups and pit them against each other because dividing Manitobans, producing bad environments for our workers and businesses to work under, that seems to benefit the dark Doer government in its governing of the province, and that is very unfortunate. We have seen throughout the province the cynical 60 days and then it goes to binding arbitration. I remember the minister used to sit here on the end where now the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) sits.

She and I would have the opportunity to discourse periodically, and she never understood her own legislation. She never got it straight. She went out in front of the media and they said, "So, in other words, this says after 60 days one or the other party can go to binding arbitration." "Oh, no," she said, in her very wise manner that she had a way of saying, "that would be unfair." Exactly the point we were trying to make all the way along.

She did not have her legislation right and waffled and flipped-flopped and embarrassed the government and just created that disharmony, just created an environment where there is unease. We said to the government at that time, business does not stand on the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3161 or Ontario and Manitoba border, U.S. and Manitoba border and have a huge 80-piece band with big drums and everything heralding the fact that they are taking their businesses and jobs out of the province. No, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is not the way they do it. Very slyly, very quietly, very still, the jobs leave our province. Good-paying jobs. Good working men and women leave the province because the dark days of Doer government brought in labour legislation that punishes the very workers, the backbone of our economy, the backbone of our province.

That is what is so unfortunate. Bill 37 is trying to address the problem that has been occurring within the legislation of Bill 44. We understand, grudgingly, both sides had to agree to some kind of change because Bill 44 was so poorly written it was such a problem for both sides that some amendments had to come forward. We in the opposition, we in this House have called for and will continue to call for that the government sees to it Bill 44 be corrected, that it be rectified. Bill 44 brought us picket line violence.

Imagine that, a government, now we have seen what they do with the floodway, it is no surprise, condoning picket line violence. A government would actually go that far. If that is not one of the most appalling things you have heard. Of course, the forced unionization of the floodway is absolutely the epitome of how deep, to what depths a government would go to give kickbacks to not just friends of theirs but in the result, to their own party. This is an attempt by the dark, Doer government days to see to it that a kickback of millions of dollars ends up in NDP coffers.

It will be flowed through the unions to the NDP party where we will see these kinds of funds coming forward to help them fight the next election. Unfortunately, this government has brought forward draconian, dark-day Doer government kind of legislation. What they try to do, and they have their trained seals on the back benches who clap at absolutely anything, buy into the spin that somehow this is middle of the road. They should stand outside on the street and see the disharmony they have created.

They should go out on the street and find out what this actually does to the men and women who put a lot at stake for their communities, who employ people, who meet a payroll, who actually pay the taxes so the dark Doer government days can go on their spending binge. This is a government that would get a golden goose that produces all kinds of gold, and they cut its head off so they can have goose dinner. That is the kind of government we have right now.

They are attacking men and women, stripping them of their democracy, attacking working men and women who want to create a business environment, stripping them of their rights. Clearly, they have condoned picket-line violence. Clearly, they have gone down that dark– Doer-day road of producing bad harmony labour relations. Bill 37 does nothing but paper over the mistakes, paper over the hardship this dark, Doer government has produced in Manitoba. It sits in that shadow of Bill 44 as does the whole forced unionization of the floodway.

It all sits in the shadow of Bill 44. * (11:20) We knew, at that time, for those of us who live day in, day out where we sat at committee till 5 or 5:15 in the morning and heard individuals begging us, please do not proceed with this. When we heard individuals like Art DeFehr indicating to this House and indicating to the Premier they came here with nothing and were not going to let the dark, Doer-day government strip all that away from them with their poorly thought out, poorly written legislation.

We on this side of the House and we do not have the votes to reverse Bill 44, but we will make sure the government understands their mistakes. They have come to their senses, and 37 is one. Mr. Acting Speaker, not that I can see into the future, but I can assure you Bill 37 will be followed by another bill, will be followed by another bill that will continue to try to correct the mistakes of Bill 44. Our comment to the government is why do you not just do the right thing. Take Bill 37 off the table. Let us go back and let us correct the wrongs of Bill 44.

But can you imagine a party that has democratic in the middle of its name would strip workers of their democratic rights? Have you ever heard of anything more ludicrous? This is a party that has democratic in the middle of its name as a party and is forcing, forcing people to be part of a union and pay union dues. Well, they pulled one part of it out, but it is all

3162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 still the same thing. It is all papering over exactly what they are trying to do. Mr. Acting Speaker, this is a party, where, you know, it reminds you of those tinpot, Third World countries that used to put democratic in because they were not. This government should just call themselves the new party and take democratic out, because what they have done in the last five years is so far away from democra tic that they would strip working men and women of their democratic rights. What a shame on this government. What a blemish on this government.

We know the day will come when men and women in this province, and it is going to come soon, that they will see this government for what it is. It is a draconian, dark- Doer-day government. They are looking at this government, and they will say enough. We have had enough. Just like we are seeing on the federal scene, we are going to see that happen as well. We cannot support Bill 37, and we will not support Bill 37, because it is wrongheaded. It is wrong for Manitoba. It is anti-democratic what they did with Bill 44.

Bill 37 is the equivalent of papering over, trying to gloss over all the mistakes and what was bad with Bill 44. Like that individual said to me, it is no different than trying to fix and repair the rust on the Titanic after it sank. This bill should be pulled, and Bill 44 should be properly looked at and should be amended to give back the workers their democratic freedoms. Thank you for the opportunity to put some comments on the record. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Acting Speaker, quite frankly, I think that the Member for Springfield was badly mistaken when he called this party on the other side the new party. Clearly they are the same, old party up to their same old tricks. What we have seen during the course of the last four and a half years, with taking away democratic voters rights and in the last few days taking away democracy in this Legislature by forcing us to sit no more than 59 days, just odious things this government is doing. I have received numerous letters this morning talking about the NDP government ramming through legislation without proper consultation.

