LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, February 20, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I
beg to present the petition of Ronald Santos, Karen Jensen, Sharon Provak and
others, requesting the government to show its strong commitment to dealing with
child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse
campaign.
Ms. Judy
Wasylycia‑Leis (
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The
Communities Economic Development Fund Act, and responsible for A. E. McKenzie
Co. Ltd.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Communities Economic Development Fund Annual Report for the year 1990‑91,
and also the A. E. McKenzie Co. Ltd. for the year ended October 31, 1991.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Third Quarterly Report, nine
months ending December 31, 1991, The
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): I would like to table
the 1990‑91 Annual Report of the Department of Labour.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 46‑The Jury Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House,
I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
that Bill 46, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jures), be
introduced and the same be now received and read a first time.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) have leave?
No. Leave is denied.
*
(1335)
Mr.
McCrae: Perhaps if I try again, Mr.
Speaker, honourable members of the New Democratic Party will come to their
senses.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Bill 47‑The Petty Trespasses Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): With the leave of the
House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 47, The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi sur l'intrusion), be introduced and the same be now received and read a
first time.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) have leave?
Leave is denied.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of all honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Recommendation Implementation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this Chamber and all parties have
discussed the creation, the workings and the action of the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry in the
This inquiry was, by all accounts, one of
the most thorough investigations and consultations with aboriginal people
across
The report was really a condemnation of
governments past, whether they be federal, provincial, in the administration of
our justice system when it concluded, and it started its report that justice
system has failed
Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue that over
125 years of history is the responsibility, accountability of government
opposite, nor is it the responsibility of this side. It is our collective responsibility in terms
of the aboriginal justice system, the aboriginal economic and social conditions
that are within our province.
I would ask the government then, why did
the government take such a weak‑kneed approach to the aboriginal justice
system? Why did it not endorse many of
the principal recommendations in that report?
Why did it in fact just give us four technical committees and three
subcommittees rather than a principled stand on fundamentally changing the
justice system in our province as recommended in the report?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
Leader of the Opposition has asked an extremely lengthy question but suggests
in his question that the government of
If the honourable Leader of the Opposition
had been paying attention on the day that the government responded to the
report, late in January, he would have seen that we indeed are endorsing many
meaningful recommendations made by the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. We propose to move on those recommendations,
which we have accepted.
*
(1340)
We want to do that with the help and co‑operation
of the aboriginal organizations that we have referred to. We have put forward that invitation, and we
propose to move forward. We propose not
to get bogged down with the eternal rhetoric that seems to form the aboriginal
justice policy of the honourable Leader of the Opposition and his
colleagues. For example, the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) suggests that each and every single
recommendation in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report ought to be followed
just as it is laid out. We do not accept
that approach. That is the approach of
the New Democratic Party, which is quite inconsistent with their position taken
with respect to the task force on the Constitution.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Recommendation Implementation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General, when he released the report in August of last year, said, and
I quote, after explaining that we have done too many things for aboriginal
people he now intends to work with aboriginal people. Those were the comments of the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General in August.
Yet at the press conference in January, the
committee chaired by the Deputy Premier, the government rejected a joint
partnership strategy to implement the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry, the recommendations for an aboriginal justice committee that would
work in joint partnership with the
I would ask the Deputy Premier, why did you
reject the opportunity and the recommendation to have a partnership with
aboriginal people, as recommended by commissioners Sinclair and
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs, responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say to the
Leader of the Opposition that we have enjoyed over the past three to four years
a good working relationship with the aboriginal community as it relates to not
only the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, which was mandated to do two specific
things, and that was to look into the J.J. Harper and the Helen Betty Osborne
incidents, which were both very unfortunate situations.
What we have offered is in principle not
unlike a justice commission. The working
groups are an invitation for the different representatives from the aboriginal
community to join with our departments and move forward on those
recommendations that are in fact accomplishable. That is the path and the process which we
have established. We are waiting for the
aboriginal people to bring forward the names of the individuals whom they want
to sit on those working committees.
It is time for action, not further study,
as my colleague the Minister of Justice has said many times.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Recommendation Implementation
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government totally misses the
partnership recommendation of the commission's report from Sinclair and
Hamilton, totally misses the idea of a difference between a partnership in our
justice system and advisory groups that the government will establish and
disestablish as they so choose when they so choose.
I have a final supplementary question to
the Deputy Premier. The report fairly thoroughly criticized the police
investigation dealing with the J.J. Harper shooting and came out with some very
strong recommendations to have an independent‑‑an independent‑‑process
dealing with shootings of citizens and any of the police forces of
Again, and I ask this to the Deputy
Premier: Why did the government, in
light of the statements that they wanted to proceed with action, not proceed
with an independent decision and an independent process for police
shootings? They have had the report for
eight months. The report is very
thorough on this issue. Why are we again
just consulting on this issue? Why is
the government not taking decisive action in this very, very crucial area?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We have taken decisive action and, in fact,
the intent of that particular recommendation has been in effect since the
shooting incident in
Aboriginal Justice System
Government Position
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, the Law Reform Commission of
There are already other systems in
operation, such as the Quebec Civil Code, the American tribal court systems,
the Canadian military systems operating in
Will this minister tell this House: After he endorsed the
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
member again surprises me as a member of the task force, an all‑party
task force which came out with‑‑
Mr.
Lathlin: You endorsed the inherent
right to self‑government.
Mr.
McCrae: Well, I cannot quite hear
myself when the honourable member for The Pas wants to continue asking his
question from his seat, but I think he is finished now, and maybe I can
proceed.
*
(1345)
I have trouble with the NDP policy of
advocating separate societies and separate systems when we have taken an all‑party
unanimous task force position that the inherent right to the self‑government
of aboriginal people ought to be exercised within the Canadian Constitution and
that all Canadians are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
When the honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) suggests that aboriginal people ought to have their own charters,
that means 61 charters in the
Point of Order
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): On a point of order, if the minister is
referring to my comments to the aboriginal appointed Members of Parliament, no
wonder he does not know how to deal with‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
Child Abuse Allegations
Justice Department Investigation
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, on Monday night, during debate,
I very clearly overheard the Minister of Justice‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member, kindly put your
question now, please.
Mr.
Lathlin: I ask the Minister of
Justice and Attorney General, because he has accused band chiefs of a coverup,
will he now agree to conduct an inquiry into allegations of a coverup of child
abuse and spousal abuse on the reserves, as has been repeated in a request by
the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
member is totally wrong. I have never
accused him or anyone else of a coverup.
If the honourable member is referring to an exchange across the floor,
then maybe we could discuss that exchange.
I would be pleased to do that. I
certainly did not accuse anybody of a coverup.
There were recently serious allegations,
though, involving potential obstruction in the case of some child abuse cases
in
Judicial System
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker is: Will the Attorney General, the Minister of
Justice, order the court to start having hearings in
I ask the minister today: Will he order the courts to be held in
*
(1350)
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable
member raises a matter that has been raised with me by the leadership of the
community of
Conawapa Dam Project
Renegotiation
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister of mines and energy.
Evidence continues to mount that the
Ontario Hydro sale on Conawapa is not in the best interest of
Earlier this month Ontario Hydro cancelled
or deferred 53 new power stations that were going to be built in conjunction with
the private sector. Mr. Speaker, the
$260,000‑a‑year chairperson, Marc Eliesen, indicated at that time
that
My question for the minister of mines and
energy is: Can he tell the House whether
the
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): A couple of things, Mr. Speaker, I would ask
the member to refer to the ministry as the ministry as it is, that is the
ministry of Energy and Mines.
As far as the business community is
concerned, I would like to refer to a letter which I received yesterday from
the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I will
just quote one brief paragraph: I would
like to apologize for the impression left that the Winnipeg Chamber does not
support Conawapa. We have never taken
that position, signed by the president of the
I would as well like to say, Mr. Speaker,
that I have not received any direct contact from Ontario Hydro since I have
been in the ministry of Energy and Mines. I have not been in direct contact. However, I will check with Hydro as to
whether or not there has been a meeting requested with Manitoba Hydro. To this date, I have no knowledge of them
wanting to back out of the deal that was signed between the Premier of Manitoba
and the Premier of
Mr.
Edwards: From
My question for the Minister of Energy and
Mines is: Has he or officials of
Manitoba Hydro considered the possibility that Ontario Hydro's failure, to his
knowledge, to contact himself or Manitoba Hydro about renegotiating this deal,
in view of the fact that they are cancelling 53 new power stations, is a clear
signal that Ontario Hydro knows full well the extent of the good deal, the
sweetheart deal it got from
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, first of all,
as far as Ontario Hydro workings are concerned and the decisions they make, it
is not the business of the
As we have said, it has to go through the
strictest of environmental process, and it will. The Public Utilities Board has said that it
is a good deal for the people of
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the
minister now use the legal opinion which we placed on his table yesterday as
leverage, the only leverage he has at this point, to renegotiate this deal? Let
me just quote again the former minister's statement: Given‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, I am not a
lawyer, and I do not pretend to be a lawyer, like some individuals in this
Assembly who have just asked the question.
What I do want to say is that I have referred the letter, the so‑called
legal opinion, from the Liberal Party that was tabled yesterday, I have
forwarded that to
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, so‑called legal
opinion? Is the minister questioning
that it was a legal opinion? Is that
what he is saying‑‑
*
(1355)
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Downey: I have referred the
document that was tabled by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs)
yesterday to Manitoba Hydro for their response, as she and all members of this
House know that it is governed by a board of directors which is appointed by
government and managed by a competent group of managers. I am waiting for the response from those
individuals.
Department of Environment
Work Order Enforcement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, recently we have learned of a
number of incidents where the Department of Environment seems to have trouble
enforcing work orders to deal with hazardous waste.
First, we have a family in Stonewall with
PCBs in their back yard that used to be part of a municipal golf course, and
the minister has reversed and retracted a work order ordering the municipality
to clean up the contamination.
I want to ask the Minister of
Environment: What is this family
supposed to do? Will his department take
responsibility for cleaning up the PCBs and protecting this family?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the approach of the department
has always been to make sure that the responsible parties look after the
cleanup, and we have been working with the community, the municipality and with
Manitoba Hydro. We have obtained a
considerable amount of storage for some of the contaminated soil, and I believe
that we will get that problem corrected.
Ms.
Cerilli: Can the minister clarify,
what were the specific reasons for retracting this work order?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, speaking to
the specifics of that order, I will have to get further information from the
department.
Prime Oil Company
Environmental Work Order Extension
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): For my final supplementary, I would like to
ask the minister similarly how the Prime Oil company in St. Boniface has been
stalling for two years on its work order.
Can the minister give some commitment that there will not be an
extension for this work order?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): The Prime Oil facility has been putting a
number of proposals before the Department of Environment. Obviously, the reason they received an order
recently is because we are starting to run out of patience. There is a meeting coming up very shortly and
I will not preclude what discussions will flow from that meeting.
Home Care Program
Reductions
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
A man in Winnipegosis had his three hours a
week cut completely. Other people had
their workload, their hours cut in half.
Home Care support workers and health care attendants have had much
reduction.
How can the Minister of Health say there
are no reductions to the Home Care in light of these serious cutbacks in hours
throughout the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I would very much appreciate receiving some further detail
of these issues from my honourable friend.
As I pointed out to I think the official Health critic for the official
opposition, Tuesday of last week, I have to say that I erred in some of the
information I provided to my honourable friend.
It is not just a $6‑million increase in spending on Home Care this
year over last. In fact, it is $8
million more spending.
Alternative Services
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the Minister of Health tell this
House, if there are no cutbacks to Home Care, why the public health nurses and
Home Care co‑ordinators are providing clients with lists of people whom
they can hire after their Home Care hours have been cut?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
You know, I would be very much pleased if my honourable friend would
provide a little bit of detail. She
might even consider contacting my office and providing me‑‑if she
does not want to, or have the authority to share individual names. I can understand that in Question Period.
In the past, my honourable friend the
Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) used to send names of people into
my office with concerns about Home Care.
In investigating those individuals' circumstances, we found out that the
individual had no idea the New Democrats were going to be bringing their name
to any particular complaint, because they had none.
*
(1400)
I am not saying that is the case today,
because I am not dealing with the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I am
dealing with the member for Swan River.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend the member for Swan River
that the support services for seniors in Swan River, in Dauphin and in many
communities has been put in place to provide services to seniors to aid in
their independent living. We put in
support from this government to assure that is happening, and when those
services are available in the community, naturally we wish to have it known to
potential clients that those services are available.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would be
happy to provide the names of many workers and clients who have had their
workload reduced and their hours of service reduced.
Can the minister tell us what provisions
are being put in place to ensure that these people who are having their home
care reduced or taken away from them, who are living alone and cannot afford to
hire someone from the private sector, what assurances are put in place that
these people are going to be looked after, and they are not going to be at
risk?
Mr.
Orchard: The same kinds of
assurances that have existed in the policy of the Home Care program since its
inception circa 1973. An assessment is
made by professionals who are employed by the Department of Health in terms of
determining the needs of the individual to remain living independently. Those services are provided by the
department. It may be nursing services,
or it may be a range of services. They
are provided, will continue to be provided and are being provided all across
the province, including in my honourable friend's constituency.
Urban Hospital Council Report
Tabling Request
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): My question is for the Minister of Health.
The Urban Hospital Council has for months
been conducting a far‑reaching study of possible health care
reforms. Some of the proposals on the
table are deeply controversial, and some are quite dangerous. The proposals have been in the form of public
debate for some months now, yet the Minister of Health has refused many times
to support his own views and positions on that table.
Can he table the final seven reports of the
Urban Hospital Council so that at least we and the public can make a judgment?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): When I receive the final recommendations from
the Urban Hospital Council, as I have consistently said to my honourable
friend, I will make those available.
My honourable friend wants to know what the
policy is that I have as Minister of Health.
