LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
March 24, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Cindy Garneau, Kirsten Johnson,
Kathryn MacKenzie and others requesting the government to show its strong
commitment to dealing with child abuse and consider restoring the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign.
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member. It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an
examination of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal
people; and
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me
to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also
this afternoon, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Government
Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting
Premier in the Chamber.
We
have been asking questions for the last couple of weeks dealing with the
proposed free trade agreement with
Unfortunately,
the draft agreement reinforces all our worst fears that this free trade
agreement with the
My
question, therefore, is to the Acting Premier.
When is the silence on behalf of this government going to end? When are they going to speak up on behalf of
Manitobans to oppose this draft agreement which they have?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Acting Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member incorrectly refers to
silence for conditions that this government has attached, and the importance
that we have attached, to these negotiations.
The
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) laid down quite clearly
terms and conditions that he was prepared to stand by in relationship to this
agreement.
I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, at the Environment ministers' meeting that I
recently attended, we met with representation from the Mexican authorities to
review what they are doing in the area of environment, and we have some
considerable concerns that we were raising in that area.
I
think the member should be well aware that we are watching these proceedings
very carefully and have a well‑established position.
Deadline
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the
minister should have concerns because environmental groups in the
The
draft document also says, Mr. Speaker, that the deadline for implementation, as
proposed by
Will
this government not only oppose the draft agreement with
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Acting Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
talks with great bravado, but he does not put a whole lot of substance behind
what he is saying.
Mr.
Speaker, we have indicated very strongly what our conditions are. I can assure you that one of the conditions,
of which he is referring whereby there is not an abrogation of responsibility
in environmental matters, will not be something that we will ignore, and we
will stand strongly by that.
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Supply
Management
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this
document does not breach one condition of
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Premier: What is the position of the provincial
government in terms of the proposals on supply management? Are they not the same type of proposals now
in the GATT agreement that the government is allegedly opposing, is now being
proposed by the Trade minister for
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, the government of
As
it relates to free trade, Mr. Speaker, if the conditions that have been put
forward by this government are not met, then we will not be supporting the free
trade agreement with
Child
Daycare
Government
Policy
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Will
the minister now confirm that his government's long‑term vision of
daycare actually means middle‑income parents being forced to remove children
from centres, centres being forced to lay off trained staff, centres without
wait lists for years now having vacancies and centres losing an average of
$10,000 a year?
* (1340)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am reminded, in listening to the member for Wellington talk, about
an article I read recently when the headline says, words without deeds, the
NDP's policy paper on child care.
I
could tell you that since we formed government, we have almost doubled our
support for child care. When we formed
government, there were some $26 million in the budget for child care; now there
is almost $50 million dedicated to that area.
This
government worked very closely with the daycare community to come up with
recommendations which were forwarded to government in the decision‑making
process. We have a fundamental
difference in our approach to daycare.
Our approach is that those subsidy dollars should go to people who have
a small income, who have difficulty accessing daycare, instead of the universal
grants which were subsidy to everyone.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter from
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, our support for daycare has been
a very solid one, backed up with the financial resources. In this budget, we have increased our funding
for daycares by over 6 percent. Daycares
have never seen this level of funding before.
Individuals
who want to access daycare have choices to make. Some are choosing a home‑based
daycare where the enrollment is up.
There are more spaces at this time in the home‑based daycare than
there has ever been before.
There
are a number of reasons why the waiting lists no longer are as long as they
once were, or that they are not there at all with some daycares. That is because of the economy, and it is
because of the fact that people are accessing other forms of licensed daycare.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, there is no more choice in this
daycare system.
Fee
Schedule
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the critic for the NDP says there are no choices. I would point out to her that there are
family daycare spaces available. There
are centre spaces, and there are also private daycare, independent
daycares. There are choices and people
are in a position to make those choices.
The subsidy will travel with the child, and the parent will make that
decision as to what level and what type of daycare that they wish to access.
Bristol
Aerospace Ltd.
Waste
Rocket Fuel Burning
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings).
Mr.
Speaker, my question for the minister is:
Will he tell members of the House whether or not it is government policy
to allow industries such as
Why
were they not forced to report even a small amount of phosgene that is even by
their admission going to be emitted in this burn?
* (1345)
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
member makes a number of assumptions which are incorrect. Number one, he assumes that the environment
officials of the Department of Environment would simply accept the information
without questioning whether there might be additional or subsequent information
that should flow. Certainly, he also
makes the assumption that the
I
have said a number of times that this is a very difficult situation and one
where I could not preclude the possibility of burning. We have seen a number of developments in the
last couple of weeks that indicate that if any burning is going to take place,
it will be at a much reduced volume, and certainly we will want to make sure
that we have as much information as possible before we allow that type of
action to proceed.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, for the same minister: Given the minister's comments then, will he
ensure that a full testing of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that the
regulators face in dealing with this type of a situation is to determine as
best possible at what temperature and what rapidity this burn might take
place. That will influence directly what
may be released as a result of that burn or what could potentially be harmful
from that. Certainly, we will be making
sure that we are satisfied that the nature of any materials that are being
released is not such that it will be harmful to the residents of the
surrounding area or to the environment.
Waste
Rocket Fuel Disposal
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, finally for the same
minister. As the minister knows,
My
question for the minister then is: Is
his department working with
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think
the member knows full well that we have now reached the situation where rather
than 100 percent of the material that is being collected as waste being burned,
there probably will be something closer to 20 percent or less. Certainly, I believe even that amount can and
should be eliminated at some future point.
Whether
or not we can guarantee that there will not be some burns at this point to
remove that remaining product, and this could well be somewhat unstable,
certainly it is our intention to make sure that the material that is on site
there today is safely eliminated, if you will, in terms of recycling and
reduction. In fact, the amount of
material that is going to be produced that will have to be eliminated through
burning or by other means is relatively small.
We will be making very sure that we can satisfy the members of this
House and the public as to conditions.
Urban
Native Strategy
Government
Commitment
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the throne speech
promised an urban native adjustment strategy.
In 1989, the throne speech promised that the government would be a
willing and supportive partner to the aboriginal community. In 1989, the government spent $400,000
developing proposals for an urban native aboriginal strategy. They also eventually proposed a two‑page
draft strategy of a trilevel proposal.
Since
then, Mr. Speaker, it has disappeared.
It has sunk without a trace. In
spite of repeated questions in this House, there has been no mention in the
last three throne speeches of any urban native issues.
My
question for the Minister of Native Affairs is:
Is this government committed to an urban aboriginal strategy, and if so,
will it table its strategy?
* (1350)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr.
Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, we are committed to an Urban Native
Strategy.
There
are many components, Mr. Speaker, to dealing with the question of fairness to
the aboriginal community as it relates to those who are living in the city of
Ms. Friesen: What immediate economic plans does the
minister have today for the more than 40,000 aboriginal people in
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member
was prior to 1988, why she would just pick the year 1988, saying it had
deteriorated from that particular time, unless it is for her own particular partisan
reason and her not being prepared to criticize the former New Democratic
government which was in place.
Let
me again cite another example which got very little play, because it was a
fairly positive piece of news for northeast and north central
Ms. Friesen: In 1988, when this government took office‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Friesen: Will this minister make a commitment today to
develop an urban aboriginal strategy which will address the very stark facts
that aboriginal Manitobans are twice as likely as other Manitobans to have less
than Grade 9, three times as likely as other Manitobans not to have graduated
from high school, and that the aboriginal people of the inner city of
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the member points out the
Northern Development Agreement of which she is so proud. There were some good parts to the Northern
Development Agreement, but when we arrived in office in 1988, we still saw 80
percent to 90 percent unemployment living in our northern and isolated communities
and in the native community‑‑80 percent to 90 percent, Mr. Speaker,
after spending $200 million. That is why
we implemented a program like the northeast or north central hydro program that
would provide training opportunities, that would provide job opportunities and
give them a decent lifestyle with the supply of hydroelectric power so they do
not have to come to the city of
Aboriginal
Centre
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my
question to the Minister of Native Affairs, and this is a direct urban
question, not a northern
More
than two years ago, this government promised that they would develop an urban
aboriginal strategy. When I asked the
Minister responsible for Native Affairs about this issue a few days ago, it was
clear that he had taken no action on that commitment. Instead, the government has refused to
provide funds for the renovation and development of the CP station as an aboriginal
centre, a plan which would provide a wide range of services for aboriginal
people living in
Will
the minister commit today to matching funding which has already been put in
place by the City of
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr.