That is what their approach is: Do not engage in democracy, do not do things properly with due process, change the rules at the last minute, throw out the normal democratic processes, and march in here and pretend that they are a new party. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. This is the same old party and the same old anti-democratic approach that we have seen. We recognize, as the Conservatives do, that Bill 44 was very seriously flawed. What is interesting is that this bill recognizes th at the NDP see that Bill 44 was seriously flawed.

This bill is an acknowledg- ment that Bill 44 was seriously flawed. This bill is an acknowledgment that the NDP made a major mistake when they brought in Bill 44 with the conditions and clauses that are in it. This bill clearly shows to everybody in Manitoba the recognition that the NDP goofed with Bill 44. It is a recognition, but unlike the Conservatives we are actually going to support this bill because it is a recognition of that goof. It is a tiny little change compared to the real change that is needed.

But we will respect it, and we will support this because it is a recognition of the goof that was in Bill 44, and a recognition that there need to be better processes in place when it comes to labour negotiation and the labour act, and that these need to be fairer for both people, both sides of the table. So we will support this legislation. But I did want to put on the record that this is really the old party, the old NDP party, and we should never forget that. * (11:30) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): Any further speakers? Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 37, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No.

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3163 Voice Vote The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): All those in favour, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. The Acting Speaker: All those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. The Acting Speaker (M r. Schellenberg): In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. John Loewen (Deputy Official Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg): A recorded vote has been requested. Please call in the members. All sections in Chamber for formal vote Mr. Speaker in the Chair * (11:40) Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is concurrence and third reading of Bill 37, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. Division A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas Aglugub, Allan, Altemeyer, Ashton, Bjornson, Brick, Caldwell, Chomiak, De war, Doer, Gerrard, Jennissen, Jha, Korzeniowski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Lemieux, Mackintosh, Martindale, McGifford, Melnick, Nevakshonoff, Oswald, Reid, Robinson, Rondeau, Sale, Santos, Schellenberg, Smith, Struthers, Wowchuk.

Nays Cummings, Derkach, Driedger, Dyck, Eichler, Faurschou, Goertzen, Hawranik, Loewen, Maguire, Mitchelson, Murray, Penner, Reimer, Rocan, Rowat, Schuler, Stefanson, Taillieu. Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Yeas 32, Nays 19. Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried. REPORT STAGE–AMENDMENT Bill 23–The Red River Floodway Act Mr. Speaker: Now call report stage on Bill 23, The Red River Floodway Act. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment on report stage, and I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr.

Lathlin), THAT clause 7 of the Bill be replaced with the following: No duplication of compensation claims and proceedings 7 A person may do either of the following, but not both: (

a) claim compensation under this Part for property damage or economic loss; or (

b) commence court proceedings in respect of property damage or economic loss caused by artificial flooding, to be determined in accordance with generally applicable legal principles. Motion presented. Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I am pleased to rise to speak on the ame ndment that has been put forward by the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton). I think it is worth reviewing what happened in committee a couple of nights ago regarding this particular piece of legislation.

We heard from many, many Manitobans, very impassioned Manitobans, about what effect this particular piece of legislation, Bill 23, might have on them in the future. I do not think it is overstating the fact to say they were very, very emotional presentations and, I think, very clearly directed in terms of their concerns and their fears about how Bill 23 has come forward. There were a number of concerns raised about the artificial flooding definition that is contained within the bill, or the lack of definition, how the

3164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 definition is going to be applied in the future. Many concerns were raised about that. But there were also a lot of concerns regarding, and I think this is where this amendment is aimed at, the inability for individuals who have applied for compensation to have an appeal mechanism through the court. That was clearly stated, I believe, in every presentation that was made before the committee hearing on Monday night on this particular bill. Every presenter mentioned their concerns about the lack of a judicial appeal on compensation.

At the committee hearing, the Minister of Water Stewardship brought forwar d an amendment at that time that would have allowed an appeal after the legislated scheme was used, but only on a matter of law.

Certainly, we raised the concern at the committee that that ability to appeal was very narrow, to not be able to appeal on the substantive issue of compensation or the eligibility of compensation, but only to allow an appeal from Disaster Financial Assistance Appeal Board on a matter of law was very, ve ry restrictive and, I daresay, would probably never have been used had that amendment been stayed with. * (11:50) So we raised those concerns, and certainly, I think, from my discussions with those who made presentations that night at committee, and from others since then, they also echoed the concerns that we raised, that it was not really a substantive amendment, that it was something to do, more of a smokescreen by the minister to alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised publicly by members of the opposition and, certainly, by members of the public regarding the ability to launch a court action on appeal.

So I think the minister thought it was kind of a cute political sleight of hand by bringing in an amendment that said, well, we will allow an appeal from the internal scheme but only where it deals with a matter of law, a very restrictive form of appeal. So it really was no appeal at all, because, as I mentioned at committee and I mentioned here in the House today, this bill is intended to be about compensation. Those are the issues that Manitobans who will rely on this legislation in years in the future will be looking for appeal from generally, I would suggest, that it will be issues surrounding compensation.

I think the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) was somewhat sheepish at the committee hearing. I think he realized that he had made a mistake by going down the road that he had. In fact, his amendment at the committee hearing was a little too cute by half, and it was recognized as that by those that were presenting. I guess it has been recognized again here at report stage, where we have a new amendment that has been brought forward by the Minister of Water Stewardship, but, again, we do not seem to have gone the full measure of what people are looking for.