That policy is one of involving as much consultation, as much input by
the experts in the health care system, the professionals who administer, manage
and deliver services in our health care system in being partners and having the
opportunity for input of their knowledge and expertise in changing the way we
approach health care delivery in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend has
agreed with the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, that circumstance is
indeed unique in this province compared to all other provinces.
Health Care System Reform
Services to
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell
this House what this government's policy is on one of the very dangerous
recommendations by the Urban Hospital Council, which is chaired by his deputy
minister, as regards to Manitobans selling their tax paid health care system to
Americans for fee services so that our patients will not be getting
services? It is a very dangerous
proposal and must be rejected.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, if he was
listening to Mr. Jack Litvack, who is chairing that particular issue study
group, will know that the Urban Hospital Council itself has not received any
recommendations from the study group which is investigating that issue. Lest my honourable friend sort of fall off his
normal, reasonable approach to being critic of Health and join the official
opposition Health critic in sort of wild and woolly rhetoric, let me reiterate
for my honourable friend what I have said all along, that no Manitoban will be
compromised by any sale of health care if recommended by the Urban Hospital
Council. That is the assurance the Urban Hospital Council is operating under
and that is the assurance that I am giving my honourable friend, because I
would not accept any recommendation which would do otherwise.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell this House whether his refusal today to say yes or no to this
very dangerous proposal is not in agreement with his Premier (Mr. Filmon) who
said, on November 19 on CJOB radio, no to selling health care to
Americans? Can he tell whether he is in
charge of this proposal or his Premier?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I
could rhetorically ask the question of my honourable friend, did he develop the
policy articulated by his Leader in Minnedosa where they were going to kick 40
percent of the people out of the personal care homes or was that his Leader off
on her own?
Mr. Speaker, this government, when it
accepts a policy in health care and enunciates it, it is a policy of the
government of
Selkirk Mental Health Centre
Forensic Unit
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, last year
when I asked the Minister of Health what his government's long‑term plans
were for the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, he indicated that: the discussions are proceeding, I think,
reasonably well with the federal government and do involve the Selkirk Mental
Health Centre as a potential site for high‑security forensic beds. Mr. Speaker, I have received correspondence
that clearly indicates that the project is now in jeopardy, that the federal
government is reducing their involvement in the planning process and they are
not proceeding with a cost‑shared facility.
Will the Minister of Health now come clean
to this House and to the people of Selkirk about the status of this promised
forensic facility?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend has at least
a partial knowledge of the issue. Indeed, this is a project which the
That is why I say, the federal government
must be partner of any solution. As I
stand today, I do not have a commitment from the federal government. I did not have that six months ago when my
honourable friend was informed that was the direction we were taking. We are still pursuing that with the federal
government. I cannot answer to my honourable friend today whether I will be
successful in persuading the federal government to commit resources to an
obligation they have in partnership with the
Mr.
Dewar: Mr. Speaker, since it is
clear from the correspondence that the minister was aware that the federal
government was pulling out of negotiations for the forensic unit at Selkirk,
will he tell this House why he misrepresented the status of those negotiations
when I raised this issue last December?
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask you to call the member to order in his question. He makes the fact or he tries to make the
point that, indeed, a member of this government has misrepresented other
members of this House. That is a very
serious allegation and charge, and I would ask the member to either prove it or
to withdraw it categorically and very quickly.
Indeed all members of this House are to treat the actions and the words
of other members in a very courteous fashion.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader does
not have a point of order. The word
quite clearly is ruled in Beauchesne as parliamentary. The honourable member did not say deliberate.
*
* *
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I simply want
to say to my honourable friend the member for Selkirk that he ought to be a
little more careful in his accusations in this House. It does not do his constituents very proud
when their member is not being exactly honest.
I would not say deliberately dishonest, because that would contravene
the rules. I simply want to tell my
honourable friend that this government is pursuing the federal government for a
commitment to high‑security forensic facilities in the
I will repeat my answer for my honourable
friend so he has it perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker, that we have not received a
commitment from the federal government to participate, nor have we had the
federal government say to us, no, we will not participate.
I am not willing to give up, as my honourable
friend would appear to be, in pursuing the federal government, because I think
they will understand their obligation. I
believe we might have some success persuading them to be an investor in this
program that is in part mandated because of federal statute.
*
(1410)
Mr.
Dewar: I would like to table a
letter, Mr. Speaker, from M.J. Duggan which clearly states, and I quote‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Dewar: Will the minister tell us why
it took him over three months to respond to the federal government's letter,
which indicates that they will not participate in the cost‑shared
agreement?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot
apologize for federal government tardiness in decision making, but we are going
right to the federal minister, because this may ultimately end up being a
federal cabinet decision.
That is why I say to my honourable friend,
I have not given up, as the New Democrats have, in achieving some participation
by the federal government. When I get a
definitive answer, not from a bureaucrat but from the minister responsible, I
will then come to this House and say, the federal government will not be a
partner. I am not able to say that,
because I believe that the federal cabinet may wish to be partners in this
arrangement.
Community Colleges
Student Appeal Process
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, due process is a cherished part of our freedoms, due process in our
courts. It would seem that it would be
equally appropriate that there should be due process in our community colleges.
Will the Minister of Education tell this
House why students who appeal before the student and faculty appeal board are
not allowed to be present when evidence presented against them is being given?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I take the question of the
member very seriously. I will look into
the process at the community colleges, the process of appeal. I will bring the information back to the
House.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I do
recognize that this is a very new and inexperienced minister. However, this case has been before her for 48
hours.
I want to know why, when at the
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Carstairs:
Mr. Speaker, we are speaking about a
young woman who has been denied access to the continuation of her academic
program. The minister has known about
this for 48 hours.
I want to know why this young woman cannot
hear the tapes of evidence presented against her in her appeals process.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, it is a very
serious matter. As I said to the member,
I will look into it and I will look into the time frame also. Anxieties of young people are of great
concern to me also.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, at the University of
Will I now get an agreement from the
minister that she will insist that the community colleges bring their appeal
processes into line with due process granted at our universities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the process
currently used at
Service Reduction
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Because of insufficient funding by this government,
the
Will the minister review the budget of the
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
I am intrigued by my honourable friend's 180‑degree difference
from government to opposition on the issue of
Let me deal with the issue that my
honourable friend is now trying to allege is caused by cutbacks in the
government. There has been increased
funding in health care every single budget. In
An 18‑month survey in
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend
cannot say one thing while his critic suggests another.
Mr.
Speaker: The time for Oral Questions
has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, will
you call debate on second readings, the bills as listed on the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 5‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Culture, Heritage, and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) Bill 5, The
Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur le Conseil consultatif manitobain de la situation de la femme,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson.
*
(1420)
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to speak on this particular bill because I feel it is
important. A bill such as this,
particularly as we begin the discussion bills in this session to ensure that we
have a good debate on matters such as this that impact on the women of this
province, I think it important in doing so to recognize that essentially the
basic principle that is being addressed here in this particular bill goes
beyond simply the change of a name, but deals with the status of women in this
province, and how we deal with so‑called women's issues, and indeed what
direction we should be proceeding with, whether it be in terms of what is
currently known as the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and
indeed what direction we should all be looking at as a Legislature in terms of
the status of women in this province.
I would begin by indicating that you may
have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that I was somewhat hesitant to talk about strictly
women's issues, because I think in many ways it is a misnomer to refer to
issues with regard to the quality, whether it be in terms of economic equality,
social equality, or quality in terms of health care in this province. To talk about them as being women's issues
without referring them to what I think is probably a better term that indeed is
currently reflected in the current title of the advisory council, and that is
they are status of women's issues. They
are issues that affect all of us, that we should all be concerned with.
They are issues that should have no gender
in terms of concern or discussion or debate.
Indeed, they are issues that affect the status of women. I think there is a major distinction that has
to be made. In fact, I find it ironic
that the minister herself in her opening comments just yesterday essentially
reflected that sort of sense when she said that many so‑called women's
issues are of concern to us all, and I think by implication indicated that they
are status of women's issues.
Indeed, I think it is ironic because
essentially what this bill does in changing the name is twofold. One is to deal with the fact that there are
two organizations in this province that have an identical acronym, MACSW. There is the Manitoba Action Committee on the
Status of Women, and the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Indeed, I think most members of this
Legislature are aware of the differences between those two organizations, very
major differences.
The Manitoba Action Committee on the Status
of Women, Mr. Speaker, is an independent organization that has its own
membership base, that has chapters throughout this province. I know they are very active in every part of
this, and indeed the minister says that the MACSW has recognized the fact that
we have similar acronyms and indeed there should be a change in terms of the
Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women, to avoid that confusion in
terms of acronyms. Indeed, that may be a
legitimate argument that the minister is putting forward, in terms of that
confusion, and the need to look for another way of expressing that.
I must indicate that there are many in our
caucus who have a concern about the particular, not acronym, but the name that
is being adopted as a replacement because we feel that the important thing is
not so much the acronyms per se, but what the name of this particular advisory
council, established in legislation in this province, what it reflects, what it
represents, and what it communicates, particularly to the women of this
province, but also to the general population, about its role.
Indeed, the mandate is not changed by this
bill, but the name is changed quite significantly‑‑quite
significantly. I think it is important for
the minister to recognize the kind of debate I think we should have over the
particular name that is being suggested as being appropriate: The Manitoba Women's Advisory Council. The concern that I have‑‑as I
said before, recognizing the specific focus that needs to be attached by using,
I think, the term, status of women issues‑‑is the fact that the new
name that is being proposed by the minister is:
The Manitoba Women's Advisory Council.
"Manitoba Women's Advisory
Council," that is the change that takes place in this particular
bill. I believe that the concern that
will be expressed, indeed by a number of speakers in this House, is the fact
that it does not adequately reflect the particular focus on status of women's
issues. Not that they are women's issues
in the general sense. They are obviously
of concern to all of us, but they affect the role, the status, of women, the
degree of equality women have achieved in this province. That is very specific to the focus of The
Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women as it is currently constructed
and would still be constructed under this bill.
That is indeed why a number of our speakers
today will be expressing concern about that, and will be looking forward to the
committee hearings, to hear from, indeed, women in particular, but from the
population of Manitoba in general, about this particular bill. I think it is important to reference as well,
because I think if one looks at the comments made by the minister, her
intention, it appears, is obviously not to affect the current mandate of the
advisory council. She talked about
issues, in fact referenced that, as I mentioned earlier, that all issues are
women's issues are everybody's issues.
Indeed, but if one looks at even what she
herself has said, she then immediately reflects in her comments yesterday the
fact that we are dealing in particular with status of women issues, status of
society, whether it be in terms of the Constitution, for example, the
constitutional debates, indeed the advice of the advisory council would be
provided and, whether it be in other areas, and she referenced these
specifically.
(Madam Deputy Speaker in
the Chair)
I want to reference her comments in terms
of substance abuse, public information for social allowance recipients, gun
control, the economy, single‑parent families, these indeed also being
issues being addressed by the advisory council, indeed issues that the
government should be receiving advice on.
She referenced the important role of the advisory council in dealing
with issues of concern to rural, northern and Native women, obviously fairly
important.
We also had comments from the Liberal
Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) following the minister's comments, also reflecting many
of the same sorts of concerns. In fact
the Liberal Leader followed on from the comments of the minister and referenced
some of the current discussions involving the Charter of Rights, the Canadian
Constitution.
All areas once again, the Manitoba Advisory
Council on the Status of Women has been involved with and should be involved
with in providing advice not only to this government, but to all members of
this House.
I want to stress that we are in a very
crucial time. That is why, perhaps, we
on this side will be taking some time in the second reading stage of this, when
we are dealing with the principle of this bill, to address this bill and the
general situation and the kind of advice that we are looking for from the
Advisory Council on the Status of Women, because we live in critical times.
The Constitution, as was referenced by the
minister, is obviously going to be a major matter of public debate. It is currently going before the House of
Commons, a special committee on the Constitution. We are anticipating, I believe, anybody who
is following the debate, some significant changes to the proposals the federal
government has put forward.
We have had a process in this province of
an all‑party committee that has dealt with the more general approach in
terms of constitutional matters, that has referenced many of the concerns that
have been expressed by Manitobans and were outlined in the various public
hearings that took place across this province.
In fact, we are in the unique position of
having an all‑party agreement on the basic principles involving the
Constitution, but there is a particular role in terms of women's issues, status
of women issues.
There is a particular role for the advisory
council in this particular area because, if one only looks back on the Meech
Lake debate, I think one will have to recognize what happened in that
particular case. In that case, there was
no opportunity for the kind of input we have seen in this round of
constitutional discussions.
There was a package that was developed by
ten Premiers and the Prime Minister with the best of intentions, no doubt, for
what they thought was in the best interest of the country and indeed in some
ways may have had some beneficial features and some obvious weaknesses.
It was not a process that was open. It was a process that had no role for
involvement of aboriginal people. It had
no role for the involvement of women in the process, and it was a process that
said, take it or leave it, there is no opportunity for change until, lo and
behold, a few days before, a few weeks before, we saw there was the possibility
for change.
Once again, it was not because of the input
of women, or aboriginal people, or the many Manitobans, the many people who had
expressed concern about the Constitution up to that point. It was because of
the political pressures, the political pressures from a number of provinces
that those changes were made.
*
(1430)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the rest was history‑‑the
role that Elijah Harper and aboriginal people played in saying that they would
no longer be left out of the process, but it is important to reflect what
happened as well, because there was a unique coalition on the Constitution at
that time that indeed involved aboriginal people, but also involved many
concerned women. I believe if one was to
look in
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, we see this
time around there is a different process, but some of the same types of
concerns are being expressed. A
different process, indeed, because I believe the constitutional package put
forward by the federal government has so many weaknesses, has had so many
unwanted and unnecessary items that there is recognition and has been from the
very day that it was released that there has to be change. There is room for change, and indeed there
has to be major change to the package if it is to have any opportunity of
receiving any type of support from separate provincial governments or, indeed,
from the people, most importantly, in this province. That is why I would note the activity of
women, again, in this particular area, particularly in
If one looked at the constitutional
conferences that took place, I think you will find there were a number of
Indeed, if it was not for the combined
action of lobby groups, if you want to use that word, of action groups such as
the Manitoba action group on the Status of Women, or indeed many of the
advisory councils that also in 1982 said that women could not be left out, that
equality rights could not be sacrificed, Madam Deputy Speaker, we would not
have seen those changes.