Speaker, we have committed to providing funds and support for the purchase of
the CP station. There has been a
committee working with the Northern and Native Affairs department with the City
of
Mr. Hickes: This government has known about plans for
restoring the CP station as an aboriginal centre for at least two years and had
a business plan since November of 1990.
Will
the minister tell this House why he and his government continue to stall in
committing funds for the development of the centre when other levels of
government have already put their money in place? Is it because the government has no intention
of funding the centre and living up to their commitments to the aboriginal
people of this province‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1355)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, our commitment is clear. We are committed to the development of an
aboriginal centre and participation by the
Abinochi
Preschool Program
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, since the minister will not
provide any commitment for the aboriginal centre, will he at least go to his
cabinet colleagues to ask them to provide the minimum funding necessary for the
preservation and development of the aboriginal Heritage Language Program, like
the Abinochi preschool program, so that the aboriginal people of
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that this
government is genuinely interested and concerned about the native community,
particularly the people who have come to the city of
We
continue our support programs, Mr. Speaker, through the Manitoba Friendship
Centres that are not only in the city of
Again,
I want to point out, it is our responsibility to look after the general
population and not just specific programs that do not fall within any specific
government programs that are traditionally there.
Nursing
Curriculum
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Education has received a letter from a number of students at
Can
the Minister of Education tell the House what steps she has put into place to
ensure that there is quality programming in nursing at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I am
concerned, as this government is concerned, about the quality of programming in
each and every program that is offered.
We also understand that the quality of program is also subject to the
standards by that professional organization. However, I will be paying a great
deal of attention to the letters from the students at
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, we are getting very close to the
end of the first year of training for these young people, young people who must
be assured that they have the quality to meet not only the professional
standards but the standards set by Red
Can
the minister tell us today what specific steps she has taken to ensure that
these young people are going to be able to accomplish, at the end of first year
nursing, what they require to accomplish by the end of May of this year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, each and every student does have
access to an appeal process if they are concerned about a quality or about a
passing level in any program. I have already
told the honourable member the steps which I have undertaken to look at the
appeal process, but I raise again the issue of standards is also an issue
relating to the professional teaching group.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, in reality the appeal process in
place at
More
specifically, I want to know from the minister, what criteria she is putting in
place today to examine the curriculum which is presently failing excessive
numbers of students. What criteria is
she putting into place? What evaluation
has she put into place to ensure that our young people are not exposed to
unrealistic or, in their own words, examinations based on materials which they
were not even taught?
* (1400)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, my answer remains the same. This is an issue which we are concerned about
because we are concerned about all the programs offered through our community
colleges, but there is also the other matter of standards within the
professional teaching. However, I will
certainly make a point of looking at this particular issue through
CKND
Television
Unfair
Labour Practices
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Labour.
There
has been a new development in the more than six‑month‑old labour
dispute with CKND, with the company introducing a matter at the bargaining
table, which is one of the most odious provisions that I have ever seen even
proposed. I would like to table that,
Mr. Speaker. I would like to table a
copy, if I could.
The
Minister of Labour has been made aware that the company is attempting to muzzle
not only the members of CKND from being involved in boycotts, talking to public
officials about not being interviewed by replacement workers, about a whole
series of provisions that are absolutely unprecedented and in many ways violate
the freedom of speech of those employees, the Charter of Rights provisions.
I
understand the Minister of Labour has been approached on this matter. I would like to ask the Minister of Labour,
what action will he take as Minister of Labour to ensure that this kind of
odious provision does not end up in any way being discussed as part of any
contract here in
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Thompson has raised a very good point in this House. As the member
is well aware, this particular strike is in the area of federal jurisdiction
and not in my jurisdiction as the provincial Minister of Labour.
The
particular position which I understand that was raised at the bargaining table‑‑a
copy of it was provided to me yesterday‑‑and I think the particular
point that the member is interested in is our provisions that make the contract
dependent upon the actions of third parties.
I have certainly asked my staff, for my benefit, to tell me whether or
not that would be an unfair labour practice.
That recourse is available to the union that is striking.
I
think all of us in this House appreciate, in negotiations, the need to maintain
some fairness at the bargaining table and that unfair labour practices are not
something this government or any government should encourage in the bargaining
process.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister looking
into this and recognize it is federal jurisdiction.
I
ask the minister: Will he, in reviewing
this, consider stating categorically that this kind of behaviour is not
acceptable in the
Mr. Praznik: In the particular document that was presented
to me, and again I am not privy to the negotiations going on at the table,
there are various elements of it that are part of regular negotiations. Anything that would be an unfair labour
practice at the bargaining table, in the collective bargaining process, is
something that this government and, I think, all members of this House would
not be supportive of. It is so
dependent, as the member and as members opposite would agree, in the collective
bargaining process for parties to act fairly and in good faith in trying to
negotiate a collective agreement.
Government
Advertising Policy
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Will the minister, in keeping with the spirit
of what he has said in terms of acting in fairness, now recommend to the
Premier and to his cabinet colleagues that the government of
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, as I
have indicated in the House it has always been the position of this government,
and I believe it should be of governments, to remain neutral in labour
disputes. The issue that one raises with
respect to an unfair labour practice is something that I am currently
reviewing.
Cross-Cultural
Training
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
She
quite often talks about racism and combatting racism. On numerous occasions, I have asked the
minister what action she has taken regarding the MIC, the report on combatting
racism. Given the remarks from one of
the former cabinet ministers of this government, I would make reference to a
specific recommendation that came out of the MIC report, and that was that the
government of
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the minister is:
When does the minister expect to announce when that day will occur in
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): We embarked on a process with the Manitoba
Federation of Labour some two years ago or so to develop modules that might be
utilized in the workplace, throughout government, and in the community for
antiracism initiatives. Those modules
were presented not long ago, and as a response to those modules being
developed, we are going to implement within the department of Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship‑‑and I announced it last week‑‑a pilot
project whereby we are going to use one of the modules to deal within the Civil
Service on a pilot basis. We will
evaluate that pilot, and it will be able to be used very broadly as a result of
the evaluation of the project.
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister has had this report now for a
year and a half, and the question is‑‑[interjection] Yes, she has
had the report for a year and a half. It
was dated October of 1990.
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the minister is:
When is she going to take the initiative, when she talks about
combatting racism, and offer to every MLA in this Legislature an opportunity to
sit down and have a cultural awareness day at the Legislature? When is she going to make that commitment?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, as a result of asking MIC for
the recommendations and the receipt of their report, we have been working
intergovernmentally to try to address some of the initiatives. I have made several announcements over the
last period of time that are very positive in respect to an antiracism co‑ordinator
who will be working within the department within the Citizenship division of my
department. We have a module, which we
are going to pilot within government, that will be able to be used on a very
broad basis throughout the community and in the Legislature if that might be
the desire.
Things
are happening. We are moving in the
right direction. We have implemented an Immigrant Credentials and Labour Market
Branch within the division of Citizenship in my department. We are moving on many areas that the
community wants to see this government take action on.
Antiracism
Co-ordinator
Hiring
Process
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that
the very person who was seconded over to the Federation of Labour to work on
antiracism modules, one Nadja Bailey, will be the person who will be filling
that position on a permanent basis.