It is worth noting that we as an opposition brought forward a subamendment at the committee hearing on Monday that would have allowed those who were not happy with how the scheme had been applied or how their co mpensation hearing had resulted in terms of the amount of compensation the right to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench to appeal that particular aspect of compensation.

I think, as a matter of democracy, the vast majority of Manitobans would say, well, that seems to make sense, because you then have an appeal mechanism from an independent third party, an independent third party who was not involved with causing the harm that individuals are seeking compensation and relief from. Clearly, the government, in its operation of the floodway, will be directly the participant who is causing harm to the individual claimants who will be seeking relief under this particular compensation scheme.

The inability to have that appeal to a neutral third party, a party apart from the one that has caused the harm in question seemed to be, and the word has been used in this House already this morning, undemocratic. It was clearly seen as undemocratic and unreasonable in many cases, Mr. Speaker, from those presenters, from those individuals who would truly rely on this legislation in the future. So now the minister has brought forward an amendment here today that still has restrictions in place that just do not seem to be reasonable to me.

I do not think they will be reasonable to those who will be asked to rely on the compensation. I know that the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has brought out a bit of fanfare in apparently making this announcement on behalf of the government yesterday, and it was reported in Winnipeg media today. I do not think that he will receive the kind of accolades that perhaps he is hoping to receive,

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3165 whether it is in his local newspaper or whether it is by the constituents he speaks to on a one-to-one basis. The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is that the amendment, as I understand it, in speaking with the minister, will limit the amount of choice that individuals have in terms of where they can appeal from and where they can appeal to.

Essentially, what will happen is those who have been flooded by artificial flooding will now have to make a choice about whether or not they go through the court scheme or whether or not they go through the internal scheme for applying for compensation.

To make that kind of fork-in-the-road choice, a bit of a pariah's choice, I would suggest, at a difficult time when they have already received flooding and now they are forced with the bills and different things and they have to make that choice at that time, the fork in the road, where the government puts its flag in and says, now make a decision, which way are you going to go, then that is the way you are going to be limited into.

A much clearer amendment, I think, would have been simply to allow individuals to move through the internal process of Bill 23 in terms of applying for compensation but allow the final appeal to be to the courts. I think that would have alleviated many of the concerns that residents had in terms of whether or not there was true independence within the internal compensation scheme.

We know that members on the appeal board will be appointed by Orders-in- Council, will be appointed by the government, will serve at the pleasure, at the will of the minister, at the pleasure of the minister, and certainly people have a concern about that. So the minister, on the one hand, says, "Well, we are concerned about the costs and the time frame of litigation, so we are going to move to this internal scheme," but now of course they are forced to make this decision between the potential cost of litigation or the independence of the people who are making the appeal decision.

I would suggest to you that it would not be in our jurisdiction to allow people to move through the internal scheme if they are satisfied with the compensation or the eligibility issues that were addressed internally. Then they could simply take that compensation and go on with their lives, and those who were not, who had concerns about the independence of the appeal internally, could go to a third body, a third party, and that would be the courts.

That would seem to me to address all the concerns that were raised by residents both north and south of the floodway gates in terms of concerns about costs of litigation, yes, but also the independence. That would seem to me a very reasonable approach, Mr. Speaker, to allow those individuals to access the internal process first, but not take away, not limit their rights. Now the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr.

Ashton) in his second political sleight of hand in less than three days has put forward this amendment, and I am sure, well, I was going to say it was going to be followed by a news release, but that news release must have gone out yesterday already. He pre-empted the amendment stage. The minister by this political sleight of hand is saying, well, okay, we will throw you into this choice. After you are flooded, you have to sign on the dotted line and determine which road you are going to go down. Are you going to go down the left road or are you going to go down the right road? I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that it is not only a disrespectful way to handle people who have had this type of difficulty in their life with artificial flooding caused by the operation of the floodway. It simply is not a democratic way to go, and I do not believe that it is the proper way to go. So the amendment, Mr. Speaker, to the extent that it has been based on pressure from the public and pressure from the opposition, we are pleased that we have been able to get the minister kind of half way down the field, but he is a long way from getting into the end zone.

It would not take much, I think, for him to be able to make that big play and to be able to answer the concerns of constituents north and south of the floodway. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): I would just like to speak also to this amendment. The future flood victims, should we see another flood event of 1997 or greater, and we know that a flood event of that nature of 1997 levels or greater will affect a number of people in the Red River Valley, they have been told that their flood mitigation is not adequate, that the dikes they built to the 1997 level will not hold

3166 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 back a flood event of that nature and further. So these people know that they will be flooded in future. So the compensation package is very, very important to them. Some of them are still smarting from the wounds of the compensation inadequacies of 1997. Again, one of the concerns, of course, is the level of artificial flooding. Artificial flooding is a term that no one has really yet been able to define that.

Even in the hearings that have been held north and south of the floodway, artificial flooding, the term has basically meant that every flood event finds its own level, and that artificial level that was determined right at the time of flooding, may be, in fact, revised following that. When we are talking levels of flooding, we are talking just minimums of inches that will put the water over the dikes and flood.

So, when you are talking whether that is four inches higher than 1997 or whether it is four inches higher than natural levels or whether it is eight inches higher than natural levels or whether it is one inch over natural levels, that makes all the difference in the world. Certainly, people have been concerned because there is no appeal mechanism, no judicial appeal. Of course, that does, as the member from Steinbach has pointed out, take away one's democratic right to appeal should they feel they have not been properly dealt with.