I would suggest to you as well, in this
round of constitutional changes and of discussions, that if we do not have the
same type of input from the Action Committee on the Status of Women, from the
advisory councils‑‑indeed we are not unique, there are other
advisory councils; there was a federal advisory council‑‑that we
would not see those types of opportunities in this round for absolute
protection. No package of constitutional
reform can be appropriate unless there is absolute protection of the
fundamental equality rights of women.
There can be no ifs, no ands, no buts.
In fact, I would suggest in this round of
discussions the consensus seems to be moving far more towards that being the
case. That is why‑‑and I
mentioned before the fact that these are uniquely status of women issues. That is exactly why I believe the Liberal
Leader (Mrs. Carstairs) yesterday referenced the fact that perhaps many men‑‑she
used the example of the white Anglo‑Saxon Protestant male‑‑and
I am not looking to the former Minister of Energy and Mines here.
I am not continuing with that discussion in
terms of multicultural funding, but the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs)
referenced the fact that‑‑[interjection] I am talking about the
Liberal Leader's comments here, but many people who might fall into that
category and who for many years have had greater access to power in this
country and, to the exclusion of many groups, including women, have not had
those same concerns, obviously, because the fundamental role of the equality
rights provisions of the Constitution is to ensure equality for all whether
they have access now to the levers of power, to the corridors of power and
Legislatures and Parliaments or the access to the board rooms where the
decisions are made that affect the population.
I say that for now, Madam Deputy Speaker,
because I look forward to the day when there will be greater equality in those
areas as well in our Parliaments, and in our Legislatures, in the board rooms,
in our communities, because that is when the true status of equality can be
achieved when it is not simply a matter of legislation, when it is not simply
something that is expressed in a constitution, but when it is the reality.
In fact, I remarked the other day that the
ironic thing in this Legislature is the only place we find gender parity is in
the many murals, the many paintings we have on the wall. In fact, there are far more women represented
in those panels, Madam Deputy Speaker, than there are men. In fact, it is almost the complete reverse of
the Chamber. While the member opposite,
the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) suggests changing the pictures, well, I
would suggest changing the composition of the Legislature and we can worry
about the pictures afterwards and I think that is what women are more and more
expressing, is a need for equality in this Chamber.
I want to suggest to the minister that that
is why it is so important to maintain the integrity of the Manitoba Advisory
Council on the Status of Women‑‑and maintain its clear position in
Manitoba political process‑‑because it is not, I would suggest,
accurate to call the current Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women,
it would not be accurate to describe it as a Manitoba women's advisory
council. An advisory council on
what? On milk prices? On which highways we should build? Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not an advisory
council on a general range of issues; it is a particular advisory council on
the status of women and that involves issues throughout our society.
I am not saying that it should be a
restricted role. In many ways it is a
role for the advisory council itself, with its mandate from the Legislature to
reflect. The bottom line is that there
is greater recognition of the role of women in society generally to the point
where many issues, perhaps, might not have been considered status of women
issues a number of years ago are currently considered to be of that case.
It is not a general advisory council. It is not just an advisory council that is
there and is composed of women, so therefore it is a women's advisory
council. That is not the point. It is a specific body that is there to advise
this government on the status of women's issues. Why would we, in the New Democratic Party, at
the risk of being seen as quibbling over names, express a concern?
It is because this government needs advice
on the status of women's issues. This
government needs serious advice on the status of women's issues, because in
this province, since this government has taken office, in terms of many key
areas, we have seen this government slow to a halt, to the point of actually
stopping any progress, and in some cases of regressing in terms of the status
of women's issues, the same types of issues that the minister said this
government needs the advice of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women now.
Need I refer to pay equity?
An
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, indeed, I know for the
minister responsible for Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), I need not refer to pay
equity for that minister. I assume he is
aware of just how this government has come to the point where it is not living
up to the spirit of the current act.
Not only has it not moved into the private
sector, but it has not lived up to its responsibility, I believe, its moral,
ethical responsibility to reflect the true intentions of The Pay Equity
Act. I need only look to the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard), and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) need
only look to the actions of the Minister of Health to see exactly what has
happened in the province.
*
(1440)
That is an area, a key area where this
advisory council provides advice; a key area that the minister herself referred
to in her comments as being areas that the government should be looking
at. Pay equity: pay equity in the private sector and pay
equity in the public sector. There are
serious questions I think that can be raised about affirmative action as it
affects women in this province.
In fact there are some specific personnel
decisions that we will be referring to when we have the opportunity, which
would not be in order, I realize, in this particular debate, but where we
question that and some of the changes that have been made by this
government. Where we question, indeed,
whether it is turning a deaf ear to the concerns that have been expressed by
women and even, yes, by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women.
We are seeing in other areas, as well, I
think, that the government is unwilling or unable to make the major changes
necessary. We have seen many justice‑related
issues. Indeed, while, there has been
some change, I believe that this government usually, unfortunately, has to be
dragged kicking and screaming into these particular things, the kind of actions
they have been taking. Once again, that
is why you need an advisory council, to be able to drag governments, to be able
to influence governments, to be able to push them and to have that legitimacy of
being a body established by a legislation, one with a clear mandate that cannot
be ignored in this House, that cannot be ignored by this government. There are many, many other areas as well that
I think this government has failed in terms of dealing with the status of
women's concerns.
Poverty issues, which are fundamentally
issues that affect the status of women in this province, because as the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) I believe knows, the vast
majority of people living under the poverty line are women, many of them
elderly women, the many single‑parent families indeed, and there is the
desperate need in this country to deal with that kind of poverty. The kind of poverty that is only being
exacerbated now by the recession and by governments that, instead of acting,
are now mouthing the words, but are also cutting back on programs, are making
it more and more difficult for women in particular to break out of the cycle of
poverty.
I look at some of the cuts that have taken
place in education and training. In my
own area, as an example, I look at some of the major gaps that are developing
in terms of social allowances. I look
with despair at the number of women, the single‑parent women, that I have
had contact me on a constituency basis who are basically, because of the way
the social allowance system has been structured, now dropping out of school
because they can receive no assistance if they do so and actually are better
off if they are on welfare. In fact, the
only way they can guarantee support for their families, for their children, is
to be on welfare rather than to be improving their education and hopefully‑‑and
that is what they are expressing to me‑‑being able to break out of
the cycle of poverty.
There are so many areas where governments
increasingly, in this particular field, are learning the terminology, but are
not learning the lesson, that are saying the right words, Madam Deputy Speaker,
but are not responding with the right actions.
The member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae)
asked if there were going to be pay equity police in this province. Who can forget that? I am sure the member for
They quietly allowed it to pass through, so
they could claim in later years they actually supported the bill, but we
remember the comments that were made.
They reflected a complete ignorance of the bill itself, the concept of
pay equity, and what it was intended to achieve within this province, not a
system of pay equity police, but indeed a system of pay equity that will
develop and indeed will develop to the point where the kind of system that is
put in place will be second nature.
I am once again not referring to the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), although I know he has his views on pay equity.
An
Honourable Member: Define it.
Mr.
Ashton: The member says to define
it. It is defined in the act. There are many schemes, and I see that the
minister is hopefully advising the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), perhaps
educating him on pay equity, and I appreciate the task ahead of him.
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was
referring to the minister's comments in terms of pay equity which were made
specifically in her speech. I wanted to
reflect again on the fact that simply passing something, simply giving
something a name, simply even putting a mechanism in place does not achieve the
goal if the fundamental spirit is not recognized.
Indeed, in terms of pay equity, I believe
this government has failed to implement the true spirit of pay equity in this
province and indeed wherever possible has tried to use arguments, legalistic
arguments, that in many cases are even flawed in and of themselves to hinder
the expansion of pay equity in this province as indeed has been indicated by
the minister involved.
That is why we need the advisory council
with a clear mandate and a clear identity with the public of
My concern is that people hearing "the
Manitoba Women's Advisory Council" will assume it is a new body, first of
all, not the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. They will be confused as to its very
deliberate and focused mandate, and they will not take into account the type of
advice on status of women's issues that have been made in the past years and
have been very useful in the public debate.
The minister should not‑‑[interjection]
Well, the minister, I think, should understand that we are expressing a concern
about the second step. The first step
the minister is proposing is to get rid of the current name. That is what this bill has achieved. It is important to note, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the minister attempted to do it previously under a bill last year,
Statute of Law Amendments, which brings together a whole series of matters that
are considered of a technical nature.
That is what we are saying. That
is only the first step.
The second concern that has to be addressed
is the specific title of the new organization, the new advisory council as it
is established. We are not disputing the
fact that many women's organizations have said, yes, change the name. What we want is for the government to look
very seriously at the name that has been adopted. That is why we will be asking‑‑and
there have been discussions between House leaders in terms of the committee
hearings.
We want this bill to be able to go to
committee prior to the normal situation where we finish probably 90 percent of
the committee hearings on bills in the last week or two of the Manitoba
Legislature sitting. We want to see this
go. We have suggested, and the House
leader has indicated, that there will be no difficulty if this bill is passed
through and having it go to committee not the following week, but perhaps the
week after, to give enough notice so that women in particular and other members
of the public are aware of when it is going to be sitting, and at the same time
not to drag this matter, not to have too great a gap between the time in which
we consider it in debate and these ideas are proposed and the time we actually
deal with it in committee.
I think that is important, because what we
will be looking for from the committee hearings is response, not just to the
idea of changing the name, but also indeed to what particular name it should
reflect and if this government is either‑‑and I do not believe they
are deliberately trying to shift the mandate.
I take the minister at her word.
I believe that there is no intent on the part of this government to shift
the mandate. There may be some
disagreement amongst some on that.
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps the
minister in her heart of hearts knows, as in my heart I know, that this
government needs all the advice it can get on status of women's issues. I think what we will be looking for is some
advice, particularly from women who have been involved in the struggle for
equality for women, have been involved with other organizations as to whether
this change of name is appropriate, as to whether in fact there may be some
changes to the mandate that might strengthen the advisory council, something
the minister has not really considered in this particular bill. That is something that we may wish to look
at. I would suggest that it would
perhaps be appropriate, given the critical nature of equality issues and the
fact that many cases, despite the fact we all now adopt the terminology.
We no longer use sexist terms the same way
that we did previously, but we see the status of women in terms of any indication,
whether it be in terms of poverty or the wages women receive, have essentially
remained fairly static the last number of years. I believe that is very much because of
recession, cutbacks and the kind of economic environment that we are seeing
words not action.
*
(1450)
I am hoping the minister will be open to
advice from groups as well as to the mandate of the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women that may indeed be open for expansion. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if this
bill does go to committee in the next number of weeks, the minister will be
receiving feedback from women about some of her comments about some of the
issues that have been raised and indeed some of her comments about the
government's response on those issues. I
indeed would fully expect women to use the opportunity of the committee
hearings to not just talk about the mandate, but also the agenda that should be
followed by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and indeed this
government, recognizing the more limited focus that we have available to us in
this committee.
I have responded only to some of the
comments that were raised and expressed those general concerns. I want to indicate that we do have a number
of other speakers, and indeed we are looking at passing it through to
committee. That is on the undertaking,
and I accept the word of the government House leader that the committee
hearings will be structured in consultation with opposition parties in such a
way as to allow for the fullest possible participation of the
The key thing I want to stress in
conclusion is, this is not simply a question of semantics. This is not just a question of a name. When one is dealing with an area of
fundamental importance, such as status of women's issues, one has to be very,
very careful, Madam Deputy Speaker, about any change to a body such as the
advisory council, which I feel is an excellent, excellent asset for the
Mr. Jack
Reimer (Niakwa): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to speak in support of Bill 5, which
is The Manitoba Advisory Council on The Status of Women Amendment Act. I would like to point out that, as was
alluded to initially when the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) first got up,
what it is in essence is a name change, a name change only in the fact that the
Manitoba Women's Advisory Council is looking for change because of the fact
that it shares the same acronym, MACSW, which is the Manitoba Advisory Council
on the Status of Women and also the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of
Women.
What has happened in the last while is
there has been quite a bit of confusion as to who and what does what. When people are phoning or people are
questioning the two organizations, it is just a matter of confusion. What the minister has brought forth is
strictly a name change. The mandate
remains the same. The confusion that has
come about is because of the fact that women's issues, as have been pointed
out, are playing more and more of a central role in focus because of the fact
that there has been a significant increase not only in the amount of problems
or unfortunate attacks or violence that have come forth with women. There needs
to be a recognition that women are in a position that they have to come to
various organizations for strength, for support, for the initiative that has to
come forth back to government.
Government acts on advice and consultation
with various groups. One of the groups
is the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It is playing more and more of an important
role and, as has been pointed out by the member, the fact is that here in this
Legislature women are becoming more involved, more active, more in a position
to make changes, and these are very, very positive and very strong initiatives,
not only for this government, but for all parties.
As each party welcomes women into their
ranks, if you want to call it, they each bring in a different perspective which
is valuable not only for the party, not only for the government, but also for
the
There are a number of other groups that
have come out in strong support for this name change because, if anything, if
there is a clear definition of purpose, it makes all groups work in more
harmony, and they can complement and contribute to each other and try to bring
forth suggestions, bring forth legislation, bring forth change and bring forth
a perspective that is needed for all parties to address the very serious
concerns.
Women's problems are not isolated in the
sense that they are gender related.
Problems that affect women are problems that also affect all mankind, if
you want to call it. They are economic
problems, and they are problems that should be addressed in different venues.