She
is a long‑time civil servant, who really has the ability and has proven
her ability to work with the community, and she will be working internally in
government performing those duties.
Long-Distance
Competition
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.
The president of Unitel is in
Will
the minister stand up for
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The
The
Unitel application he is talking about does not apply to
When
they were in government they were losing $20 million a year, $28 million a
year. They left $27 million in the sands
of
Mr. Dewar: My supplementary question to the same minister,
Mr. Speaker: Why is this minister
representing big business users at the expense of rural and northern Manitobans
who will see their rates rise to subsidize the less than 10 percent of
telephone subscribers in this province?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, that is rather a funny question for
that member to ask given the record of this government, where last year
telephone rates in the province increased 1.5 percent and the
Directory
Contract
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question
for the same minister: Will the minister
tell the House today whether the MTS telephone directory contract will go to
Manitoban workers, or will he be cross‑border shopping with the rest of
his colleagues and shipping jobs to the
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The
Mining
Communities
Equity
Insurance
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the minister responsible for Energy and Mines.
Since
1988, two mining communities have closed in the
My
question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is: Given that the concept has been joined now by
communities and groups in northern
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, unlike the negative approach of the member for Flin Flon, I can tell
you that we take the other approach that we believe that there are still
opportunities in the mining sector in
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I was wondering if I might have leave of the House to make a
ministerial statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
An Honourable Member: Ministerial.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave of the House to revert to
Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports under Routine Proceedings? Is there leave? Yes, there is leave.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the
Legislature the signing of an agreement with the City of
This
agreement is the second such agreement that I have had the pleasure to enter
into over the last month. The first
agreement was with the City of
The
agreement we signed today is to be cost‑shared with the City of
This
plan for revitalization prepared by the city in conjunction with the downtown
business community and Inco provides for improvements to be made to the physical
appearance of both the streetscape and businesses, as well as improving the
vehicle and pedestrian traffic and also provides for improvements to off‑street
parking.
As
stated in the Thompson Downtown Revitalization Plan, this is a very important
initiative. The Thompson downtown
revitalization initiative is but a first step in implementing our economic
development strategy. Downtown
revitalization will create a positive image for our city centre. This important agreement will provide a
tangible basis upon which our community can build to achieve our
objectives. We as a province are pleased
to be a partner in implementing this development strategy with the City of
Preparation
of this plan for revitalization commenced a number of years ago, and
implementation is expected to be completed by 1996.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that all the
lobbying efforts the City of
I
hope while they are sitting here congratulating themselves on being dragged
kicking and screaming into living up to a commitment they made, which they had
denied until the City Council took them on directly on that, I would hope that
they would go further when they talk about the development of northern
Yes,
we are pleased, but this government has to go a long way towards rebuilding the
North from the kind of damage they have brought in the last four years since
they have been in government to the development prospects of northern
* (1420)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, we are delighted with this announcement by the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach). We would have
been even more delighted if in fact it had been produced a year ago, because
that is when the original commitment was made, and that is when we began to ask
questions in the Estimates of the former Minister of Rural Development and we
could not get a commitment at that particular time from the government to the
City of
We
believe that this will bode well for the community of Thompson in its upgrading
of its city, along with its corporate citizen Inco. We look forward to seeing the evolution of an
enhanced Thompson community for the future, particularly as we all hope that
mining activity picks up and continues to thrive in that northern community.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was
listening very carefully to what the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was
saying in his response to the announcement.
I think the honourable member needs to correct, for the edification of
the House, the statement that he made.
He said, he lobbied very hard on behalf of the city of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
Nonpolitical Statement
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Vital have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: It is agreed.
Mrs. Render: Mr. Speaker, once again I am really very
pleased to rise in the legislative Chamber to tell you of the happenings at
Glenlawn Collegiate.
Just
yesterday I told you that the Glenlawn Lions varsity girls basketball team won
the provincial championship. They made
the front page of Saturday's Sports Section.
In
today's paper, Glenlawn Collegiate is mentioned three times. In the Free Press Weekly, the athlete of the
week is Lise Anne Gaudreau, a Grade 12 student at Glenlawn who plays guard with
the Glenlawn Lions.
Also
in today's newspaper is reference to the Glenlawn Collegiate bands. They have been invited to participate in
Festival
Now,
the third reference in the newspaper today was made with reference to the
Partnership in Education Program that was recently initiated between
I
must just tell you that also just a bare week ago, Donna Marion, a teacher at
Glenlawn, one of the people who worked hard to ensure the partnership agreement
happened, was featured in the
So,
once again, Mr. Speaker, the staff and the students have shown their
excellence, and congratulations once more to Glenlawn.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to
consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for
SUPPLY‑INTERIM
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
We
have before us, for our consideration, a resolution respecting the Interim
Supply bill. The resolution reads as
follows:
RESOLVED
that a sum not exceeding $1,517,517,750, being 30 percent of the total amount
to be voted as set out in the Main Estimates, be granted to Her Majesty for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993.
Does
the Acting Minister of Finance have opening comments?
Is
the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Chairperson: Question.
Shall the resolution be passed?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Madam Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly passed.
Committee
rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me
to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair, and that the House resolve itself in a
committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted
to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply
to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for
* (1430)
SUPPLY‑INTERIM
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF WAYS AND MEANS
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Ways and Means please
come to order.
We
have before us, for our consideration, a resolution respecting the Interim
Supply bill. The resolution reads as
follows:
RESOLVED
that towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty on account of
certain expenditures of the Public Service for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1993, the sum of $1,517,517,750, being 30 percent of the total
amount to be voted as set out in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1993, laid before the House at the present session of
the Legislature, be granted out of the Consolidated Fund.
Is
the committee ready for the question?
Shall the resolution pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
Madam Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly passed.
Committee
rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Ways and Means has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 67‑The
Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), that leave be given to introduce Bill 67, The
Interim Appropriation Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee de
credits), and that the same be now received, read a first time and be ordered
for second reading immediately.
Motion agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 67‑The
Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 67, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
(Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee de credits), be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid I neglected to seek leave of the House in order to
introduce the bill for reading a second time, and I would seek that leave now.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Acting Minister of
Finance have leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, he does.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, Bill 67, The Interim
Appropriation Act, 1992, is required to provide interim spending, commitment
and borrowing authority for the 1992‑93 fiscal year pending approval of
The Appropriation Act, 1992. The amount
of spending authority requested is $1,517,517,750, being 30 percent of the
total sums voted excluding statutory items as set forth in the main Estimates
of expenditure. This amount is estimated
to last until approximately the end of July 1992.
The
amount of future commitment authority included in this Interim Supply bill is
$120 million, being 30 percent of the total amount of $400 million which will
be included in The Appropriation Act, 1992.
The authority for future years' commitments provides for the commitment
of expenditures to ensure completion of projects or fulfilling of contracts
initiated prior to or during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993.
Expenditures
for these commitments may not be made in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993,
unless additional authority is provided.
A clause has been included to provide the government with authority to
make payments against accrued liabilities totalling $196.5 million and will be
recorded in the accounts of the province as at March 31, 1992.
As
in prior years, a borrowing authority clause has been included in the Interim
Supply Bill 67 for 1992‑93. Bill
67 will provide the government with borrowing authority of $300 million.
Mr.
Speaker, Bill 67 is required to provide interim spending, commitment and
borrowing authority effective April 1, 1992, to ensure the continued operation
of government. I would like to request
co‑operation of the opposition in passing Bill 67 through all stages of
consideration, debate and approval without undue delay. When Bill 67 reaches the committee stage, I
can provide members with a section‑by‑section explanation of the
bill.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to speak to
this bill, because I do have a number of concerns, in fact, some very serious
concerns about the funding priorities of this government. In particular, I think one that we have been
raising in the House for a number of months now is the absence of an aboriginal
urban strategy. I raised it in the House
today. I have some very serious concerns
about the lack of attention, the lack of interest, the disregard for the
increasing poverty of 40,000 aboriginal people in the centre of
I
think that very first economic condition of most of our urban population is
something which should concern the government.