I want to applaud the member from Steinbach who, in committee the other night, was very astute in looking at the amendment brought forward by the Minister of Water Stewardship and picking up on the wording and recognizing immediately that, of course, this was just a smoke screen to try to appease the people that had come to present that night, and certainly recognized as astute. The member from Steinbach was very astute. This new amendment proposed today that we see before us is still not there.

I am not even sure if the Minister of Water Stewardship understands this amendment, because speaking with him earlier, he certainly was unclear as to whether or not this would allow people a choice. It is still very restrictive because it still limits choice. After a flood occurs and a family is victimized by flood, now they will have to decide whether they go through th e Disaster Assistance Appeal Board or do they proceed directly to the courts.

Well, we have seen that, okay, going through the Disaster Assistance Appeal Board might sound more appealing because there is less cost involved there and certainly people might be tempted or intimidated, even, into taking that route, to go that route, expecting that there will be full compensation, but having gone that route and finding that they did not get a fair and equitable compensation they would have no recourse to do anything else. The second choice, by choosing the court or judicial system, well, we have certainly seen what has happened there over the last seven years.

People in the Red River Valley who have chosen to first try compensation packages with the government and then, having not settled that, have gone through a court case still seven years later, are not settled. So they know that choosing that option, we can see how the NDP government has manipulated the courts into drawing this out over seven years, wearing people down to the point where they cannot continue to pay for litigation such as this. They cannot take the time out of their lives anymore because they are still rebuilding from the last flood. So the NDP government has worn them down.

Some of them have decided to settle. Some of them are still in trying to get their full compensation, and, seeing the track record of the ones who have been settled with, they know that their settl ements are pr obably going to range anywhere between zero and 10 percent. They feel that they have not been bargained with in good faith. * (12:00) The settlement talks were initiated by this government last fall and nothing happened then, but then in the spring this group of people were asked to come in and settle the compensation at the request of the government.

They felt they were very unfairly dealt with because they were basically told to take this offer. That offer may have been zero percent, up to 10 percent of their original claim. They were then told, if you take it now or within two hours, we will not charge you our government legal fees and then they were told, sign this gag order and do not tell your neighbours what happened here today. Some people did that because they were simply worn down by the process. Others decided that they could still hold out. So there is no faith, there is no trust in this government to deal fairly with flood victims in either

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3167 way in this amendment. On one hand, go to the Disaster Assistance Appe al Board and take your chances there, and if you do not like it, that is too bad. That is the choice you have made. You cannot after taking that choice, there is no more choice to go to litigation. Second choice, go directly to the court system and what we have seen here over the last seven years is that that has resulted in some people getting no compensation.

So I think both amend- ments that have been brought forward, both the one in the committee stage which was simply a sham, simply a smoke screen, just to appease the people, the presenters that were there, I think that is an insult to the intelligence of people that presented there that night that they did not see right through this. They saw right through it immediately as one of the presenters actually spoke out in committee and had to leave the room because he was so upset with the whole process. And secondly– An Honourable Member: And they laugh . They laugh over there.

Mrs Taillieu: The members opposite laugh at this. I think it is a very serious matter when we are talking about compensation for people that have been flooded, have lost everything. They have lost not only their homes. Some of them owned businesses. So they lost their homes, their businesses, all the money that is needed to rebuild over the last seven years. That is what the members opposite might consider their savings and it has been lost to these people.

So they have been set back not only the seven years that they have been dealing with this issue, but the money that they could have saved for their retirement and for other things in the last seven years. I am disappointed to say the least with this amendment. I think it does nothing to assure future flooding victims that there would be any reason to believe that this government is doing anything to support future flooding victims. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk to this amendment.

The very fact that this amendment is coming forward at all is, clearly, a recognition that the bill as originally presented was not adequate, that the bill as amended in the committee stage was not adequate and there still needs to be more measures and changes to this bill in order to get the checks and balances right and to get the fairness right for people who have been flooded.

The situation for those who have been flooded in 1997, and had their lives changed dramatically by the flood event, had, as a result of major losses in terms of their property and their possessions, extraordinary changes to their lives and the impact on their lives subsequently as a result of that flood effect. We heard at committee stage people like Jim Shapiro, Paul and Maxine Clifton, Jim Stinson and a number of others who were talking about the impact of the flood on their lives.

We heard that here we are, seven years after the flood of '97, and the issues in terms of compensation for some of these individuals are still not resolved. The issues, in terms of a definition of artificial flooding and natural levels which are central to this bill, are still not well defined, are subject to all sorts of

interpretation. Let us look at this issue of a natural level. Is a natural level what would have happened with a flood in 1826, when there was not the city of Winnipeg there in the same way it is now? The fact is that we have the city of Winnipeg there, the floodway, all sorts of dikes. The determination of what is a natural level must start with some concept of what date we are talking about. It must have some particular framework for what "natural level" means. Here we are, we have a Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) who is presenting a bill with some undefined terms as central to the thrust of the bill, central to the

interpretation, and the potential for somebody to get compensation, or not to get compensation. The Minister of Water Stewardship, at the same time as he has failed to adequately define artificial flooding and natural level and so on, is setting up circumstances where, when there is a decision in terms of an application for compensation, the only judicial appeal will be one which is on a matter of law. Now what this amendment does is to set up at the front end the choice of a person to go to the courts or to seek compensation under the provisions of this bill.

The problem here is that it is a front-end decision; it is a decision before we know how this bill will be interpreted, how the artificial flooding and natural levels will be defined, and before we know what the initial decision is going to be with respect to compensation.