The responsibilities of addressing the
problems are becoming more and more evident.
It is very, very unfortunate that from time to time here at the
Legislature and on the Legislative Grounds we see a circle of women out in
front, and I have participated in some of these vigils for the women who have
been slain because of their partners or because of violent situations.
The comments that are made in the circles
from the people who participate are becoming unfortunately very, very
common. I do not say that in any type of
derogatory manner. It is just that the
circles are becoming more common out in front.
We are becoming a violent society in a
sense that there is violence that is being perpetrated towards women, and the
fact is that the vigils bring forth the recognition of it; the fact is that the
people who participate on it and with it, you become familiar, you become close
to them in a sense that they are sharing a common despair. It is unfortunate that we have to do these
circles. It is unfortunate that they,
like I say, are becoming common because they should not happen at all.
The efforts that are mentioned in the
circle, the women that I talk to and the men‑‑there are men there,
too. It is something that is attended by
both women and men. I think the
understanding that comes out of it from time to time is that there has to be an
awareness, there has to be a conscious effort put forth that any type of
violence, whether it be against women, children or against their fellow person,
has to stop.
The vigils are bringing forth a lot of
public awareness, public presence.
Hopefully, when it comes back up the steps from the Legislature into
this Chamber, we can address these problems.
One of the things that does happen is,
because the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women is here for us to
listen to, there is a vehicle, there is a funnel, there is a voice that can come
forth to this Chamber, through all parties, and that the programs or concerns
can be met or can be addressed in a sense.
It is an ongoing problem. The status of women is something that is not
there for just today. It is a concern
that will grow. It will grow with this
government. It will grow with the
involvement. It will grow with the
members. It is something that is not
static in a sense that what is done today is necessarily going to be the cure‑all
and end‑all for all times. We must be constantly aware of how we can
change and how we can become better to our fellow persons and our fellow mates,
if you would like to call it, and our interaction with all people. It is a vehicle that is of strong support for
information.
The minister is bringing forth the
legislation for a name change only. It
is not a change of direction. It is a
positive change in a sense that it brings a clear vision not only for the
minister, but for all legislators, that the group is indeed concerned about the
concerns of women. It is not something
that is brought forth in any way to redirect or to bring changes.
*
(1500)
All areas of government and the attitude of
government has to change. We look, from
time to time, back as to what has come to the House before and who was sitting
in the House before, and we look not only back at the present government, but
we look at the government before and how attitudes have changed and the fact
that people must be aware of what has been before us in other legislation. We are reminded of attitude change when we
look back to some of the previous ministers in the NDP government and some of
the positions or some of the comments that were made by the previous NDP.
I am reminded of a very explosive issue
with the NDP back in 1983 when the then minister of the government, Andy
Anstett, who was the municipal affairs minister, at the convention of the
Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities told a joke, a very sexist joke,
which created a lot of animosity and a lot of furor in the NDP where he told
this sexist joke. The NDP government at
the time was very embarrassed about it.
In fact, the then deputy, Muriel Smith, even mentioned that it‑‑and
I quote: It takes a long time to
sensitize all our male friends to women's issues.
She was referring to her own male
colleagues in her cabinet. It just goes to show that though there was the‑‑[interjection]
that is right‑‑fact that the previous speaker was talking that for
some reason it is falling back on this government that we are trying to change
attitude. The attitude at that time in
the previous government was noted in the fact that even the deputy minister, as
I mentioned, Muriel Smith, had to chastise her own male colleagues in cabinet
as to their attitude and the direction that they were taking.
So it is something that all parties must
work for. I think that the member for
Burrows in fact at that time, back in 1983, and I will quote, and this is from
1983, as I mentioned: Honour is like a
woman's virginity. Once you have lost it
once, you cannot regain it anymore.
This is the member for Burrows in
Hansard. I mean, that type of attitude
is something that is still in the caucus, it is still in the minds of the New
Democrats where it is some sort of common occurrence with this type of
attitude, and I think that we have to‑‑we cannot allow that type of
attitude. It is an attitude of just
bringing forth very little concern.
Women are very important. We have
their contribution in our caucus, which is a very strong contribution, and we
believe that the female members of cabinet and the female members of our caucus
come forth as very strong representatives.
They are equal in our caucus. I
believe that they are equal in our cabinet, and this is the type of attitude
that prevails to make good legislation and bring forth the right type of
attitude.
I think that, as was mentioned by the
member for Burrows‑‑there are other quotes there too. I do not know whether the members would like
to hear them, but some of them are, you know, quite sexist, and‑‑
An
Honourable Member: I want to hear
them.
Mr.
Reimer: Would you? Well, I mean, after that he continued to say,
when I talk about virginity, I also talk about the man, because a man can also
lose his virginity at the instigation of an older woman. You know, so, I mean, that type‑‑the
attitude of what women do and how they can‑‑this is not something
that should be taken lightly.
An
Honourable Member: And the NDP has
never denied that is their official position?
Mr.
Reimer: Well, I believe that‑‑but
at this time, he is the‑‑did I say the member for Burrows? I believe it is the member for Broadway. Pardon me, the member for Broadway. I certainly would not want to besmirch the
minister of the cloth from Broadway, you see‑‑the member for
Burrows, I mean the member for Broadway.
I have just got to just bring that back into Hansard and make sure that
is correct. I have not heard any type of
denial from the New Democratic Party as to their various positions on it.
Talking again back on the bill, we have to
bring it back into the context of why it was introduced and the fact that it is
a name change, a name change only. The
perception that because of a name change that there is some sort of ulterior
motive that the minister is trying to bring forth just seems to be really
stretching a fine point because of the fact that there are other groups that
are totally in agreement with it.
Some of the groups that have come forth and
said that they would like to see the name change, and I will just quote them:
the Manitoba Women's Institute; The Provincial Council of Women; the North End
Women's Centre; Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre; the original Women's
Network; the Aboriginal Women's Unity Coalition; and The Canadian Congress of
Learning Opportunities for Women. These
groups here are recognizing the fact that the name change is proper and it
should be there, because it creates a simplicity of who is there to speak for
them.
I have had the opportunity to be at the
North End Women's Centre, and I have got to say that that is a very innovative
and very progressive and aggressive organization. I had the opportunity to tour that with the
minister on an invitation, and the dedication, the hard work, and the
involvement of the women of that organization shows a very strong pride, a very
strong involvement with the community, and the fact that they have come forth
with very positive results. They have
come forth with a feeling of sharing and contribution to the community and it
is an ongoing program.
I believe that one of the people involved
with that centre with whom I have had the opportunity to have a conversation is
Winnie Giesbrecht. She is a very astute
and a very strong proponent in the North End Women's Centre and we have had
some very interesting conversations as to the directions and some of the
programs and events that she is involved with.
So there are more and more of the avenues available for the women to
come forth and to bring their issues.
I think that this government and this
minister in bringing forth The Status of Women Amendment Act to change the name
is going to make it even more available for all groups, not only the groups
that I have mentioned, but other groups that will be aware of the fact that
their voices are heard. There is a
vehicle for them to come and bring their concerns. The name change, as mentioned, would create
the difference because of the acronym.
As I pointed out, the two groups that are
having the problem is the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women and
the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In fact, if you do not actually look at the
words closely, they automatically confuse themselves in the way you pronounce
them. I can see where there is a lot of
mail that is misdirected, a lot of phone calls that are misdirected, and every
one of those misdirections takes time.
A phone call that is possibly of a very
urgent matter and a very pressing matter because of an unfortunate situation
becomes caught up in the milieu, if you want to call it, of whom you are trying
call and whom you are working with or whom you were talking to before. The whole program becomes very confusing.
Mail delivery when mail is opened or mail is sent to the wrong group can cause
problems because of the fact that the letter may get opened. One may feel that there is someone in that
organization that was to address the problem and they may not be totally aware
of it, whereas actually it was supposed to go to the other group.
* (1510)
These are some of the things that you have
to correct in dealing with the avenues of communication. Anything that delays time or adds time can be
very vital in trying to bring forth the solution to the problem. Unfortunately, a lot of the problems that
come forth through the Status of Women and various organizations are on a
crisis basis or on a very need‑to‑do time frame.
The longer the time range is, the more the
problem will compound itself and possibly even lead to, unfortunately, sometimes
to violent situations or very unpleasant circumstances. It is mainly because of, or possibly because
of, lack of direction or confusion because of the direction of who and what is
to be addressed.
Madame Deputy Speaker, I just would like to
get those views on the record as to why this was brought forth. It was brought forth not only by the
minister, but by groups that were wanting the change. It is not a change for the sake of change, to
incorporate new direction or new mandate.
It is a change that was brought forth‑‑I believe it was
supported by the Liberal members in the Law Amendments when it was brought
forth. At that time it was defeated by
the NDP.
The committee that was formed to study it
during the last session agreed that it should be changed. The Liberal members at that time agreed it
should be changed. The government
decided it should be changed. However,
it was not given agreement because of the New Democratic members on that
committee at that time. I believe that
the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will close with
those remarks. Thank you very much.
Ms. Judy
Wasylycia-Leis (
Not only is this a bill of some
significance, it is also another bill where one can clearly see the divisions
in this Chamber and clearly see where the Liberals in this House fall on
critical issues dealing with women and women's equality.
Once again the Liberals in this Chamber
have lined up with the Conservative government to go hand in hand, support them
every step of the way in bringing forward a change that does matter, that does
have repercussions, that does make a difference in our struggle for true
equality between women and men in our society today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to just
go over a bit of the history of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women
with members in this Chamber, some history that may help both members of the
government and members of the Liberal Party understand the significance of the
name of this organization and how it is linked to its mandate and purpose and
role.
I take some interest in this matter,
because it was in fact under my ministry as Minister responsible for the Status
of Women in 1987 that this legislation to establish the Manitoba Council on the
Status of Women was introduced and became law.
It has been part of the tradition, history and philosophy of the New
Democratic Party, unlike the other two parties, to clearly identify the need
for a body within government that has the mandate, the teeth and the power to
work toward greater equality within government and outside government.
Our battles over the years, our efforts to
address equality for women have gone hand in hand with such organizations as
the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women. It is that determination to be forever
steadfast in the struggle to obtain true equality between women and men that
this legislation first came into being, was first introduced in this
Chamber. It clearly spells out a very
specific mandate that goes hand in hand with the title of the
organization. A mandate that says women
and men should have equal rights, opportunities and responsibilities to enable
them to develop their talents and capabilities for their personal fulfillment
and the benefit of society.
Further, Madam Deputy Speaker, the mandate
as established by law and entrenched in legislation further says that this
Legislative Assembly believes that changes in social, legal and economic
structures that would make possible full equality and promote free access
without discrimination of any kind to women, to all types of social and
economic development, and to all types of education, should be promoted by the
government of Manitoba.
That is a very specific mandate, and it is
a very radical mandate. It calls on all
of us to work to change structural barriers, systemic obstacles to women's
inequality. Part of that struggle and
part of that obligation is tied up in the name.
The name, the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women signifies
clearly that we are talking about an organization appointed by government to
work with government to redress inequalities in our society, to work on status
of women issues. Not a council of women per se, not a council on any matter
whatsoever that government chooses should be dealt with by such a body, but a
council on the status of women. That,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is very important.
It was important back in 1987 when this legislation first was
introduced, and it is as important today.
It may not be important to the government
of the day, that clearly has a different agenda when it comes to women's
equality, and it may not matter to the Liberal Party in this Chamber that
clearly has another agenda when it comes to women's equality, but it matters to
women in this province; it matters to the New Democratic Party in this
province; it matters to women everywhere who are concerned deeply about redressing
inequalities in a meaningful, real, substantial way.
We have heard some different messages from
the government today and over the past number of months. The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) has said
this is an important change, but it does help in terms of the minister
clarifying her vision and where this government intends to go.
We have heard from others who have said,
this is not important, this is just a small little change to deal with a matter
of confusion. I go back to the debate
that we had, albeit brief, in July of 1991, when this matter was brought by the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) to the Statute
Law Amendments Committee, she said at that time, I do not think a name really
makes a difference. I do not think a
name really makes a difference.
*
(1520)
Let me also indicate while I have this
document in front of me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Liberal Party
represented by the member for
Well, I am here today, Madam Deputy Speaker,
speaking on this Bill 5 to say a name makes a difference, and I hope that the
member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, when an individual in
this House, as I have seen happen before, makes his fingers into the form of a
gun and shoots at a person, that is considered offensive and not permissible in
this Chamber. When a member in this
House, in any House, refers to another member in a most derogatory manner, that
is considered unparliamentary and called to order. I think if anything brings that home and
tells members in this House the importance of a name, let us stop and think
about the public uproar when Sheila Copps in the federal House of Commons was
called a slut.
I do not think there is a member in this
House that would have condoned that kind of behaviour and said let us leave it
alone. What is in a name? So what, it does not mean anything. We all
know that we are all treated equally, so let us not get too excited about it. I know that members opposite get a bit like
that when we on this side of the House suggest that there is importance
attached to phraseology and terminology and symbolism. Madam Deputy Speaker, words matter. Symbolism is important, and they do signal
something far beyond the particular word or that particular gesture. They indicate and reflect upon one's
philosophy and one's agenda.
In that debate back in July of 1991 when
the minister first brought this matter to the committee of this Chamber, there
was also a reaction from the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). He suggested, like the member for
Well, is it not interesting, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that that Minister of Justice feels that symbolism and words are so
important that he is pursuing as far as he can the comments made by Judge
Allen, the sexist comments which suggested that sometimes all a woman needs is
a slap. I think if the Minister of
Justice feels strongly about those words and that individual and is prepared to
pursue it, then he should open his eyes and understand the importance of a name
pertaining to a body set up to pursue status of women issues, not to be a
council of women, not to be a council of government open for pursuing any
matter that government chooses, but to be a council dedicated to pursuing
equality between women and men, a very specific mandate.