I would like at a later opportunity this afternoon to ask them some
questions on that.
As
I suggested in the House today, Mr. Speaker, this is a government which in 1988
in fact did show some initiatives about an urban aboriginal strategy. It even had some mention of urban aboriginal
strategies in 1989, but by 1991, in throne speech after throne speech, there is
no mention of any attention to any of the urban conditions facing aboriginal
people in the city of
* (1440)
The
second area of concern I have, Mr. Speaker, is the lack of funding that this
government is prepared to offer to the Abinochi preschool program in
If
they had a strategy, if they had a program, if they had met with aboriginal
leaders over the last two years, as they had set out to do in 1988, perhaps
there would have been program funding for this particular program, perhaps
there would have been some recognition by this government of the role of
education, of the role of Native languages, of the role of elders and the
grandmothers in creating a new generation of aboriginal people.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I
do not think the government would necessarily have come to this recognition by
itself. In fact, I have very little hope
of any kind of change by this particular government, but perhaps they would
have listened to the elders, perhaps they would have listened to the
grandmothers, perhaps they would have listened to the Native leaders whom they
might have met had they developed that partnership that they promised in 1988
and 1989, but they developed no partnership; there is merely rhetoric.
As
my colleague the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) suggested yesterday very
well, and in a very impressive speech I think, the absence of trust that is
there now between aboriginal people and this government, and the growing sense
of distrust that you will find right across the province, not just in
In
the
Clearly
what is happening is that the trust is not there either, between aboriginal
people and this particular government.
I
think the issue goes far beyond the Abinochi preschool. It goes beyond even the CP Station. It does go to the whole heart of the issue,
as my colleague from Point Douglas pointed out yesterday. It is a question of trust and commitment and
promises that were made by this government and which have been broken year
after year after year.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, since the government has not taken the opportunity to meet with
the elders or with the grandmothers, since it has not developed that
partnership with aboriginal people that it promised, it has not had the
opportunity to educate itself to learn about the reasons for the Abinochi
preschool program, to learn about the larger role that it has played and can
continue to play in the aboriginal community of Winnipeg.
It
seems to have fallen through a number of cracks in terms of funding. The Education minister (Mrs. Vodrey) says,
well, it is not education. The Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) says, it is not a
heritage language. The Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) says it is not a daycare, and nowhere is
there one minister, the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), who should be
saying that this is a program of deep significance to aboriginal people, which
somehow, somewhere, in all the priorities of this government should be funded.
A
government which can fund $2 million to St. John's‑Ravenscourt, a
government which can increase the funding of private schools by 9 percent or 11
percent cannot find $20,000 this year and $130,000 next year for the only
Ojibway language program at the Kindergarten level in all of Canada, a program
which sets out to do a number of things.
I
want to go back a little to look at the reasons for this program. It is not just a language program. It is not, in any way, a daycare
program. It is not a program that does
indeed fall under one particular rubric, but it is a program which sets out to
be a part of the healing process of aboriginal people that is being experienced
and fought for across the country.
Members
opposite, if I listen to the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), perhaps really
do not understand what this healing process is about. They do not understand the experience that
aboriginal people have faced in this country.
Indeed, when I listened to the member for Rossmere last week, I was
moved in fact to send across the House to him‑‑and I will table it
in the House today‑‑a copy of the pass that was used by aboriginal
people across the Prairies between 1885 and 1940, a pass which had to be
carried at all times.
No
one else in
The
restriction of movement, however, was only one part of the destruction of an
aboriginal society that
So
it is a much broader program, and I wish the government had taken the opportunity
to meet with the elders to create that partnership that it needed to deal with
the issue of the Abinochi preschool.
The
pass laws, in many ways, Mr. Acting Speaker, are only one part of the
destruction that took place. Far more
destructive to generation after generation of aboriginal people was the program
of the boarding schools. Now, members of
this House may think that the boarding schools were in fact simply a means of
educating in the European fashion children who were scattered across a large
area of the country simply in disparate regions, but that would only be a very
small part of the story, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The
purpose of the boarding school was to separate the parent from the child, to
separate the child from what the Canadian government believed was‑‑and
I put this in quotes‑‑"savagery." The purpose was to
create, as the Canadian government said at the time, "an Indian who was
white in all but colour," and again that phrase is in quotes. It was to transform on behalf of the Canadian
people many nations of aboriginal people across the country and to transform
them first of all by breaking that tie with the family.
The
past laws were used to prevent parents, aunts and grandparents visiting the
children, prevent them bringing food to the children, in fact, food that was
considered "savage" in nature.
The children were kept in those boarding schools immersed, as the saying
went at the time, in the white culture until it had taken hold. It was to create a different kind of
people. No one else in this House, I
think, has experienced that kind of transformation, that kind of forced
transformation of family.
On
top of that there were other kinds of transformations which were anticipated,
and perhaps the most important of these was the transformation in religion, in
faith, in the very basis of individual, family and cultural perspective,
because at the same time in that period from 1880 to 1950, when the children
were taken to the boarding schools, at that same time the government chose
through the Indian Act to abolish, to make criminal the practice of aboriginal
religion, whether it was the Sun Dance or the Midewiwin or the potlatch in
British Columbia.
* (1450)
Indeed,
across the Prairies and in
When
you lose your language, Mr. Acting Speaker‑‑and there are people in
this House who have experienced that, who have lost their language‑‑you
lose your ability to think in particular ways.
We all know that if you have only a Grade 3 vocabulary you can only
think in the concepts of a Grade 3. The
expansion of vocabulary means the expansion of ideas. The loss of that Anishinaabe vocabulary, the
loss of that Dakota vocabulary, the loss of the languages of the
An Honourable Member: Who should pay for this?
Ms. Friesen: Who destroyed them? What do you mean who should pay for it? Who destroyed them?
An Honourable Member: Who should pay for having everybody retain
their own language? I speak German and I
can retain my own language.
Ms. Friesen: Nobody destroyed your German language, but
what happened in
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley has the
floor, and I would appreciate it we could have some decorum.
Ms. Friesen: I was diverted by the Minister of
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) who was asking who should pay for this, and he
was drawing comparisons to the experience, I assume, of Mennonites in
But
I will maintain that there is a difference.
The Mennonite people in
I
think the minister understands that as well as I do, that the children were not
removed from the home. The children were
not taken to an environment that was entirely foreign. In some ways it was, I agree, and
particularly during the years of the First World War and indeed the Second
World War, there was no doubt that Mennonite people and German‑speaking
people generally did suffer in Manitoba, but there is a difference and it is
that difference of family support which was so crucial to them in maintaining
their language but was not permitted and, in fact, was entirely altered in the
case of aboriginal people.
So,
when we look at the Abinochi preschool program, Mr. Acting Speaker, and we see
the involvement of the grandmothers and the involvement of the elders, that is
important. It is important in the
healing, in the reconstruction, the very basic reconstruction of a society,
because what is happening here is that for this generation of aboriginal
people, the family supports that Mennonites had for their education, the role
of grandmothers, the preservation of the honouring of grandparents that was there
for Mennonite people will be there for aboriginal people, and it was not there
in the past.
The
children were taught through the loss of their language, through the prevention
of their religion, through the mockery and the disdain for their culture that
their grandmothers were not important.
That is a significant difference.