3168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Although it may be, in a sense, a minor improvement in that it does allow for an appeal to the courts under some fashion. It is not really the change that is needed to make this bill a more workable piece of legislation in the way that it works once it is passed. Clearly, the last seven years have demonstrated the complexiti es of the issues around compensation and flooding. Clearly, the last seven years, and some people who have claims which are still not resolved, have demonstrated that these matters are not simple to deal with.

Under this circumstance, in order to achieve fairness, clearly there must be some fair appeal mechanism to the courts or to some process which is independent enough from government that the citizen can be assured that there is going to be fairness. The tragedies of people who have been involved in the flood and lost much of what they owned and their livelihoods, the tragedies in the past have been compounded, we saw in 1997, by the failure to achieve fairness in the approach to compensation.

All too often we have seen a government, first under the Conservatives and for the last four and a half years under the NDP, a government which has not really attempted to be as fair as it could be, but a government which is tempted to use a heavy hand, if government, to push through compensation approaches which are not really, when one sees the light of day, and most of them are not seeing the light of day because of clauses that are attached to them, that these are not as fair as they should be to people whose lives have been so disrupted, and who have lost so much.

One must recognize that those of us who live in the city of Winnipeg, those of us who work, as we all do, in the city of Winnipeg at the Legislature are the beneficiaries–[interjection] W e w o r k o u t s i d e . O h , well, I sure work outside as well.

But some of our working time is spent here. * (12:10) What is important to recognize is that those who use, in one fashion or another, the city of Winnipeg, to live in or to work in, are the beneficiaries of the approaches that were taken to protect Winnipeg, and that we need to be sympathetic to those who were badly affected by the approaches that were taken to save Winnipeg and people in Winnipeg, and protect people in Winnipeg.

We need to recognize that the people who are badly affected because of the measures that we are taking to protect people in Winnipeg need to have a compensation mechanism which is more appropriate and more fair than we have been given. So, although we have some positive feelings in that the Minister of Water Stewardship has brought forward some changes, we do not see these as adequate to the situation which is involved. We do not see that this recognizes the level of fairness in complex issues which surround flooding issues.

I believe that if this passes and we have a major flood event, we are going to continue to see problems in the way compensation is allocated because of the lack of clarity, the lack of definition and the continued problems with this legislation. Thank you. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if I might make some explanatory comments. I neglected to make them in the introduction and I think it might be appropriate to ask for leave at this point in time since I will have to make closing remarks. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to speak to the amendment? [Agreed] Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and I will not engage in debate. There are other opportunities to debate various issues that were raised. I wanted to just indicate that we, in addition to the normal process, Mr. Speaker, with the legislation we have before us, including public hearings the other night, I took the initiative earlier this year to start a process of consultations with Manitobans when we were drafting the act and, in fact, was very pleased with the number of responses we received.

In fact, there were a number of presenters at committee that actually have written to myself, as minister, and appeared at the committee as a follow-up to the earlier consultation. Certainl y, we reflected some of the feedback that we received at the committee with an amendment that was made. Following that, as is the practice in this House, we considered the various comments that were made and this is where this amendment is coming from. I would like to point out, Mr.

Speaker, that the intent of the bill, and I am providing the Disaster Assistance Appeal Board as a mechanism for dealing with appeals in regards to this legislation, was clearly to provide the access to a body that is well established, that does not require access to the court, that has benefits, obviously, for the taxpayers, but

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3169 more particularly for claimants who feel that they have not received compensation under this act. I point out that you might find similar parallels, for example, with MPIC where there are provisions in that act that impact in terms of what is often called "no fault" and in that case restricted access to a tort.

One of the key issues that members of the public, I think, raised, which was well taken, was the fact that while providing a non-judicial option is certainly something that should be available, which this act did in its original draft form, one of the concerns that was expresse d, and it was expressed at committee again, was the concern that as an appointed government board there might be some lack of objectivity. People felt that, as a matter of principle, they should have the ability to go to a court if they so chose. That is what this particular amendment does.

It goes beyond the kind of situation we have with "no fault," which is brought in by the previous government, but received general support in terms of the principle of that particular case, but recognized that with automobile insurance you are not dealing with compensation that is actually coming from the government, from the Crown itself. That was raised in committee, and that is what this amendment does. I know, certainly, the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and others raised that concern.

Whether members feel this is the perfect amendment–I think members of the opposition raised similar concerns at committee–this provides a non-judicial option, the original draft that is in place. It also provides the judicial option for those who feel that the non- judicial option would not provide an objective body. Mr. Speaker, I think that as is the practice in this House, the unique practice of having public hearings, once again, we were listening in terms of that and I want to just point out that the compensation that is provided under this act is new. It is statutory.

It goes above and beyond damage from natural flooding and it deals with artificial flooding, which has been a significant concern for many years of people both upstream and downstream. It goes far beyond the coverage that is in place under Disaster Financial Assistance. It, particularly, deals with economic losses. I noticed in committee there were presenta- tions particularly from KAP and others, and I want to reinforce that that is the case.

The intent in this case is to provide choice, and regardless of whether members of the legislature are from different parties, have consensus in terms that, I think, clearly members of th e public expected us to provide that choice and that is the intent of this amendment. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is amendment to Bill 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed to the amendment, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Bill 31–The Floodway Authority Act Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Lathlin), THAT Bill 31 be amended in the English version of Clause 21(

b) by striking out " Manitoba Floodway Expansion Inc. " and substituting " Manitoba Floodway Expansion Authority Inc." Motion presented. * (12:20) Mr. Ashton: I am fully expecting the opposition to launch a vociferous attack on this as being some smoke screen, a sleight of hand, but honestly it was a drafting error and we are trying to correct it through this amendment.