I would think that the Minister responsible
for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) would have, when she started going
down this path of changing legislation, considered the dilemma she found
herself in at the start of her term in office back in 1988 when she made a
pronouncement about changing the word chairperson to chairman. She will recall a very specific
correspondence from the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women, one
of the groups she says has supported her change in Bill 5.
The Manitoba Action Committee on the Status
of Women very clearly delineated for this minister that words matter, that
symbolism is important. I quote from a
letter dated June 28, 1988, signed by Susan Smiel, a member of the Manitoba
Action Committee on the Status of Women.
She says: While this may seem
like a very insignificant detail, those of us who are aware of the importance
of language and word usage recognize the significance of this move. Women have fought long and hard in demanding
the use of inclusive language. As the
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women tell us in their Guidelines
for Nonsexist Writing: People in general
are not all of the male gender and the usage of generic man, and the vocabulary
emanating from it tends to perpetuate the invisibility of women in the social
system.
Speaking of the document outlined in this
letter, Guidelines for Nonsexist Writing, I want to refer the attention of
members opposite, members of the Conservative government, to a document
circulated by a former Conservative Minister responsible for the Status of
Women, Gerrie Hammond, who circulated to all members in this House a document
entitled Guidelines for Nonsexist Writing. She commended that document to all
of our caucuses and suggested we apply the guidelines in all of our dealings in
and outside of this Chamber.
For very good reason, that document in its
introduction says it best: Dear God,
wrote a little girl named Sylvia, are boys better than girls? I know you are one, but try to be fair. What would you say to that? Language and concepts go together with the
former providing the framework for the latter, thus the process of
socialization continues as thoughts and actions are reflected in language which
turn conditions how people think and act.
It is important to change the pattern to introduce concepts of equality
and fairness in our language through the use of nonsexist words.
I could go on, Madam Deputy Speaker, with
quotations from that document that was circulated by the Conservative Minister
responsible for the Status of Women, Gerrie Hammond. Regrettably that advice was not taken
seriously by her own colleagues or by the Liberal Party for that matter and
sexist language continues in this Chamber.
Women are still faced with the fact that they are not included and
cannot feel included in our political institutions of the day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we all face cultural
conditioning in our ranks, and we all must be vigilant in dealing with
them. We in the New Democratic Party
have devoted years and years to addressing such cultural conditioning, and have
never, never professed that we have solved the problem, have achieved the goal
and have reached all of our objectives.
Our work must continue.
That is why, for example, we continue to
have a special and separate committee within the New Democratic Party dealing
with status of women issues. Let me tie
this all back to the debate we are facing and the agenda of the Conservative government
of the day. Let us note that it is the
Conservative Party of Manitoba and
*
(1530)
At best, it would appear that this name
change reflects the true agenda of this government when it comes to women's
equality. It is tied very much to their
absolute refusal to move further on the implementation of pay equity, tied
directly to the cutback of their affirmative action co‑ordinator, tied
directly to the negative and regressive changes to the daycare system of this
province, tied directly to the changes with respect to social assistance
provisions, education arrangements, which have benefited women and ensured that
there are processes and programs in place to help women deal with structural
barriers and systemic obstacles to their true and full and meaningful equality.
What is in a name? If I have not yet made my case perfectly
clear, let me then try to make my case by comparing this government's action to
every other provincial government in this country, provincial and territorial
government. In fact, members in this
Conservative government would like to leave the impression that this is a
small, insignificant change, means nothing, and is not out of step with other
jurisdictions in this country.
Let me go through the names of advisory
councils across
Let us compare that proposed change with
the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and
Labrador; Prince Edward Island Advisory Council on the Status of Women; Nova
Scotia Advisory Council on the Status of Women; New Brunswick Advisory Council
on the Status of Women; Conseil du Statut de la Femme pour Quebec; Ontario
Advisory Council on Women's Issues; Saskatchewan Advisory Council on the Status
of Women; Alberta Advisory Council on Women's Issues; Status of Women Advisory
Council of the Northwest Territories; Yukon Advisory Council on Women's Issues.
[interjection]
The Minister responsible for the Status of
Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) has asked what B.C. is, and
As members opposite should now realize
there were many choices to make, many names to choose from without changing the
fundamental concept and philosophy and mandate underpinning the council itself‑‑[interjection]
The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) would like to know what that
possibly could be. I would suggest
perhaps we could have gone to the Status of Women Advisory Council of
Manitoba. I think that would have ended
some confusion. It, in fact, would have
ended up with an acronym of some meaning and some similarity between the mandate
of the council. It would be SWACM‑‑
An
Honourable Member: What?
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: SWACM. S‑W‑A‑C‑M. I think that certainly is quite different
from MACWI. It should deal with the
similarity between the two organizations' names and would not have destroyed
the meaning and mandate of this organization and this important advisory
council to government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are other
options. We could have gone the route of
a couple of other provinces, the Manitoba Advisory Council on Women's Issues. That certainly would have not lost the
meaning of this council.
The
Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) is suggesting
that we should go with what the women want.
She claimed in her remarks yesterday to have consulted widely and won
support for this name change to Manitoba Women's Advisory Council.
I wonder if all of those groups that she
referred to in her remarks yesterday and all of those individuals she contacted
really knew the change that she was proposing, the change from an advisory
council on the status of women to one, a council of women for
I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, because in
fact there is a major shift of emphasis by going in that direction. I would hardly believe that if women in this
province knew what this government was proposing and knew what options they had
before it in order to deal with the dilemma in terms of similarity of two
women's organizations, that they would have been less willing, if they were at
all willing, to commit themselves to this proposed change in Bill 5. We shall see.
We shall see if there are concerns from women and women's organizations
in this province.
I have said that there is much in a name,
that symbolism means a great deal and signals a lot when it comes to the
government of the day's agenda. We have
seen every step of this way under the Conservative government of
I have touched on this in terms of the
substantive side of this issue on the regressive moves with respect to pay
equity, affirmative action, child care, employment, health, education. In every
area, Madam Deputy Speaker, there have been serious, regressive measures taken
by this government. On the symbolic side,
we have seen many examples of how this government really feels about women's
equality. This bill, Bill 5, is the most
recent indication of that symbolic backsliding, of that regressive move in
terms of women's issues and women's equality.
It follows after a number of other symbolic
gestures made by members of the Conservative government. I have referred already to the attempt by
this government and members of this government to move from gender‑neutral
language to sexist language and to once again bring us back to the days of
referring only to chairman instead of chairperson. We have seen the debate when it comes to how
women are addressed and choose to be addressed with the clear demarcation made
between Liberals and Conservatives and New Democratic Party women in this
Chamber.
An
Honourable Member: What do you mean?
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Deputy
Speaker, let me elaborate for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh). It has been a clear decision on the part of women in the
Conservative and Liberal Parties to choose the terminology Mrs. when being
addressed in this Chamber or outside this Chamber. It has been a clear and deliberate choice on
the part of women on this side of the House to choose the terminology Ms.
I refer the two women in the Chamber who
are making so much noise right now to their own document by a former
Conservative Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Gerrie Hammond, who
clearly indicated when circulating this document that it is in the best
interest of women feeling included and moving towards greater equality in our
political institutions to use wherever possible gender‑neutral language.
[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs is getting a little excited. Clearly, we have touched a sore spot when it
comes to the real intentions of this government around Bill 5. It is a step backward. It is a move to eliminate choice for
women. We on this side of the House will
defend to the day the right of people to make choices. I have indicated that when one makes choices,
one sends messages, just as the Minister responsible for the Status of Women
(Mrs. Mitchelson) did when she said the policy from now on would be chairman
and not chairperson; just as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did when he defended the
policy of ministers to have functions in clubs that exclude women; just as the
minister responsible for Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) does when he stands up,
and in a very patronizing way, says "Judy, Judy, Judy."
*
(1540)
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Okay, I will just call you Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis
from now on, but it takes longer.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: I am glad the
minister is focusing on my surname, because there is a good example of what is
in a name, and why I feel strongly and why members on this side feel
passionately about names and what they mean and the symbolism around them. My hyphenated name is certainly an example of
how strongly I feel and how my husband feels about showing one's feelings about
equality in a name, so a name is important.
We could go on with the examples of
symbolic gestures, decisions, titles and names that have been used by this
Conservative government that have represented a step backward for women.
I would hope that at the end of the day,
members across the way and members in the Liberal Party, can begin to see the
light of day when it comes to something as significant as the name for a
government's advisory council with a very specific mandate to advise government
on how to make structural changes on the economic, social, political and
educational fronts in order to ensure true equality between women and men.
An
Honourable Member: Judy, how are you
going to vote on this legislation?
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: The member for
I oppose it for symbolic reasons and on
substantive grounds, because one cannot separate the two. One cannot say that they are fully in support
of equality between women and men on the one hand and turn around and deny the
need to have within government a clear policy on gender neutral language, on
organizations mandated to specifically address status of women issues, to
convey a message about the struggle facing women in the goal of true equality.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am quite willing to
listen and anxiously await the views of people, men and women, at our committee
hearings on Bill 5. I am anxious to be
able to hear from members opposite, particularly the Minister responsible for
the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson), why she chose a name that creates a
certain impression and sends a signal when there were other choices before her.
The minister has insisted and continues to
insist that this is not her choice, that this is not the government's agenda, that
she is not responsible for the name change.
How often have I heard that from colleagues of hers in this House,
particularly the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who with every cutback we
present to him, every negative decision that we unearth, he claims not to be
responsible, that it is someone else's doing and he will have to look into it
and see if he can get that changed.
The Minister responsible for the Status of
Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) has introduced this bill. That minister is responsible for this
legislation. That minister has brought
forward the wishes of a council appointed by this government. Let this minister
account for the questions we raise and the issues we bring to her attention and
let her, on behalf of all of her colleagues, tell us what is the agenda of this
government when it comes to making true advancements on behalf of women, when
it comes to extending pay equity into our education system, our municipalities
and the private sector.
Let this minister stand in her place and
tell us how she will redress and correct the serious erosion that this
government has done to our once most prized, valuable daycare program anywhere
in this country.
Let the Minister responsible for the Status
of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) account for the growing number of women and children
turning to food banks and social assistance lines. Let the Minister responsible for the Status
of Women explain to this House the enormous stress and pressures that working women
in our society are faced with today as a result of trying to juggle work and
family responsibilities without the benefit of supports and programs and
services that make it a little easier to do both jobs. Those are the issues that women face on a day‑to‑day
basis.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if this government
was committed to those issues it would begin by addressing each and every one
of those inequities and those regressive changes that this government has
brought in over the last several years.
It would begin to show that it is serious by sending a signal, by
sending a message that this government is committed to an Advisory Council on
the Status of Women on women's issues, on addressing women's equality, on
removing discrimination facing women in our society today. It would do so beginning with a name, because
everything is in a name. Everything
signifies, and signals, and symbolizes a government's intentions and agenda.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I conclude by
indicating to members opposite that I am very concerned and offended by this
proposed legislation and worried about the future of women's equality in this
province and about the agenda that this government may have yet to reveal to
the people of
Point of Order
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Deputy Speaker, there was no
criticism. As a matter of fact, we were
listening quite intently to the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The honourable
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship does not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over facts.
*
(1550)
*
* *
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would anxiously await the speeches of every member on the
Conservative side of this House. I think
it would be most interesting and enlightening to hear every member stand up and
express their views about this legislation and about women's equality. I found it most interesting to hear the member
for Niakwa's (Mr. Reimer) comments. I
think perhaps that we will all read those comments with interest because again
we certainly felt as women on this side of the House that kind of patronizing
attitude that has so often emanated from Conservative benches in this
Legislature.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have further
comments to make from this side of the House.
We look forward to questions being answered at committee. We hope that if it does not make a
difference, if the name change really is that insignificant and they are simply
trying to correct a problem in terms of two organizations having similar names,
then this government will look to a variation, to a version that still upholds
and represents and encapsulates the true meaning of the Advisory Council on the
Status of Women as set out in legislation in 1987.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
As a matter of fact, we were agreeing that
we appreciated very much having the member for Niakwa's comments put on the
record. I think it makes a very good
point. No. 1, he talked about the
importance of the vigils, the shame, the anger and the despair that we all feel
when we are out there, once every month, it seems, celebrating a woman's life
and showing our solidarity with our brothers and sisters who come out to these
vigils every month. I wanted to say very
clearly that we on this side of the House appreciated his comments and felt
very much in tune and in touch with what he said.
I also found it very interesting that the
member for Niakwa, his comments were very different from the comments that were
made at the vigil by the Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs) who felt that vigils were of no use and who
did not understand the use of vigils. I
just wanted to place on record the concern we have that understanding that the
importance of the vigils must be maintained not only as a symbolic gesture, but
as a continuing statement and a continuing ability for the women and the men of
this province to make a statement about violence and about our anger and our
concern about this.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to
the member for Niakwa's (Mr. Reimer) comments earlier when he was speaking on
Bill 5. I am now going to make my
comments on Bill 5 which is the government's position on changing the Manitoba
Advisory Council on the Status of Women to the Manitoba Women's Advisory
Council.
I would like to start again by reiterating
what my colleagues have stated very eloquently this afternoon about the
importance of language. Particularly as
women, we know the importance of language.
Every woman in this House, every woman in our society has, at least once
in her life, been subject to derogatory comments verbally made about herself as
a person, as an individual, as a woman.
Language, we all have personal experiences
with that. I would also like to say that
not only women have experienced problems and discrimination and insults for
their gender, based on nothing but their gender. I have from my own background and current
situations examples of where language has been used as a weapon against women,
against groups, and for oppression.
The word "boy," one would assume,
has absolutely no value attached to it, no sense of positive or negative. It is a neutral word describing the gender of
a person of a certain age. That is how it should be. The same could be said about the word
"girl." It is a descriptive
term used to describe a person of a certain gender of a certain age.