That
is why the Abinochi program and its involvement of the whole community is so
important. It is unique. It is a unique program which through its
development of curricula, and indeed there has been support from this
government through education for the development of curricula. It is a curriculum which, in fact, can be
marketed, which can be used in areas where Anishinabe is spoken. Anishinabe, in fact, is spoken quite widely
through the Great Lakes region, through parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin, as
well as in western Ontario, northwestern Ontario, as well as, of course, right
into southern Saskatchewan.
It
is one of the largely spoken languages.
It is one of those that does have, as the federal government has said, a
likelihood of survival. It is not a
language which is only spoken by a small group, but one which has a great
likelihood of survival if it receives the support of the broader
community. I would like to recommend to
the government, in fact, that they do have the support of the broader community
in this, in what is a small‑scale program, but which I believe will have
much larger‑scale impacts.
Again,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to draw to the government's attention not just the
prohibition of movement in the past laws, not just the dislocation of family,
the deprivation of language which took place in those boarding schools and the
loss of religion, but I also want to draw the government's attention, too, to
the fact that throughout this period aboriginal people, unlike Mennonites,
unlike other immigrants, were being systematically, by treaty, dispossessed of
their land.
At
the same time as they were being dispossessed of their land they were also
being offered a series of what the government believed were "civilizing
programs": the replacement of
aboriginal religion by Christianity through the boarding schools, through the
teachers, at a place apart from the family, a set of values which were quite
different from those of many aboriginal families, not all, because indeed there
is an aboriginal Christian tradition which certainly comes from at least the
early part of the 19th Century, but for the majority of aboriginal people in
the Canadian plains it was the replacement, without consent, of faith, of
language, of education, of respect within the family.
It
came at a time, as I said, of economic displacement, of loss of land. It was not only the loss of land, Mr. Acting
Speaker, but it was an economic program which aimed to create on the Canadian
plains an aboriginal population of only a limited economic opportunity. It was a program which was in place from the
1880s again until the 1940s. So when we
look at those grandmothers and those teachers and those elders who are involved
in the Abinochi preschool program, that indeed is their experience. Their experience has been the boarding
school. Their experience has been displacement.
Their experience has been the economic marginalization and limitation of
opportunities in a way that has not been systematically applied to any other
group of people in this province as represented in this House or elsewhere.
The
economic program that was offered to aboriginal people in this period was
farming, agriculture‑‑the Bible and the plow was the way in which
it was portrayed by many of those well‑meaning missionaries and others
who sought to alter aboriginal people, to make them, again I quote, "white
in all but colour."
The
agricultural program of the Canadian government bears all the hallmarks of
perhaps the best, most well‑meaning of paternalism, to offer to
aboriginal people an alternative to the hunt, which had been decimated for a
variety of reasons in the 1870s and 1880s and to offer them the tools to a new
economic way of life.
* (1500)
But
that is only half the story, Mr. Acting Speaker. Let me read to you some of the words of the
Department of Indian Affairs in the 1890s:
The goal of the department's agricultural policy‑‑and I
think for every member in this House who represents aboriginal people, and many
of us do, that this should be‑‑
An Honourable Member: All of us do.
Ms. Friesen: As all of us do. The department's goal in agriculture was, and
I am quoting, Mr. Acting Speaker: to
restrict the area cultivated by each Indian to within such limits as will
enable him to carry on his operations by the application of his own personal
labour, and the employment of such simple implements as he would likely to be able
to command if entirely thrown upon his own resources, rather than to encourage
farming on a scale to necessitate the employment of expensive labour‑saving
machinery.
The
purpose of the aboriginal economic program was in fact to create, as the department
called it, peasant farmers, not commercial farmers, not people who were
intended to compete, as before this they had been doing with European farmers
particularly in the area south of Portage, but to limit, to take away the
machinery which they had bought, and the Oak River Dakota indeed had bought
much of that machinery, to take away their opportunity to sell that grain on
the open market and to put in place a series of permits to limit the amount of
grain that aboriginal people could produce and sell.
It
was done to create not commercial farmers, not people who could compete with
European farmers, but people who indeed were limited in their economic
opportunities.
That
was the economic context, Mr. Acting Speaker, until the late '40s and early
'50s when aboriginal people begin, largely as a result of the work of the
returned soldiers, the returned veterans of '45, to take a much more direct
approach and a direct control of their own affairs.
Beginning
in 1945, they did indeed begin to create the movement which would lead to the
Abinochi preschool program, to create a program where they would begin to
control their own communities, that would lead to economic development, that
would begin to expand economic opportunities through education, through
secondary education, through post‑secondary education for aboriginal
people.
Manitoba
has been at the forefront of that, in creating the leadership that has led to
many changes across Canada, whether it is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs,
whether it is its forerunner, the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood and the program
that it produced in the early '60s called Wahbung, Our Tomorrows, or whether it
is in the work that my colleague the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) has
been doing in the last two years to expand the knowledge and the understanding
of aboriginal communities to non‑Native people across Canada.
We
have produced in
We
have the opportunity here, through those teachers, through the leadership that
is established here, through the concentration of urban aboriginal people in
the city of Winnipeg to make a difference, to begin to create a different kind
of aboriginal population where the children begin with a respect and a
knowledge of their own selves, that their parents and their family are involved
and control their education, that their language is restored to them from the
beginning, because many of the parents cannot transmit that language, cannot
transmit the concepts, the ideas and the culture that are inherent in every
person's language.
That
is why, Mr. Acting Speaker, I so deeply regret that this government has not
seen fit to meet with those elders, that it has not devoted itself to the
welfare of those children or of aboriginal people in the city of Winnipeg,
because there is here and has been for the children who have been through that
school the opportunity for a different kind of society. It seems to me that a government which cannot
find the money for Abinochi preschool program and yet can find money to fund at
very increased levels, vastly increased levels, the private schools of this
city and this province has got its priorities entirely wrong.
Thanks.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this debate, because under 10 of the aboriginal justice
initiative, one of the recommendations that was highly recommended was
retaining one's language and one's culture.
I
was very surprised to hear the comment thrown across the floor from the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger). Either he understands what the aboriginal
people have gone through or he understands very little of what the aboriginal
people have gone through, because the comment was, we lost our language too
because we could not speak our language in the schools. That is true.
One
thing that the minister did not add is that when they completed a school day,
they went home to their family. If their
family spoke a specific language, that was carried on after school hours. You attended school for a shorter number of
hours during the day than you did spending your time at home. The aboriginal people lived in those schools,
residential schools, 24 hours a day, 10 months out of the year. When you do not have the opportunity to
practise your language or even speak, if you are punished to speak your language,
how can you retain that language?
If
the Minister of Highways has lost his language, then he should understand what
we as aboriginal people are saying. He
should have a better understanding than what nonaboriginal people would have if
they had never had a first language other than English.
Just
for an example, Mr. Acting Speaker, if we took today, and all of a sudden we
were invaded or if that free trade with Mexico came to be and we had millions
of Mexicans move into Manitoba, and because of their numbers took over the City
Council and were elected to the Legislative Assembly, and when they got enough
power to start changing our laws and our acts, said, now there will be no more
English spoken in Manitoba; we will only speak Mexican, how would the people in
this Chamber feel? I am sure there would
be some resentment, some anger and some very, very frustrated‑‑
An Honourable Member: Spanish.
Mr. Hickes: Well, Spanish; they speak Spanish. Would the people in this Chamber stand up and
take that? I do not think so, Mr. Acting
Speaker. I do not understand how the
nonaboriginal people cannot support aboriginal causes and aboriginal wishes.
When
I was asking the Minister for Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) about funding the
Abinochi preschool language program, they are talking about $130,000. Do you know how much private schools
get? They get $20 million. The answer was, where do we get the money?
If
you go back in history, take a small share of that out of
An Honourable Member:
Mr. Hickes:
When
you have parents and grandparents who set up a language program such as
Abinochi to try and get back the language and the culture for their own people,
that should be applauded and supported; not say, where do we get the money
from? If you look at where it could fit
into government programs or government support, you could identify it easily
with the Culture Heritage program. Is
that not what your language and culture is all about? That is what I always thought.