3170 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I am somewhat remiss. I had intended to put a few words on the record on the bill, but this gives me an opportunity maybe to put a few words on the record in respect of the bill and in accordance with the amendment. I certainly respect the fact that drafters sometimes do make mistakes or oversights and those kinds of things need to be corrected. I want to say this in respect of the floodway act: There are communities upstream of the city of Winnipeg that will be affected in a very major way, as they were in 1997, by future floods.

Whether those floods will be bigger, I think, is just a matter of time. It is not if, it is just when. They will be bigger. I would hope that the same kind of attention for the safety of those communities upstream of the Winnipeg floodway, south of the Winnipeg floodway, will be as ardently pursued as we are pursuing the expansion of the floodway. We all agree that the city of Winnipeg cannot be allowed to be flooded, but we all must agree that individuals impacted by a major event such as of the Winnipeg floodway, whether they live in the town of Ste. Agathe, whether they live in the town of Morris, or St.

Pierre, or St.

Jean, or Arnot, or Letellier, or Halbstadt, or Emerson, or any of the other communities or individuals who are being affected, such as Rosenort and others, by major flood events, that we must as a government, as a legislative body looking after the best intere sts of society, recognize that those communities and individuals living in the Red River Valley or elsewhere where there is flooding experienced, that we give them the same benefits and the same benefits of the doubt that we have given to communities such as those communities we provided diking and flood protection for, whether those dikes need to be raised or other measures taken to respect the higher levels of water that we might experience.

It is important that that must be addressed by this Legislature. I say this in respect of the fact that Letellier, the town of Letellier, which has a large water plant in it, within its boundaries, must be protected, because that water plant serves not only the community of Letellier or the communities of Halbstadt, Marais, Emerson, Dominion City, Winkler, Morden, Altona, Rosenort, Plum Coulee, all these towns are affected, will be affected if that treatment plant should go down. All the people within those communities would simply be without water because they are all connected now to the Red River water supply.

Not only will they be, because the Morris plant as well is within the diked area of the town of Morris, but, should that water supply not be adequately protected, all the communities west and east that are connected via pipelines now to those two water systems need to be assured that the communities and individuals that are connected via those pipelines for water supply have a maintenance of that water supply.

I believe I only raised that one issue as an important issue, but that is why I say it is important that this minister, when he proposes this kind of legislation, recognize that the effects of the flooding on the Red River and other rivers, such as the Roseau River, whether it is the Pembina River, the Aux Marais or the Morris River or many of the other streams, the Rat River, all contribute and all should have the same consideration when we look at flood compensation. The reason I raise flood compensation, because I note, Mr.

Speaker, that I have received numerous phone calls lately from people that are not being adequately and properly compensated as they were in 1997 when the previous Conservative government was in power. They have been promised all sorts of things. They have had a lot of nice things said to them, but the money has not flowed, because of impediments and/or the delineations of the programs that were put in place in 1997 by the Filmon administration. So I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that this whole matter of expanding the floodway, whether it is deepened or widened or whatever, is a matter that is much, much broader than just the construction of the floodway. The agreements that the minister has talked about, the unionization or the non-unionization, but the unionization of the fees , the contribution of the fees to the unions, I think, simply needs to be dealt with under a human rights matter.

Whether a human being has the right to say no to a fee being charged on his or her income for no benefits at all, just because somebody has made an agreement with the unions and told the unions, "You will be paid a large amount of money whether these people are unionized or not," I think, is unfortunate, that a government or

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3171 a Premier (Mr. Doer) would allow something like that to happen in this province. We know that there are other countries and other nations that have operated that way, but people of countries have gone to war because of that, to maintain the freedom and the right of the individual to make the decision whether they want to, or not, join or contribute. Yet, with this government, there seems to be no consideration of the individual and the rights of the individual. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is imperative that we as legislators stand in this place and protect those individuals that cannot speak for themselves in this Chamber. It is our right and it is our responsibility to speak on their behalf. So, Mr.

Speaker, I thank you for the few minutes that you have given me, but I want to leave this on the record that I will do everything in my power, as will the people on this side of the House, the Conservative Party, to make sure that the rights of the individuals are protected in this province and the rights of the individual and the workers working on that floodway will have the rights of the freedom of the Constitution of this country. House Business Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on House business? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Briefly, Mr.

Speaker, just in the interest of convenience for public presenters tonight, I would like to announce the following bills will be transferred from Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development to Legislative Affairs and that the Legislative Affairs Committee meet this evening at 6:30. That is Bills 42, Mines; 44, Colleges; 46, Teachers' Pensions; 49, Municipal; 50, Municipal Assessment; 53, Statutes Corrections. Mr.

Speaker: It has been announced that the following bills will be transferred from the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development to the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs and that the Legislative Affairs committee will meet this evening, Wednesday, June 9, at 6:30 p.m.: Bill 42, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Bill 44, The Colleges Amendment Act; Bill 46, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Bill 49, The Municipal Amendment Act; Bill 50, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Bill 53, The Statutes Corrections and Minor Amendments Act, 2004. * * * Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr.