However, many males in the southern
The same thing can be stated about the word
"girl." There are cases in
As well, we all know from our own
experiences, some of us from our own personal experiences, others of us from
talking with members of other cultural backgrounds, that there are terms that
are used in a very derogatory fashion for members of other cultural groups in
our society that are meant solely to be derogatory in nature, that are meant
solely to show that the person who is speaking these terms feels that he or she
is more powerful or better than the person to whom they are referring.
I would just say that language is an incredibly
important, powerful tool. It not only
allows us to communicate one with another, but allows us to communicate both
positive and negative values and attitudes that we hold about individuals and
groups. Knowing that, there is nothing in our background or our language that
is totally value‑neutral, we do not say a single word that is not fraught
with our own background, our own heritage, our own values, our own
attitudes. Given that, it is incredibly
important that we all understand that our language is value‑laden and
full of our own values and attitudes and are constantly vigilant in our own
personal lives and for those around us, that the words that we use express
exactly what we are saying as clearly as they possibly can.
*
(1600)
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The fact that language is our main form of
communication, is full of values and attitudes, is an incredibly important tool
in sharing our thoughts and ideas and, in many cases, in controlling the
actions and behaviours of others, leads me, Mr. Acting Speaker, to a major
concern that I have with the statements made at the Statute Law Amendments
Committee last July by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs.
Mitchelson), in her comments dealing with the issue of the change of the name
of the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women. When she says, I do not think a name really
makes a difference. I do not think, as I
have indicated before, a name makes the difference.
Clearly, what I take from the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women's comments there is that she does not agree
nor does she feel that the name of this very important committee has any
relevance at all to the issues that this committee deals with, to the important
concerns that this committee has addressed throughout its history and its
life. I feel that is a very important
issue to bring up, and I think that it is something that I hope the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women will reconsider.
There is an enormous importance in a
name. There is enormous importance in
the words and the language that we use.
We are all aware of it, and if we are not aware of it, we should be.
The second statement and the major reason
given by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women for making the change
for bringing forth this amendment to change the name of the Manitoba Advisory
Council on the Status of Women to the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council is that
it is a change in name only, that everything that the council does will remain
the same, that women's groups felt that it was important to make a change in
the advisory council's title because of the concern raised by women's groups
and members of the government in the advisory council about the confusion that
arose with the name, the acronym being exactly the same for the Manitoba Action
Committee on the Status of Women as the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women.
Mr. Acting Speaker, when the minister says
it is a change in name only, I am sure that is what she said to the women's
groups that she has referenced yesterday in her speech, that she talked about
the facts that the actions and the undertakings of the new advisory council
would remain the same. I am sure that is
the basis upon which these groups, that she talks about in her speech yesterday,
gave their approval. The groups, as she
states, are all well aware of the confusions and misunderstandings that have occurred
and continue to occur as a result of the similarities of names and the shared
acronym. These groups, she says,
recognize that this amendment is literally one in name only.
Now, I am not for a moment suggesting that
these groups said anything differently to the minister than she has stated in
her speech yesterday. I would only
suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the groups that she referenced in her
comments yesterday might have some concerns should they be aware of things that
the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) stated later
in her comments when introducing this bill.
I quote:
I would like to encourage all members of the House to support this name
change, and I want to indicate clearly‑‑and this is the important
part‑‑that the change of a name does not necessarily mean that
there will be a change of mandate. A change
of name does not necessarily mean that there will be a change of mandate.
When the minister says this, the alarm
bells go off very strongly on this side of the House. I think the alarm bells will start to ring in
some of the women's groups that the minister has talked to. Which is it, these women's groups are going
to ask, I am assuming. I am asking for
sure, and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the member for
However, she then later says, it does not
necessarily mean that there will be no change in the mandate. Excuse me.
That opens it up wide for a change in the mandate, for a narrowing of the
mandate, for a reversal of the mandate, for all kinds of things to happen. Not a single one of those women's organizations,
I venture to say to you today, would approve of that.
The organizations that the minister spoke
to and has stated in her remarks, I think, will be taking a good look at
this. I am sure that what they stated
was, yes, it is a good idea to change the name as long as the mandate and
nothing else is changed because of the similarity. I think they will be very much concerned
about the possibility that the minister has left open that the mandate itself
may be changed.
The minister herself stated yesterday in
her remarks that all issues are women's issues.
I certainly hope that the government members present today are aware of
the fact that I am about to agree with something that the Minister responsible
for the Status of Women has said, when I agree that all issues are women's issues.
There is no one on this side of the House
who would disagree with that statement.
It is about time we started to understand and act on the fact that all
issues are women's issues. That is not
the point. The point is that while all
issues are women's issues it is still necessary in our society, because we are
very far from equality and fairness, that each issue that we look at be looked
at as to how it affects and is affected by women, that the employment issues
that we are talking about, the issues of violence, the issues of health and
education that we are discussing and debating in this House all are women's
issues. That does not mean that the result of the debate, the discussion, the
allocation of resources is fair or equitable.
*
(1610)
There has been some movement made on the
part of this government, not nearly what it should be and certainly not nearly what
it says it has done, but we must never, until we have achieved true equality
and fairness‑‑which I hope will happen very shortly, but until that
day comes it is imperative that when we look as a Legislature, when we look as
a society, when we look as individuals at any issue that we are dealing with,
we also look at it not just from a global perspective, but from the perspective
of the impact of those issues on women.
That is the point behind retaining,
wherever you put it in the title of this government body, Status of Women, not
advisory group made up of women, but Status of Women. It is essential that that remain in the title
because the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has not unequivocally
stated there will be no change in mandate.
She very clearly did not make that statement.
If we state that language has an important
part to play, if we say that language gives a signal as to our attitudes and
our values, then we must, if we are truly committed to the issues that we all
are concerned with, if we are truly committed to helping women face those
issues and come to a resolution about those issues, then we must retain the
phrase "Status of Women" in the title of this organization.
The member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)
has made a very good suggestion, which I must say the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) sees no problem with, which is that the title of this advisory
committee could be changed, just the ordering of the words, Status of Women
Advisory Council of Manitoba‑‑same words, same mandate, same
everything, just a different acronym. I
say to the government that if all they are concerned about is making sure that
there is no telephone messages or letters gone missing and confusion on the
part of members of the public because MACSW is the same acronym for both organizations,
then just change the order of the words.
What could be simpler than that?
I would suggest to members opposite that it
is not that simple, that the actions of this government are very clear when you
look at what they have done as far as helping improve the status of women, that
in every area that this government has dealt with in almost four years, they
have decreased the status of women. They
are not committed to truly making the Advisory Council on the Status of Women
redundant, so at some point in time we do not even have to have this
debate. In many areas, the government's
action is very clear that you cannot count on this government to actually
implement or do what it says, that language for this government is something
that they use to their own best interest and not to the interests of women.
I would like to suggest that there are
several important areas where this government has fallen down in its commitment
to women and several important areas that the Manitoba Advisory Council on the
Status of Women, or whatever it will be renamed, needs to continue to take a
very serious look at.
The whole issue of domestic violence that
both the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) and I have talked about today is an
area that everyone in this House agrees is of major concern. The whole issue of what do we do to help
women and children who are attempting to leave abusive relationships, who are
attempting to make a new life for themselves, who are attempting to break the cycle
of violence, what are we doing? Well,
this government has an excellent report that they have commissioned, that the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) commissioned, the Pedlar Commission report, an
excellent report that has some very positive concrete suggestions for how to
deal with the whole issue of domestic violence, issues relating specifically to
the justice system, which is narrower than the whole issue.
The whole issue of domestic violence
incorporates virtually every department which the government needs to deal
with. Within the bounds of the terms of
reference, Dorothy Pedlar, I believe did a remarkable job in making the
presentation.
The problem is that is where it stands,
largely. Yes, the government has made
some initial steps, has taken some initial actions on some of the
recommendations of the Pedlar Commission, but they are the recommendations
which require virtually no resource allocation, human or financial. They are the ones that were underway perhaps
to begin with. They are the ones, important
though they all are, that is only a first step.
The recommendations that go to the heart of
the matter, the heart of the issue, as far as the justice system is concerned, are
the issues which the government in its own press release says are middle or
long term that will require additional resources.
I would suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
those issues which are not being dealt with, and I will address only one of
them because it crosses the range of justice and goes into concerns about
housing and family services is the recommendation that a maximum shelter stay
be extended from 10 days as it currently is now to 30 days.
It is in the Pedlar Commission report. It is dealt if not directly, certainly
indirectly, in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
It has been a recommendation of the shelter directors of
Mr. Acting Speaker, I suggest this is the
kind of issue that the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women has
been looking at and must continue to look at, that women's groups throughout
the province are continuing to legitimately castigate this government for its
lack of inaction.
If the Minister responsible for the Status
of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) says that not necessarily will there be a change in mandate
when she is talking about a name change for this advisory council, groups do
really need to take a look at that. They
will begin to take a look, a very serious look, at the fact that what this
government says and does, does not always 100 percent correspond, and that the
whole role of advisory committees in this government is less than exemplary.
This government has instituted a large
number of advisory committees, a large number of working groups, a large number
of position papers in an attempt to show the public that action is being
undertaken. Well, various groups more
and more are becoming aware of the fact that the only actions this government is
undertaking are the working groups, are the advisory committees.
The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status
of Women is an exception. It is an
ongoing organization that has done remarkable work in the past, that has
presented on a wide‑range of topics excellent reports, has legitimately
told all governments throughout its years of existence where they have fallen
down, where they need to expend more energy and resources.
*
(1620)
They have been an excellent group of
women. They have done remarkable
work. The concern that is being raised
on the part of members of the official opposition is that this name change is only
the first step.
The minister, by saying not necessarily a
change in mandate, is leaving open the very distinct possibility that there
will be a change in mandate. The reason
I am saying that is that the government through its actions in the last four
years has shown that it is not committed to the issues as they relate to women,
is not committed, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has spoken earlier,
on the whole issue of pay equity. This government
has not shown any commitment to the issue of pay equity, the issue of
poverty. The Manitoba Advisory Council
on the Status of Women has spoken out very eloquently on the need that our
society has to break the cycle of violence, to break the cycle of poverty. This government has done virtually nothing in
those areas.
The fact that the majority of people on
social assistance, a provincial responsibility, are single parents, the
majority of them are women, and the fact that this has been the case for years
is something that we in the House all need to take responsibility for and feel
concerned about. The fact is that one of
the best ways to decrease a reliance on social assistance, to enable people to
get off social assistance and become productive members of society with a
quality of life to which all members of our society are entitled, is through
job creation programs and education upgrading.
What has this government done in that
regard? I wish I could say nothing. I wish I could say that the laissez faire, stand‑aside
attitude of, not only this government, but their federal counterparts was the
only thing that had happened, but no, this government is actively destroying
the programs that have been put in place, minimal though they were, and not
enough as they were.
This government is actively reducing the
supports for women and children and others who are relying on the social
assistance programs, actively reducing the job creation programs, actively reducing
the educational upgrading and training programs, actively cutting back on all
of the programs that not only could help people get off social assistance, but
also keep people off social assistance, who are in low‑paying jobs, who
are the most vulnerable to layoffs and problems when the economy takes a recessionary
nose dive, as it has under the last eight years of federal Conservative
government and the last four years of provincial Conservative government.
People who are at the lowest end of the
socioeconomic scale, the people who are the most vulnerable to the economic
vagaries that we have seen happen in North America in the last decade, those are
the people that this government does not respond to. Those are the people that
this government does not pay attention to, particularly those who live in the
northern part of the province.
Those are the kinds of issues that the
Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women has continued to bring
forward, has continued to try and impress upon this government that it needs to
work towards ameliorating these situations, towards putting in place programs
or at least not cutting programs that can assist people in getting off social
assistance, can assist people in upgrading so that they do not remain in dead‑end
jobs, so that they have a chance to increase their job skills.
The government talks all the time about the
fact that we are living in a global economy; we have to be competitive; we need
to educate; we need to have an improved, more highly educated population so
that we can compete effectively in the new technological society that we are
living in. No question there. No
disagreement there. The only problem is
that they are not doing anything about it.
They are not putting in resources to upgrade training. They are not putting in resources. They are cutting programs at
The opposition has stated time and time
again, and the government refuses to listen to the fact, that this government
is not responding to the needs of its population. It is not responding to the needs of its
women.
What the government is doing, just one
final example of how the government is not listening to the groups that it
purports to be listening to, that it establishes to ostensibly help it make its
government decisions, is the working group on child care. For 18 months the
working group on child care was ostensibly working with the minister and the
Department of Family Services to come up with a new, improved, better way of
funding the daycare system in our province that would reflect the needs of the
daycare community.
What happened? The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer),
overnight, shortly after the last budget year began, when daycare centres had
planned their budget legitimately based on the previous formula, they were told
six weeks into the budget year that major funding restructuring had been
undertaken, completely ignoring and misrepresenting the recommendations of the
working group on daycare, spending 18 months with the daycare system, telling
the daycare system, yes, they were going to listen, and then not listening at
all, listening only to the bottom line.
One of the major impacts that restructuring
of child care funding formula has had is on the salary enhancement grant which the
previous government instituted as a preliminary recognition of the fact that
daycare salaries for child care workers were not adequate, that they needed to
be improved, and the salary enhancement grant was a recognition of that.
The legislation requires a minimum of two‑thirds
of the employees of any licensed daycare, child care facility to be either a
Child Care Worker II or III, having completed an education system for quality
care. The salary enhancement grant, which
was instituted by the previous government and carried on until April of this
last year by this government, stated that the government would provide a salary
enhancement grant for all trained child care workers in any child care, whether
it was the two‑thirds or up to 100 percent.
Many child cares said, this is
wonderful. We will take advantage of
this so that we can have a completely trained work force to provide for our
children. Our children, which this government
constantly talks about, are the most important part of our society and the
future of our province.