* (1510)
At
one time we used to have deals just taken with a handshake and people honoured
those. They honoured those deals with a
handshake. Today, what is happening to
our world? We are so mistrustful of one
another, of individuals, and everything has to be done in writing or it is not
a done deal or we have not committed because I have no piece of paper that said
that we will do this, we will do that. A
lot of the aboriginal people still believe in peoples' words. When they attend a meeting and someone says,
I will support this, or I will try my best to do this, a lot of the aboriginal
people see that as a commitment and support to what their wishes are. So that way a lot of the negotiations with
aboriginal people are misunderstood like this program here.
I
have received a copy of a letter that was written to the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey), and right in that letter they say, at that time you
committed your government to fund our programs, and it is even underlined. It says, you committed your government. So that was the belief of the people.
An Honourable Member: Mr. Acting Speaker, are you going to table
it?
Mr. Hickes: If you want me to, I will be glad to table
it.
Point of
Order
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would ask the member to table the letter that he is referring
to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Hickes: If he does not have a copy of it, I am very
surprised. It says right in that letter‑‑seeing
I am going to use the letter, I might as well use it properly now that they met
with the Minister of‑‑[interjection]
Well,
I was only going to use a few quotes, but now I will go into more detail. This is from the organization, the parent and
family organization. It is a parent's
council of the Abinochi preschool program.
When I saw this, and thinking back of what has transpired over the
years, I was very, very surprised because even in this letter that I will table
there is a strong, strong recommendation from the minister's own staff. I will table the whole package.
It
says: It is recommended that long‑term
funding for this program be channeled through the Department of Northern
Affairs. It is recommended that a five‑year funding agreement available
on a renewable basis be negotiated, implemented to honour the long‑term
commitment of the
That
is a government worker that is working on behalf‑‑and part of an
organization that the minister put together, an organization that‑‑it
says four months. Three of our
representatives met with the provincial directors of Native Affairs, Native
education, child care services, cultural resources. So the government had staff people working on
it.
When
you put staff people working on something and they come back with a positive
recommendation and nothing has happened and nobody listens to those
recommendations, why send them out in the first place? Why not just say no at the start and save
everybody a lot of trouble? There is
nothing in here that says the government should not fund it, because there are
a whole bunch of reasons why and where the government could be funding this. I mentioned the heritage and culture
department and even if you looked at the whole Department of Health.
When
you have individuals that have been abused and hurt and everything else because
of losing their languages and their culture, and now this program is trying to
get some of that back, I would think that could be perceived as holistic
healing for families and individuals of aboriginal ancestry. So if you are looking for places to find
funding within the government, you have those choices, also Urban Affairs.
These
are urban aboriginal individuals. That
could fall under Urban Affairs. Family
Services, most definitely it could fall under Family Services, because when you
have people, and there are so many examples out there, that have been hurting
and have gone into abusive situations through‑‑whether it is
alcohol or drugs or trying to escape from God knows what, because you do not
know who you are. Even the elders tell
you that. The first piece to get back
your life, to identify your culture and your spirituality, is your
language. Your language is the key.
Even
in this letter, it even states in here, where it says: our elders tell us that
our language holds the key to our future.
The elders are telling you that.
Have you even taken time to meet with the elders? Go to the Abinochi school. Talk to those two grandmothers who are
teaching those language programs, and ask them where those children are at
today. Those children will be in a much,
much healthier position than a lot of aboriginal people who have lost their
language and their culture through that whole generation because of the
residential school systems that individuals were forced into.
When
I was living in Churchill, they brought the Inuit children up to Churchill for
education. They were there. It was like a residential school. Because some of them were our families from
various communities in the North, every time we went out there to visit with
them‑‑they had lounges‑‑and we could not speak our own
language to them. There were counsellors
there to make sure that never took place.
None of it took place.
There
was no such thing as traditional foods.
Where the Inuit people are dependent on caribou, seal, and whale meat
and fish, they had what you have now, like pork, beef and everything else. A lot of them, when they went back and grew
up, they were not used to eating traditional foods, so a lot of them had not
had the reason even to become hunters.
That
is the kind of stuff that aboriginal people are faced with, and I find it very
hard to stand here and try to convince this government that as simple a thing
as finding $130,000 to fund something will eventually offset a lot of dollar
costs, or which could offset a lot of dollar costs, through our health system,
our penal system and our court systems, and on and on. If you do not know who
you are, how can you be positive about yourself? It is very, very hard.
That
is why I have to urge the government to look seriously at finding that, at
least immediately finding that interim funding of $21,000‑‑it is
not a whole lot of an amount when you spend millions and millions of dollars‑‑so
that the aboriginal people do not lose that program. They have been getting calls from all over
I
think with that I will close. I would
just like to ask this government seriously, seriously to look at it and get the
other members on side, talk to the elders, get other members and colleagues on
side, and try and find out some way of funding this program, so that the
aboriginal people can benefit from this.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. The honourable member was going to table that
report?
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am very pleased to‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Downey:
I
do not mind the member speaking, but I was going to respond to the new subject
matter which we are dealing with. I will wait, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* (1520)
* * *
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Acting Speaker, I am very pleased today to
rise to speak to Bill 67, the Interim Supply bill, and I wanted to put some
comments on the record, and particularly observations about the life and the
longevity of governments. It seems to
me, Mr. Acting Speaker, that governments defeat themselves. It is very rare that governments get defeated
by oppositions. As a matter of fact, it
is usually the other way around. The governments
defeat themselves.
This
government was no different than any others.
It came in full of hope and youth and vigour and hair and good health
and now, Mr. Acting Speaker, over a period of some four years now they have had
to come to grips, slowly but surely, with reality. It has been a rude
awakening, I believe, for them. We can
see the stages in the life of this government pass us by. In fact, they have gone through the youth
stage. They are well into middle age,
and some would argue that they are approaching old age at this point. You can see that very clearly by watching
them every day in this House.
You
know, even comparing their performance to a year ago, we all on this side can
see how they are starting to deteriorate, how they are starting to run out of
options, because once again, a new government, a newer type government has a
lot of options, but as time progresses they use those options up. I can cite you cases where groups approach
governments, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) knows what I am
talking about here, groups come to new governments expecting certain promises to
be fulfilled, certain things to be done on their behalf. They are prepared to be patient, they will
accept a deferral or a partial rejection, and then they will come back at a
later point expecting that their concerns will be dealt with.
The
Minister of Natural Resources knows full well that after the second or third
time of rejection or deferral, that in fact the government loses the support of
those particular groups. We are now
beginning to see and appreciate how far this government has gone down that
road, when we have members and representatives of a certain organization, and I
will not mention the name of the organization here, who were very supportive of
this government in the last election, who went out and pumped a tremendous
amount of money into the coffers of the party that elected this government, and
now, what we are finding is, those members of that organization are now
approaching us. You can sit back and
watch this happen. We would have never
expected to hear from this particular organization because it would be
considered to be one in the Conservative support group.
It
happened to our former government. The
member for
He
survived a lot of different governments in this House and no doubt he will
survive more to come, and he knows of which I speak. When groups that traditionally support the
government in power today start coming to the NDP because the government will
not listen to them anymore, and they do not think they are getting what was
promised, then they should know that they are over the hill and they are on
that slippery slope down.
The
new members over there will not appreciate this but the older ones certainly
will, that, in fact, their end may come a lot sooner than they think. Perhaps that too is why the government
brought in, to a certain extent, the budget that it did. I mean, the government is mid term. Now is the time for the government to do the
nasty things that governments such as that would do mid term. We see that their spending did not, in fact,
increase. That tells me that there are
some shaky components over there. It
tells me there are some squeaky wheels.