Speaker, on the amendment, the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) suggested that, perhaps, I would rise and call this a sleight of hand or a smoke screen. In fact, I want to commend the Minister of Water Stewardship, because he admitted that he made a mistake. It is the first time that I have had as a new legislator to hear the Mini ster of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) admit to a mistake. There are many other mistakes he has made that he has yet to go on and apologize for and I look forward to those admissions as well. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment to Bill 31, The Floodway Authority Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed] COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Concurrence Motion Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): The Committee of Supply has before it, for our consideration, a motion concurring in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005. On June 1, 2004, the Official Opposition House Leader tabled the list of ministers of the Crown who may be called for questioning in debate on the concurrence motion.

The ministers listed are as follows: Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak), Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth (Mr. Bjornson), Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton), Minister of Family Services and Housing (Ms. Melnick), Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers).

3172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 The floor is now open for questions. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I appreciate the minister being back this morning. It looks like he and I are going to have a little discussion here around highways and transportation in the province. I think there are some important issues. I appreciated the time I had with the minister in Estimates when his staff were present.

If I am asking something that he has not got at his fingertips, I just ask that he provide it to me later if he could, but I think most of the questions are pretty straightforward that I might have in this area. We were discussing last night in concurrence session, Mr. Chairman, the issue of the capital budgets and that sort of thing. I will just find my place on page 117 in the supplements. I know the minister had that with him last night. He was looking at it. That was the Costs Related to Capital Assets.

I had made a comment that the capital budget that he had referred to was around $120 million in the capital budget, which is a fifth of the $600 million that the government has indicated over a five-year plan that they would have. I incorrectly assumed that the $119,705,500, which is the line item on page 117 in the Supplementary Estimates book for Trans- portation and Government Services, Infrastructure Assets–Provincial Roads and Highways, was the capital budget for Transportation, but the minister corrected me by saying that, no, that was only a portion of it, that it was the $145,824,800.

That is the total item of Costs Related to Capital Assets. Can the minister confirm that for me? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I thank the Member for Arthur-Virden for his questions and my critic for Transportation. He correctly pointed out that the way concurrence is is not always necessarily just on point or dealing with specific numbers, because the staff is not present and that one is not always able to give a number out, whether it is a dollar figure or another number, because you want to be accurate, and our conversations are obviously on the record.

So you try to be accurate. Without trying to hedge the answers and to say, well, approximately, or use all that kind of language, you try to be accurate. I know the member opposite will understand if I take the questions as notice if a particular dollar figure is not, if I do not have that at my fingertips or at least the papers that I have with me. Taking a look at the budget for highway infrastructure-related expenditures for '04-05 are essentially as follows. I mention that because the Auditor General wanted us to use a different accounting system.

We are trying to comply with the accepted accounting principl es and trying to comply with the recommendations of the Auditor General. The department has implemented a budgeting reporting for highways infrastructure as capital assets. As a result of that decision, the department's funding is separated essentially into two votes, as I mentioned before, Part A and Part B. The budget, the highway infrastructure-related expenditure for '04- 05, are essentially as follows. There is a Part A, preservation and maintenance side, which is $111 million; and Part B, capital, is $78,917,000.

So the total highway infrastructure-related expenditures are $190,403,000. This level of funding really represents about a $12.6-million increase in the '03-04 adjusted vote level. That is slightly more than what we have been talking about, the $10 million, but I am not going to go through the comparisons of their last four years and ours. We have gone through that, but I will endeavour to find more precise numbers for the member if he has more questions related to the financial end and specific dollar questions. * (10:20) Mr.

Maguire: The minister has just indicated that the budget for capital construction, then, is about $190 million. Mr. Lemieux: It is a different system we are using this year, Mr. Chairman, and I understand that previous ministers did not use this system of accounting, because we are trying to comply with the Auditor's recommendations. So what the department has done is that they have separated them: there is Part A capital that just deals with the preservation and maintenance side and that is $111,485,500; and the Capital Investment side, the Part B capital side, is $78,917,000.

So, when you take a look at the total highway infrastructure-related expenditures, it is $190,403,000. So it is a different way of looking at

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3173 the funding compared to years before. When we take a look at the assets, I mean, we have made mention about the assets, the provincial assets being $7 billion, the assets of the Province, the assets we had in bridges and roads and so on. That is the way the Auditor has wanted us to take a look at what we have in transportation. So, it is a different way of lo oking at the accounting system, I guess. Maybe that is not the proper word, but it is looking at how you account for what you have in transportation now.

So it is something that the Auditor General had wanted us to do. We are trying to comply with his recommendation. Mr. Maguire: So in the capital budget, which is part of the whole highways budget of $384 million for Government Services, the capital portion of that, I mean, in the Estimates book, or in the Estimates of Expenditures for 2004, it indicates $119,705,500 under Infrastructure Assets. Can the minister elaborate on that for me? There is the asset level and, of course, then, there is another number that he is talking about is completely unrelated to this, then, I assume. Mr.

Lemieux: Essentially, in the way it has been explained to me, it is certainly different than previous years. I know the member I believe was the Transportation critic in years before, but having said that, the way that is has been explained to me is essentially what you are doing is you are taking a look at the investment that you have and the value of your investment and you are also looking at what you would like to do into the future as far as capital investment, the investment you are looking into putting into the highway infrastructure system itself.

What you are doing is, essentially you are capitalizing it or amortizing it over a period of time. That is the system that is going to be used. That is something that the Auditor General wants people to do. You account for it in that way. So it is somewhat different than the previous system that has been used in years gone by. I will give you an example, the Part A capital that we are talking about, the Part A expenditures that are often made a point of provides for the overall operation and preservation of the provincial transportation system.

Fo r example, when you are looking at–and I will try and give you some examples of what Part A is talking about–when they talk about Part A, that $111 million, it is talking about service repair and preventative maintenance, and also crack fill, seal coating, along with operational activities like snow and ice control, pavement markings, sign replacement, and also includes the amortization in interest expense on the Province's transportation system assets.