What did this government do? It changed, it reduced, it eliminated the
salary enhancement grant and, in effect, changed the formula so that daycares
would only get recognition for the floor of two‑thirds trained
staff. Daycares and the members opposite,
particularly the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), are very well
aware of the impact this has had on many daycares in our province. They have had to lay off trained staff and
hire untrained staff. They have had to
lay off staff and not hire additional staff.
They have had to make enormous financial sacrifices.
The worst sacrifice that is being foisted
on the children and workers of our province in the daycare system is the
sacrifice of quality of opportunity, the fact that the child care system is being
starved by this government, because they do not believe in it, even though they
pay lip service to it.
The child care community does not trust
this government anymore. Rightly so. The child care community, the health care workers,
the social allowance recipients, the education system‑‑none of
these groups in this province trust this government anymore because they know
that no matter what the government says, what the government does often is very
different. That is why I say that the
minister having said that a change of name does not necessarily mean that there
will be a change of mandate is a very alarming thing for the women's groups in
this province to hear. Now they have not
heard it yet, but they will.
*
(1630)
I will guarantee you that the minister
during the committee will be asked to clarify her comments, because this
government has on numerous occasions said:
We will not do anything without consulting. We will not make changes to the child and
family service system in this province, in this city. What did they do? Over a weekend they completely restructured
the Child and Family Services agencies in the city of
Yes, the women of this province are going
to be concerned. They are concerned because they do not for a moment, or we on this
side do not for a moment, believe that this is simply a housekeeping measure,
that this is simply a change for clarification.
We think this is just another in the government's ongoing actions to
eliminate and make less effective the groups and organizations and programs and
services for women in the
If the minister truly does believe that it
is only a name change for housekeeping purposes, I would urge her to bring an amendment
to her own bill that changes the Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of
Women to the Status of Women Advisory Council in
Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Paul
Edwards (St. James): Mr. Acting
Speaker, I had not intended, nor had anyone else in our caucus, to speak
further to this bill. Our Leader
indicated yesterday that she was wanting to see this move expeditiously to
committee.
However, Mr. Acting Speaker, I simply want
to comment during my time to speak on this bill that we will be adjourning
debate because we have learned that comments have been put on the record by the
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), and perhaps others, but at least by her,
which very definitely need to be reviewed by our party, and indeed by our
Leader, because we are led to believe that they are not only untruthful, but
quite slanderous in the types of allegations which are made about her views on
the vigils amongst other things.
To be fair to the member for
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 10‑The
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is
there leave for this bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Point Douglas?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):
Agreed.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, both opposition parties
are not intending to speak on any of the other government bills.
If the will of the House is to call it five
o'clock, then call it five o'clock‑‑save you from going through
each bill.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is
it the will of the House to call it five o'clock?
Motion agreed to.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private members'
hour.
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker:
Bill 25,
Some
Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Done.
Bill 27‑The Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 27, The Business Practices Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, standing in the name
of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema). Stand?
Some
Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave? Done.
Bill 31‑The Municipal Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 31, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name of the honourable
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).
Stand? Not proceeding.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 3‑Free Trade with
Mr. Speaker: Resolution 3, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), Free Trade with
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I
would like to have the opportunity to introduce this resolution on behalf of
the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) have leave to introduce Resolution 3 on behalf of the honourable
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)?
Leave? Leave. It is agreed.
Mr.
Hickes: I move, seconded by the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)
WHEREAS the Free Trade Agreement with the
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS many Manitobans have grave concerns
about the implications of an impending free trade agreement between Canada and
Mexico, particularly with respect to its impact on our workers' wages and
benefits; and
WHEREAS there has been no public discussion
about the elements of such a free trade agreement; and
WHEREAS there has been no public discussion
or consensus developed on the benefits and costs of such an agreement; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Urban Affairs has
said that the "benefits for
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to call on the Federal
Government to immediately suspend free trade discussions with
Motion
presented.
Mr. Hickes: It is a pleasure for
me to speak on the free trade with
*
(1640)
When the first negotiations and first talks
came about free trade‑‑it was the years 1983 and 1984‑‑we
heard the Prime Minister of Canada today say, we will have nothing to do with free
trade‑‑in '83. Then in '84,
the same statement was made again by the Prime Minister of Canada: We will have nothing, absolutely nothing to
do with free trade.
Somewhere along the line, someone convinced
him and his party that it was such a great idea. I am sure some people have benefited, some
businesses have. If you look at the
individuals who are hourly workers and are in the work force across
When we look at manufacturers right across
Who has really benefited? It is not the people. The real people who have benefited are the
people who own these big companies, who have moved their operations back into
the States, but are still selling us the same goods that were being produced in
Now we are talking about going into a trade
agreement with
I was fortunate enough to have been there
once. [interjection] No, I was trying to get a suntan so I could really look
like an aboriginal, because those issues are very dear to us, so I wanted to
make sure that nobody would mistake me, but it did not work. When I was in
When I was in
Also, when we talk about loss of jobs, how
many jobs will we lose in
Even if they do get a dollar an hour, if
you took that same item that is made here in Canada where the person is working
on the manufacturing assembly line or in the factory who has made those goods,
and they in turn sell it to us, what do they do with their wages that they
earn? It helps stimulate the economy. They
spend it; most of that money is spent right here in
You have to buy food; you have to have
mortgage or rent; you have to live somewhere.
That money stays here; it helps our economy. If that money goes to
An
Honourable Member: You bought a
Japanese car.
Mr.
Hickes: Oh, I do not drive a
Japanese car. I bet you that same item‑‑
An
Honourable Member: I saw that thing
you drive.
Mr.
Hickes: I would not even call it a
car. Right, Jack? It gets me around.
Anyway, the point that I am making is that
the same item that they bring back to sell to us will probably be at the same
cost that we are paying today. So we are
not going to be, as consumers, saving a whole pile of money. The point that I make on that is, who is
going to benefit? I do not think it is
going to be you or I, you know. I am
pretty sure of that. It probably will be
the big corporations, and I do not understand why people have bought into the
whole idea of the whole Free Trade Agreement.
The big concern that I have, and I am sure that our party has, is with
the loss of many, many, many jobs. When
we lose those jobs, I am sure they will offer slim benefits to only a very,
very few businesses.
Also, the whole thing with the Free Trade
Agreement, I am sure it will undermine a lot of our cultural industries, and
most Canadians do not even agree with it.
So that is why, when I speak on this just for a few minutes, I would
just like to put on the record that I personally totally disagree with the
whole free trade, not only with Mexico, but also our whole free trade with the
United States.
With those brief comments, thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the
motion we have before us is fairly similar to the one we had just the other day
from the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
I look forward to being able to once again
put some information on the record as it relates to a proposed Canada‑U.S.‑Mexico
free trade agreement. I will not go into
quite the detail on our position as I did the other day, Mr. Speaker. Because some members across the way on
occasion seem to have difficulty understanding our position or accepting our position,
I think I have to for that reason go through it one more time, particularly for
the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
*
(1650)
Back in July of this year our government
went on record as not supporting a North American free trade agreement unless
six very important fundamental conditions are met. At this time I will briefly highlight them,
particularly for the honourable member for Flin Flon, and I am sure he is
listening very closely to these six conditions.
The first condition, Mr. Speaker, is that‑‑
An Honourable Member: Speak slowly because he has trouble understanding.
Mr.
Stefanson: It has been suggested,
Mr. Speaker, that I speak very slowly for the benefit of the honourable member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), but I am sure I do not need to do that, so I will
quickly go through the six conditions.
The first one, Mr. Speaker, is that the
negotiations must not result in a renegotiation of the Canada‑U.S. Free
Trade Agreement, and I will come back to that condition again because of some
comments made by the honourable member from Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). The second condition is that
The third condition is that negotiations
must encompass a broad coverage of environmental issues to avoid Canadian environmental
standards gravitating towards the lowest common denominator and to prevent
The fourth condition is that the federal
government must ensure that comprehensive and adequately funded adjustment measures
are provided. The fifth one is that the
federal government must embrace economic policies which are consistent with the
efforts and needs of businesses adjusting to trade liberalization.
The final condition, Mr. Speaker, is that
the federal government must provide provinces with full participation throughout
these negotiations.
Six fundamental conditions. Without those six conditions we as a
government do not support a North American free trade agreement, because we
believe that given a level playing field, when it comes to labour conditions,
environmental standards and the other issues addressed, that Manitobans can
compete, that they can compete with anybody within
Unlike the impression left by the
opposition party that, for some reason, seems to lack confidence in Manitobans'
ability to compete and seem to believe in putting up walls around
The honourable member for Flin Flon likes
to suggest that any cause of any economic downturn or any negative impact on
our economy, he immediately points to the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement. It is not based on any fact, not based any
feedback from any business, not based on any feedback from any individual. I do not know what it is based on other than
his own impressions, I guess. That must
be what it is, his own impressions, because it is not founded on a single bit
of fact, a single bit of feedback from any company or whatever.
He talks about Tupperware, and once again
at times I must think that the honourable member does not listen closely to
what is said in this House in terms of some of the issues because that was made
perfectly clear back at the time that announcement was made. The company itself indicated that the closing
of their facility here in
I had the opportunity, as I mentioned the
other day, to meet with the vast majority of our sectoral organizations, individuals,
our universities, our labour groups from within
Once again, I have difficulty that the
honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) does not seem to recognize that we
have been in a recession certainly within Manitoba and nationally and in many
parts of the world and that might have an impact on the economic situation not
only in our province, but elsewhere. He does
not seem to recognize what the high value of the Canadian dollar can do to your
economy in terms of your exports. He
does not seem to realize some of the other issues that affect the economy. He points continually to one issue, the
Canada‑U.S. Free Trade, not based on any facts or any evidence.
In fact, the studies that have been done to
date, the studies done by the Royal Bank of Canada, most recently a study done
by policy analysts at the University of Manitoba, the study done by the Canada
West Foundation‑‑all point to the fact that while they are not
significant there have been marginal benefits to Canada under the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement. Nothing points to the
doom and gloom and the points that the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) makes. As I say, they do not
seem to be based on any substantiation or any evidence other than impressions.
I want to come back though to the issue of
trade in terms of what we believe in. As
I said, we have confidence in Manitobans' ability to compete, provided they are
given a competitive environment and a level playing field. We believe in breaking down interprovincial
barriers because
Mr. Speaker, I had the good opportunity and
good fortune to go to an export award ceremony a couple of months ago where six
They encourage us to do the kinds of things
that we are doing in terms of creating a competitive environment here in
Manitoba: by not only holding the line on taxes but reducing personal income
taxes; by not implementing things like payroll taxes, but implementing the
exemption increase so that now 70 percent of businesses in Manitoba are exempt
from the payroll tax. Unlike the
economic policies of the NDP. I guess
they go hand in hand with building barriers, Mr. Speaker. If you build up barriers and you do not
encourage economic growth, and you do not encourage exporting, then you only
have one solution and that is to turn back to the taxpayers of
Here are some examples of what they
did: increased retail sales tax from 5
percent to 7 percent; also introduced an increased payroll tax‑‑introduced
the payroll tax and then increased the payroll tax to 2.25 percent a
payroll. Talk to any person trying to do
business in
What else did they do in the area of
taxation? Let us hear more. They introduced personal net income tax and
surtax, one of the few provinces in
A total of $820 million in tax increases
from '82 to '87 by the government that believes in building walls, has no confidence,
by the government of the day that had no confidence in Manitobans
whatsoever. I find that shameful, Mr.
Speaker, in terms of the tax increases.
What have we done? We have not increased personal incomes taxes;
we reduced personal income taxes. What
have we done? We have increased the
threshold on the payroll tax and so on. Clearly a fundamental difference
because we have confidence in Manitobans, and we are creating an environment
for Manitobans to compete anywhere in the world.
*
(1700)
As I say on interprovincial barriers, they
sat back and did nothing, where we have entered agreements with various provinces. All of the provinces throughout
We have also been very supportive of the
GATT negotiations in terms of breaking down and opening up markets for Canadian
businesses, particularly in our agricultural sector where we support the
reduction of the export subsidies and opening market access to other parts of
the world. We have confidence in our agricultural
community and their ability to compete not only in
Once again, I continually look at the
policies of the NDP and of the government of the NDP from '82 to '87, I see no
evidence of confidence in Manitoba, no evidence of their ability to compete
given a level playing field, and that is why on this North American free trade
agreement we do not support it as it stands.
We put in six very important conditions.
We feel if those conditions are met, it creates a level playing field thereby
creating the opportunity environment for Manitobans to compete, because
Manitobans can compete.
I encourage opposition members to get out
and talk to Manitobans, talk to business people, talk to any Manitoban, and you
will find they have confidence that they can compete if governments allow them
to by not introducing the horrendous tax increases that occurred from '82 to
'87, not only the horrendous tax increases, but government abuse and waste in
areas like MTX and areas like Manfor.
Let us talk about Manfor and the millions
of dollars. Not only do they build the
walls around our province, they then think that they are the business people of
our province, that they will invest in businesses, that they will drive the
economy through their shrewd investment and their wise business management. Shrewd
investments like Manfor and the drain of some $30 million in one year, their
MTX investments and the $15 to $20 million in MTX, and the list would go on and
on and on.