It tells me also that government has some members that it has to worry a
bit about.
I
think it is also concerned with the Crescentwood by‑election because the
government had to present itself in as good a position as it could with a by‑election
coming up, with potentially the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery)
dropping away, the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) and who knows what other
squeaky wheels there are over there that require grease.
Who
knows how many squeaky wheels there are over there, potential members who may
be looking at the federal scene‑‑although Heaven knows why they
would consider the Conservatives as a federal option right now. Certainly there are their cousins in the
Reform Party that they may associate with for a federal attempt.
So,
in trying to come up with the rationale for the thinking behind their budget
and so on, I can only conclude that there is a short‑term political
necessity for them to look at and perhaps to hold back on cuts that probably
would be more to their liking had they had more numbers in this House.
One
might also come to the conclusion that perhaps they think that the recession is
over or it is getting to an end, and in fact if they spend into the end of a
recession they can claim credit for solving the recession. I do not know that they would want to take a
big chance on that because the recession may in fact get worse rather than get
better over the next few months.
I
believe that people are getting very disappointed in this government. I think it is a logical extension of the
media age. I think perhaps 25 years ago people elected their members, such as
the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), and were happy that he disappeared and left
for Winnipeg and did not come back for another four years. I am not making the assumption that he never
went back to see his members. What I am
saying is, in those days, without the television communications we have right
now, one could simply elect a member of Parliament or a member to the
Legislature and put them on the train and not see them for four years and not
expect to see them, because MLAs did not have the services, they did not have
the air capacities that we have now. In today's environment, people expect
more, I believe, from their MLAs.
They
expect more immediate solutions to problems.
Today they elect MLAs and M.P.s.
They expect to see them weekly if not monthly. They expect to hear from them constantly, and
when they do not hear from them, when they do not see them, and when they do
not get immediate solutions to their problems, they tend to seek the quick
solution and try to get rid of them at the next election.
That
is why I believe we see fewer and fewer‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): I raise with you that we are debating Interim
Supply and, yet, when I listen to the honourable member go on about elections
or whatever he can think of or comes ramming through his mind which does not
make any sense at all and does not pertain to the Interim Supply debate that we
are entering into, I am wondering whether you could call him to order and ask
him to put pertinent comments on record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable member for Emerson does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Maloway: I think the member who just stood in his place
shows full well why he was thrown out of the cabinet last year and why the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) showed no confidence in him.
I
mean, the member has been here long enough and should know that the Deputy
Chairperson allows a wide‑ranging latitude on all bills in this House,
but particularly on bills such as Interim Supply where, in fact, almost any
type of speech is in order. In fact, my
speech has been particularly about this government and its lack of direction
and in fact the argument that it is heading inevitably toward destruction.
I
wanted to make some comments about the member for Rossmere's (Mr. Neufeld)
speech the other day. There are a number
of things in his speech that I did not agree with, such as his position on pay
equity and affirmative action. There was
at least one issue that I did agree with him on.
That
was his observation that business should stand on its own two feet and should
not be coming cap in hand to the government for grants. He was particularly concerned about the
Winnipeg Jets deal, and that deal concerns me as well.
After
all, this government is supposedly built on the rugged individual and free
enterprise and strong business and so on, and even if Conservative governments
believe in helping disadvantaged people in our society, surely business should
not put itself out and suggest that it is part of disadvantaged groups. I mean, after all, if we are going to help
disadvantaged people in our society, where is the money going to come from, to
be handing out money to businesses?
* (1530)
It
seems to mean that the bigger the business‑‑currently we have a
problem with
The
commercial real estate has not been a particularly good field to be in. Perhaps it is surprising that they have
lasted as long as they have. Here we see
a typical government, Conservative, but also other government, governmental
approach to the problem; that is, when the business has got enormous amounts of
debts to the bank, the bank has the problem.
If
it was a small business, it would be shut up, and it would be gone. But here you have
The
businesses rant and rave about being self‑sufficient, being on their own,
and yet they are the first people to go cap in hand for government grants. So, when we met with the Chamber of Commerce
last year, I was very heartened to hear the Chamber of Commerce finally say,
you know, we have internally resolved now that business should stand on their
two feet. We should not be asking the
government for handouts.
(Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
That
is what they said, right? Of course,
right on its heels came the argument, well, what are we going to do about the
Winnipeg Jets? That was a problem for
them at the time. They said, well, you
know, the Jets present themselves as a different sort of problem. We may have to make an exception there. We will try to keep our house in order, and
we will try to be consistent even with the Jets if possible, but with the Jets
we may have to make the exception.
The
member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) outlined it in his speech last week when he
said exactly that, that the Chamber of Commerce should live up to what it says
it wants to do in the last year, and give up begging the government for
money. It should not be coming to the
government cap in hand.
We
have a huge drain on resources in this country because businesses do exactly
that. The Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) knows full well stories over the years of how provinces have been
taken advantage of by companies that go cap in hand from provincial capital to
provincial capital, and play one off against the other.
This
government should know that it too will probably be the loser in the Piper deal
because I am told
I
guess a problem we have when we have 10 provinces, we have these jurisdictions
competing essentially against one another. Now, we have into the fray the
American states in the same situation.
Which
reminds me of another observation I have:
I recently turned on the TV, and I run into one of these rugged
individualists on TV decrying Canadian taxes and how he had to move to Florida,
because he said that the Canadian environment‑‑I think the River
Heights environment for business was so tough on this guy that he had to move
to Florida. He was really upset that
after his first week in
Then
the next week I got the business digest and guess who was being sued? His moving company was suing him. He did not even pay the bloody moving company
who moved him to
The
Winnipeg Jets are simply one of the latest examples of that situation. I mean, people are getting fed up and sick of
the situation involving the Jets, whereby they want private ownership, but they
want the public to pay the bills. I defy
anybody over there to tell me that is not so; I mean, that is certainly
so. So the member for Rossmere, while he
may not have all of his ducks in order on a number of issues in my opinion,
certainly in that one, had observations.
As a constituent of mine and certainly a constituent who never
complains, I am very, very happy to have him as a constituent.
He
certainly could present problems for this government, and I do think that they,
approaching two and a half years in government right now, are certainly
worried. As a matter of fact, the
problems are starting to pile up on their plate. The Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger)
laughs nervously from another seat, and I mean, he ought to know. I mean, here is a guy who was going to bring
in safety legislation for used cars in this province and took it to cabinet twice
last year and got blown right out of the room.
To give him credit, he went back a third time this year and got blown
out of the room again. Now they are
planning to have one of their backbenchers introduce the bill, because they do
not have the guts to do it themselves.
I
mean, there is the confidence that this government has in the minister and in
the groups that they promised this thing to. I mean, after all, they promised
the car dealers association, because they literally funded their campaigns,
they promised the car dealers they they were going to do this for them. They were going to turn the public of
The
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) has gone to cabinet twice and he has been
thrown out. So now they have turned it
over to the member for
Point of
Order
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, could I ask a clarification‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Are you standing on a point of order?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for
Mrs. Vodrey: I believe that it was alluded that I had
introduced a bill, and I am not sure that the member had, in fact, the correct
naming of the member.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection]
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
on a point of order, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), in his zeal for
debate, has from time to time this afternoon used words that, well, not
necessarily unparliamentary, are somewhat offensive to some members of the
House, and I would ask you to encourage him to make the best use of the Queen's
English as opposed to that which he has been using up to this point.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have been reminded by the Clerk that,
indeed, a former Speaker did rule that that terminology was indeed
unparliamentary, and I would caution the member for Elmwood to choose his words
carefully.