So transportation system assets include all provincial trunk highways, all PTHs, and provincial roads, the PRs, and all bridges, structures and northern airport runways. So those are the assets that the Auditor talks about.

The Part B capital side, that $78 million that we refer to for the 2004 -2005 year, the capital investment for the Provin ce's infrastructure asset projects include the total rehab of existing roads; the new construction, such as the twinning of the northeast Perimeter or the Highway 59 south, or the money that is being put into the No. 1 highway to the west, to the Saskatchewan border, where intersection improvements or interchanges, for example, the interchange on the northeast perimeter will cost approximately $30 million.

It is a huge expense but it is also an investment that we will be able to use in a positive way down the road. Also the federal- provincial projects like the SHIP program and the Prairie Grain Roads Program are also examples of the Part B, capital. The way the Auditor has asked the department to look at its accounting is somewhat different. It does not change. In other words, it does not alter anything. It shows that there is a $10-million increase compared to last year. I do not have the book with me and I am not sure what page that is on, but it shows you the difference.

This year the accounting makes it look like under B capital, $78,917,000. Last year it would have been $68,900,000, for example. So, in other words, the capital investment is increased by the $10 million but the way the accounting was done in years gone by it would have looked just at $120 million and a number of things would have been put into the $120 million that now have to be split apart. Mr. Maguire: I appreciate the minister's elaboration in that area. So the Part A is the maintenance part; Part B is the capital. You are adding those together to get the $190 million.

If you would have added those together last year, it would have been 180; that is what the minister is saying.

3174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services–the Member for Arthur-Virden. Mr. Maguire: I mean, I am assuming that maintenance was fairly close. Mr. Lemieux: Yes, it is the capital– Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister. Mr. Lemieux: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Sorry. Eventually, we will be trained. I am sure that we will be. We will not just be carrying on a conversation, but I understand that for the record each person who wishes to speak has to be recognized. My apologies for that and we apologize for that.

Essentially, where it shows is on the capital side. That is what we are talkin g about, of increasing the capital investment by $10 million. So it is on the capital side where you see that increase of that $10 million. This is something where obviously we hope it is going to make a difference, the additional dollars. It is not enough. I know yesterday I posed the question to the Member for Arthur-Virden about where he thought the money could come from, the additional dollars that we need. I know he is in agreement and many of his colleagues and many of my colleagues are in agreement that more dollars should flow.

The point I have made is that more dollars should be coming from our federal government, whoever that might be, if it is the Liberal Party, the NDP or the Conservative Party. Whoever forms that federal government has to put more money out of gas tax particularly, but more monies into the transporta tion infrastructure system. I am not sure how he feels or where he thinks the money should come from, but I would certainly like to hear his views on that because it really is an important issue. Mr.

Maguire: Well, I appreciate the minister's query, but, as I told him yesterday, when I am in his chair and he is in mine, I will inform him on how we are going to fund those ar eas. Mr. Chairman, not to be facetious, I certainly understand that there is a need for funds. There is no doubt about that. As I have said before here, there is a billion dollars requested every year. I do not get that from the minister. I get it from the industry, as well as being the Highways critic. It is just the function. I mean, we all know the highways could all use upgrades.

As much as there is work going on in some sectors of the province, there have been cutbacks on some and our major arteries are starting to see it. Those major arteries, the Yellowhead, Nos. 1, 75 and the Perimeter Highway are part of the national highways program. So we all recognize that the federal government has to come to the table in these areas. * (10:30) I know my colleague, Mr.

Findlay, who was the Minister of Transportation before even the end of the Conservative years there, when he was in the Transport Minister's chair, found it very difficult and I guess if you want to look at it, it was one of the really hard choices to make that he knew. The town that I live in now is Virden. He knew that while we had the funds to get the base built for a few of those years, he did not want to see the kochia growing in the middle of that road any more than any member of the government today, I do not feel, wanted to see it. When the Member for Brandon West (Mr.

Smith) was Transportation Minister, you know, it always takes extra costs to go back and pretty well had to rebuild the top su rface of that road even though the shoulders were there and everything was built for the 12 kilometres from Virden out to 83 north and certainly that part of the road was paved last year. There are, however, other parts of that road, and I want to bring it to the minister's attention, west of Griswold on No. 1 highway's south side, that we do get concerns about rutting in highways all over the province.

I just want to bring it to the attention: No. 1 highway, the south side west of Brandon, from 21 highway you may say, right at Griswold, a little community there, 21 highway north-south on No. 1 junction, west for at least between there and Oak Lake. The rutting in that particular

section of the highway has a few gentle curves in it, and that sort of thing. I just want to bring it to the minister's attention that as I drive from Virden to Winnipeg virtually every week, sometimes twice, that that is a

section of No. 1 that I find the most rutting to be prevalent in right now, and the most hydroplaning. It is a wonder there have not been accidents in that little

section of the highway. It is little in the scope of the Trans- Canada, but it is big in that area. I know that the

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3175 minister looked at it before; there was some funding for the existing paving on No. 1 highway between the Saskatchewan border and Elkhorn at one time and now some of that work has been done. There was, of course, $5.2 million first lifted there in the, I think, 2000-2001 spring to take care of potholes in other parts of Manitoba highways in a soft spring that we had. I understand that some of that work has been done now. I just bring it to the minister's attention that when he is dealing with his federal counterparts that there need

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-52a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 52a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a7d5f318364ddadeec70b1303c16a8116327e85b

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