We need look no further than previous NDP
governments and their investment in an airline manufacturing company that cost the
citizens of
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
introduce an amendment to the motion, an amendment that I feel improves this motion. I would move, seconded by the honourable
member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme)
THAT
the Resolution be amended by substituting all words after the first
"WHEREAS" with the following:
the governments of Canada, the United
States and Mexico are currently engaged in negotiations aimed at the signing of
a North American Free Trade Agreement; and
WHEREAS the federal government and the
WHEREAS many Manitobans have expressed
serious concerns about the potential implications of a North American Free
Trade Agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico with respect to
labour and environmental standards and the provision of adequate adjustment
assistance; and
WHEREAS the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the Ministry of Industry, Trade and
Tourism in calling on the federal Minister for International Trade to ensure that
there is a full public discussion of any North American Free Trade Agreement
prior to any ratification by
Motion
presented.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):
Mr. Speaker, I guess it would have been two, three days ago past, we
were talking about the free trade deal with Mexico, and we had an opportunity,
both myself and my colleague from Osborne (Mr. Alcock), to put on the record
some of the concerns that we have regarding the concept of free trade with
Mexico and the concerns that we have. I
do not necessarily want to use up any time to go over those comments because
they are in the record and I do not really want to bore anyone. If people are interested in them, they can
just read last Monday's regarding the Liberal Party's position on free trade.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, the free trade
with
We believe the minister needs to play a
much stronger role at ensuring that the labour in the province of Manitoba is
not going to suffer the consequence of any free trade agreement whether it is
just between the United States and Mexico or, in fact, a North American free
trade agreement, because we believe that it is not in the best interest of the
workers of Manitoba‑‑Canada, if you will‑‑because there
are so many concerns that are out there as it stands right now with the free
trade deal with the United States, something that we also do not support for
numerous reasons.
Suffice to say that the amendment is
something that we could not support. We
would have anticipated or could have possibly supported it if they had
incorporated more of the things that were being proposed from the member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock). I do not believe
that it really gives any justice to the member for Flin Flon's (Mr. Storie)
resolution. It really changes everything
that he had in the "WHEREASes" and "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED"
and so forth. Having said that, and
making it very clear our position on free trade, I will take my seat.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr.
Speaker, this is an interesting debate, and as the member for
I think that there is sufficient interest
in this question that it is worthy of debating a second time. I certainly listened to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism's (Mr. Stefanson) remarks with interest. Much of it was a diatribe on the so‑called
ills of the previous government.
Mr. Speaker, I simply remind the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) or the "Minister of
Unemployment," as he is called more colloquially, the fact of the matter
is that in the province of Manitoba today there are 57,000 people out of work‑‑the
highest in the history of this province.
That is fact No. 1. Fact No. 2 is
that in 1991 there were more bankruptcies in the province of Manitoba than at
any time in the history of the province of Manitoba, that is fact No. 2; and
fact No. 3 is that the welfare lines in the province of Manitoba have gone up 50
percent over last year.
The use of food banks has almost tripled in
the last three years. Those are the sad
facts that face
Mr. Speaker, No. 2, I am finding it more
and more interesting, the schizophrenia that the Conservative front benches and
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) have about free
trade generally. I read the sixth position
that the province has put forward on free trade with
Mr. Speaker, I put it on record today that
the minister is a paper tiger. If the
federal government, following along on George Bush's coattails, decides to sign
a free trade agreement with
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the individual
conditions that the minister has laid out.
The first one is protecting the Free Trade Agreement. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing,
there is nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that is worthy of protection.
*
(1710)
We have lost seven out of nine trade
disputes. The minister says, I have no
facts at my disposal.
I have the facts. The unemployment level, the fact that we have
lost some 435,000 manufacturing jobs, the fact that the manufacturing sector
across the country, across every sector, has been decimated. Not like the recession in 1980‑81, not
like previous recessions, the fact of the matter is these jobs are not coming
back. Twenty‑two percent of the
jobs in the previous recession did not come back; 65 percent, 70 percent are
not coming back this time‑‑fundamental difference.
A restructuring of our economy based on the
perception by many businesses that the Free Trade Agreement was there to be used
and abused, regardless of the interests of Canadians, regardless of the
interests of the people of Manitoba.
Let us talk about facts; 435,000 jobs
disappeared since June 1989 to March 1991.
What about business investment?
The Free Trade Agreement was supposed to spur business investment in
In 1988, the last year before the agreement
was signed, investment rose 24.7 percent.
During 1989 it rose by 5 percent. In 1990 it fell by .23 percent, and in
1991 it is expected to decline by almost 10 percent.
Fact 2, what has happened to the number of
new jobs? Of course, they have fallen
month by month. In 1988, on average, 26,000
new jobs were created every month. In
1990, some two years after free trade, we are losing 7,400 jobs a month.
What about the trade balance? What has happened to the trade balance with
the
An
Honourable Member: What have we got
this year?
Mr.
Storie: I do not have the figures
for that. I do not think the facts are
in for 19‑‑I will challenge the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard). When we get the 1991 figures,
I will wager him his home quarter that the figures for 1991 will not be pre‑free‑trade
figures, they will be worse.
The facts are that
So the agreement has not lived up to its
expectations in terms of the number of jobs created, the investment that we are
supposed to be receiving, but neither has it lived up to its expectations in
terms of protecting our access to the American market. We have lost seven out of nine trade
disputes. We have lost some major trade
disputes, including salmon and steel.
The agreement was sold to Canadians, by and large, on the belief that this
agreement would secure access to the
I do not know if there are any observers of
the political circumstances in the
Now it may as come as some surprise to
people in this Chamber that Canadian governments federally, historically, have
never been as protectionist as the United States legislature. They have gone through cycles of
protectionism over many years. The fact
is that their legislation is fraught with protectionist bent that can be easily
manipulated to frustrate the agreement, the Free Trade Agreement, which was
supposedly to liberalize trade and assure access to Canadians. Believe me, it is not going to do it.
I want to get back to the theme that the
government is indeed schizophrenic, and I believe that the July 16 press
release from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), setting
out his conditions for approval of a North American free trade agreement, were
simply a public relations exercise. If
you wanted to go over each of these conditions, the same exact conditions
should have been precedent before we agreed to the Free Trade Agreement with
the
We have genuine concerns about the labour
standards in the
The minister includes as a condition, he is
concerned about environmental standards.
He is concerned about creating this level playing field. Obviously, before you get in to a trade agreement
you should assure yourself that there is, in fact, going to be a level playing
field. That was not done in the Free Trade
Agreement with the
I would like to ask the question, and
perhaps the minister will have occasion to respond: If these conditions are so important in terms
of getting into an agreement with
It should have been. I argued, much as the minister has argued,
during that debate. The fact of the
matter is, that this is not really a serious attempt on the part of the
government to stall the free trade agreement negotiations with
We believe, certainly‑‑and if
the minister has genuine concerns about the free trade agreement with Mexico or
the trilateral agreement, then I would invite him to invite members of the
second opposition and the opposition to meet and establish a framework for
discussing Manitoba's concerns at the federal level. I am afraid what has happened is that we are
going to oblige the federal government, if they come to some agreement, without
any kind of a fight. We are simply going
to roll over, as many of the Tory governments did certainly, when we signed the
Free Trade Agreement with the United States in 1989, simply rolled over, were
not responsible to the people whom they represented and ignored the cost of the
Free Trade Agreement to those provincial economies.
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that
the free trade agreement with
*
(1720)
We have another concern about not only this
set of trade negotiations but the previous one.
We have asked repeatedly for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson) to come clean with the Legislature, the people of Manitoba,
about his department's analyses, analyses he has received from other groups and
agencies, jurisdictions that have attempted to understand what is really going
on in our economy.
It is no longer good enough to sit back and
defend this agreement blindly, because whether the minister wants to believe it
or not, some of the impact‑‑and I hope he will acknowledge this, at
least acknowledge this in part, the Free Trade Agreement is playing a role in
what is happening in our economy. It is playing a role in the depth of the recession; it is
playing a role certainly in the longevity of the recession. We are not out of it yet, not by a long
stretch. If it is having an impact, let us
at least now sit down and say, what is that impact? Let us try and be as concrete as we can and
as nonpartisan as we can. I certainly
believe it is having an impact, and I believe that there may be increasing
calls for abrogating the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to just end by
saying that the minister has said that the members of the opposition and myself
in particular are the only ones who continue to foment opposition to this
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) that the Royal Bank, the Canadian Manufacturers'
Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have all said that the Free Trade
Agreement has not worked out the way they thought it was going to. That is because they went in blindly trusting
the federal government that it was going to secure access.
I do not care who the minister is talking
to across this country, the fact of the matter is that the Free Trade Agreement
is not working in our interests. Even
the business community, who were behind it virtually 100 percent in 1988 and
moving up to 1989, are now saying there are some serious flaws in that agreement. Even the Minister responsible for
International Trade federally, Mr. Wilson, has now taken the podium and is
saying, Gosh, those Americans had better smarten up; they are abusing this
agreement. They signed an agreement;
they signed a flawed agreement. They
signed an agreement that could never be used to protect our interests, but the
Americans could be used to protect their interests. This minister should get onside with the
people of
Hon. Jim
Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): I
listened intently both to the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) in their diatribes with respect to the question
of free trade.
I think it was in 1990 that the federal
Minister of Finance at that particular time said about his colleagues in the
House of Commons, referring to principally the members of the New Democratic
Party and the members of the Liberal Party, that they would blame on free trade
every sparrow that fell in the country.
Every time something happened they would blame it all on free trade
because of a hidebound ideology, that somehow anything to do with anybody else
outside the borders of
Mr. Speaker, we have to understand for a
moment how the
At the same time you have to understand that
while that is being exported to the
Since the implementation of the Free Trade
Agreement a couple of years ago, we have seen tariff walls on the balance
now. The 20 percent balance of our trade
with the
To listen to my honourable friends from
across the way, and particularly the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), you
would think that 2 percent or 3 percent or 4 percent on the 20 percent of our
exports that are tariffable somehow has caused the entire economy of North
America to collapse, and particularly it has caused all the problems that have
faced Manitoba over the last year or two.
Mr. Speaker, that is just not
realistic. For heaven's sakes, for them
to stand up here and suggest that because of free trade all of this has
happened, all the manufacturing is gone down in Manitoba, that all of the
problems that have beset us have gone on because of the Free Trade Agreement is
ludicrous. How possibly could anybody in
their right mind‑‑and I am not sure that he is‑‑suggest
for a moment that very small portion of the economy somehow has caused the
catastrophic results.
He did say that he acknowledged the fact
that somehow high interest rates might have played a small problem, the fact
that there is a world‑wide recession might have had something to do with
it, the fact that significant problems exist in world trade, in agriculture in
particular, that might have played a minuscule role, that some of those things
might have frayed the edges of this whole problem, but the principal cause of
this whole problem was free trade with the United States, those ogres across
the border, those ogres who consume 70 percent of what we produce. Seventy
percent of what we produce are consumed by those people.
Mr. Speaker, the whole question of blaming
free trade on the economic downturn that has beset
We have had for almost 100 years
isolationist trade practices and policies by a variety of governments over a
long period of time. They have been
slowly eroded since World War II, but those isolationist policies by and large
have led to a very startling fact. The
fact that came out was that there are 16 basic technologies used in the
manufacturing of goods in the world, 16 primary technologies. The startling fact was that in
That is an extremely disturbing thing
because what has happened is that our industries have been left behind because
of concerns over competing in the world marketplace, suggesting we throw up
trade barriers around our country, that somehow we will be able to escape
that. That, I do not think, can
happen. It cannot happen or we will have
nothing left.
We will be the third world here in
*
(1730)
The Americans know that. They have known that for quite some time, and
it is about time we learned that, the fact that our industries have to ensure
they are able to put their products on the market, and quality products they
are. I have no question that Canadians
can produce as good a product as any country in this world, and they can
produce it competitively. We have to understand,
we have to learn, we have to use the technologies that are available to us, and
we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand.
We have to be able to go out there and compete on a world market.
Our farmers know that. Our farmers are being decimated, quite
frankly, Mr. Speaker, by competing in a world market on an unfair playing
field. We know, our people know, our
companies know they have to be able to compete.
They have to be able to go out into the world market and sell their
products at an equal or better price than their competitors.
Tell me how the Japanese can have had their
money triple and quadruple, have had it adjusted because of world economic conditions,
and still remain competitive, the fact that they are able to sell their
automobiles, their electronic products and a variety of other goods that they
manufacture in a world market, when they have had monetary adjustments in their
own economy that have quadrupled the value of their yen in a world market. Because
they have found ways to compete; they have found ways to be able to produce
their goods less expensively, despite the fact that they have had monetary
adjustment.
Mr. Speaker, we have to do the same. We cannot begin at this point to throw up
barriers around our country and say, we cannot compete, we cannot possibly go
out in the world market and compete, so we will have to try and produce only
for ourselves.
This is not on, because if we do, our
entire industry will fold up, because no matter what kind of tariff barriers we
put up, no matter what kind of artificial props we put under the economy of our
country, ultimately it will fall to ruin because we cannot, with 27 million
people in this country, afford to do that.
We cannot continue‑‑my God, our people are taxed to death as
it is. If we are going to provide
economic props to our industry to keep operating, we are going to find out
very, very quickly that there is not enough money in
Five years from now, we will be looking to
other countries in this world for third world aid. We will be seeking financial aid; as other
countries are at the present time around the world looking to us for aid, we
will be looking for it ourselves.
Our standard of living will be significantly
lower. The fact of the matter is, we
only need to look around us and see, Mr. Speaker, what the effect of high
taxation has done to our people. If you
looked at the expenditures, even in
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the question
rhetorically, of course, that the members of the New Democratic Party who have brought
forward this resolution somehow do not seem to be available to support it. In fact, the mover of the motion, as contained
on the Order Paper, was not even here to move it, and now that he has spoken he
has left. You have to wonder how serious
the members of the opposition are when they cannot even be present to support
their member's resolution when the member, who originally brought forward the
resolution, did not even have the courtesy to stay to listen.
The minister has been here. The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr.
Stefanson) has been here. He has spoken,
he has listened, and he offered some suggestions. Maybe the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie),
who introduced this motion initially out of the Order Paper, was able to‑‑perhaps
he is learning something. Perhaps he
took that information from the Minister of Industry and Trade and has gone to
contemplate that information and to learn the error of his ways, but so far I
doubt that very much. I have been here
for five years, and I look at the member for Flin Flon‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I am interrupting the honourable minister
according to the rules. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable minister will have three minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).