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say at this point
that the member who was to bring in that private member's bill regarding the
used cars was the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). I apologize, it was not the member for
* (1540)
* * *
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think, before I
conclude, I would like to make a comment about the deficit and how the
Conservatives are so pious about their position on the deficit. I mean, I
cannot go a day without reading the paper and hearing some Tory somewhere
decrying the deficit. One would think
that when Conservatives come in, they would do something about the deficit.
In
fact, their record has been absolutely atrocious. Any Conservative government across the
country, federally or provincially, has come into office and left office with a
deficit much, much higher than when it came in.
So to be so pious about the deficit and then see the results the
Conservative governments produce is almost unbelievable.
I
mean, this government has been racking up deficits of nearly a half billion
dollars a year on top of the existing deficit.
So we are at nearly $10 billion of total deficit in this province right
now, and they are adding to it every year.
Somehow
they are trying to masquerade themselves as being fiscally responsible, deficit‑fighting
people who are holding your taxes down.
I mean, they are contributing to this deficit every bit as much as the
previous government did or any other government in the country, and do not ever‑‑you
know, I pity anyone who believes and falls for the arguments that these people
make on the deficits.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I know that the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) has a barn
burner of a speech planned, and I do want to give him time to proceed with his
speech. Thank you.
Mr. Elijah Harper
(Rupertsland): I have a few words for this bill.
An Honourable Member: How many is a few words, Elijah?
Mr. Harper: A few words.
Just listen to a few words.
First
of all, I would like to indicate that this government, as I mentioned before,
has carried some of the things that we had proposed when we were in
government. Certainly, within
As
a matter of fact, I have a copy of the urban strategy that was done by this
government in looking at the urban issues for aboriginal people. As a matter of fact, I might say that this
whole issue was handled differently from what we proposed and as we had
proposed when we were in government.
There are many things that were identified in the government's urban
strategy and the workshops that they did.
In
their recommendations, We have a couple of documents, one called the Workshop
for the Development of an Indian and Metis Urban Strategy for Manitoba, and
another one, a little document called Developing an Indian and Metis Urban
Strategy for Manitoba‑‑two documents.
It
outlines some of the conditions that the aboriginal people do live in and some
of the statements that were made to the government. Some of the final statements, I might say,
are just referring to the documents, that over 60 percent of Native people in
the labour force are unemployed. Another
statement is that almost two‑thirds of all new jobs in the next 15 years
are expected to require at least two years education beyond Grade 12.
Another
one says, 80 percent of Native students fail to achieve even Grade 12 and make
up only 1 percent of the university population.
Another one is the Native population in the core area of
I
have a copy of a statement, as a matter of fact, a news release by the Minister
of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), dated December 8, 1988. There are some statements that he has made to
develop a long‑range Urban Native Strategy, and it says here: The
provincial government will work with a variety of Native organizations to
develop a long‑range urban strategy for
This
was done through a consulting firm. It
was called Resource Initiatives Limited, of course, a close association with
the present government, and one of the people who was belonging to that firm
was a member of the Conservative Party who ran against me. They awarded the contract, I might say,
without the tendering process, to the individuals who were involved. I believe that the initial expenditure of
$105,100 was approved for this process to develop this Urban Native Strategy.
There
were a number of recommendations made to this government, to the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). One of the recommendations was that the Minister
of Northern and Native Affairs establish an Indian‑Metis Urban Strategy
Development Board. That was one of the
recommendations that was made to this government.
The
second recommendation was that persons be appointed to the board representing
the following: the Assembly of Manitoba
Chiefs, Manitoba Metis Federation, Indigenous Women's Collective, Government of
Canada, urban municipal government, government of
The
third recommendation was that consideration be given to designating an
aboriginal business representative as a chairperson of the Indian and Metis
Urban Strategy Development Board.
A
fourth recommendation was made that the terms for the Indian‑Metis urban
strategy be as follows: To provide
leadership and guidance in respect to implementing a process involving all the
representatives with the Metis organizations, the aboriginal organizations, the
government of Manitoba, the Government of Canada, the urban governments,
private sector in respect to preparing Indian and Metis urban strategy or plan.
Under
that fourth heading, the second recommendation was to establish six working
groups with appropriate Indian‑Metis organizations, governments and the
private sector. They were to be
established with culture and leadership, family and service education training,
economic development and employment, housing, sports and recreation and health,
each working group to serve in a capacity or act between the working group and
the board. Each working group should be
assigned to the following terms or to the ones likely affected.
* (1550)
To
assemble an inventory of services presently provided to Indian and Metis people
in urban centres, an inventory should embrace and name the delivery, the
objective, the targets, an amount of funding staffing positions and those held
by Indian‑Metis persons. There
were many other recommendations that were made to the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey).
A
fifth recommendation was that the Minister of Northern Affairs establish a
technical support group. The sixth
recommendation, that the minister establish the possibility of staffing a
technical support group on the basis of secondment from governments.
There
were other ones. A seventh
recommendation, existing committee of ministers would like the Indian‑Metis
urban strategy be retained and a committee meet on a periodic basis with the
Indian‑Metis urban strategy development board. I think there are in total about twelve
recommendations that were made to the Minister of Northern Affairs.
There
were a number of recommendations made to the Minister of Northern Affairs that
need to be responded to by the government, by the minister himself, to the
aboriginal people, to members of the House in here.
I
have another news release dated the same date, December 8, as the previous one‑‑December
8, 1988. In the news release tabled in
the House here today, it says here: Role
of Native Affairs Secretariat is reviewed.
Native initiative council is key to study recommendations.
This
was released by the minister, by the government, dated December 8, 1988, and it
states here: Northern and Native Affairs
Minister, Jim Downey, tabled the review of the role and the mandate of the
Native Affairs Secretariat.
This
was four years ago, and the key suggestion which will be considered is the
establishment of a Native initiatives council which will assume many of the
duties and responsibilities of the existing Native Affairs Secretariat.
I
would like to ask the minister whether these things have happened and what is
the plan of this government or the strategy as to where the government is
going. It outlines as to what the
government intends to do. One is to transfer
existing staff positions and funding associated with Native Affairs Secretariat
to the Native initiatives council, and the other one is changing the name of
the existing Aboriginal Development Fund to Native Initiatives Fund and
assigning responsibility for administration of this fund to the board of
directors of the Native initiatives council.
The
third recommendation that the minister announced was defining the role of the
Native initiatives council as research planning and monitoring policies and
programs which will address Native issues.
The fourth one is directing the Native initiatives council to develop a
working‑group approach involving staff of Native groups and associations
with the provincial government.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I
believe this is the sixth one‑‑or fifth‑‑directing the
Native initiatives council to develop a communication link with the federal
government regarding Native issues of concern.
The next recommendation is maintaining the appointment of ministerial
response for Native affairs with the minister reporting directly to
cabinet. The final one is establishing
an annual conference to discuss the issues and concerns of Native people
involving the provincial cabinet and members of the Native groups and
associations. These are recommendations.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, these are the initiatives that the government, that the
Minister of Native Affairs announced in 1988, on December 8. None of these initiatives, none of these
announcements that have been made by the government have been done at all, and
they are written here. As a matter of
fact, when I look at the budget that was tabled in terms of the Estimates for
Native Affairs and Northern Affairs this year and compare it to the
announcements for the year ending in 1989, the total budget of Northern
Affairs, which includes operating expenditures and expenditures relating to
capital, the budget was $31,822,400.
That was the budget in 1989 by Northern Affairs, and today's budget, when
I look at it, it is for the year ending in 1993, is $20,383,500. A total shortfall or cut within those four
years in the amount of $11,438,900, that is over $11 million, almost a third of
a cut was made to the Northern Affairs budget, initial budget. I compare that to 1989.
The
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has totally, I guess, lost the
confidence, in a sense, of northern people and Native people. There has been no budget increase since 1989.
There has actually been a reduction by over $11 million to the department.
I
believe that is due to the fact that many programs that were cost‑shared
with the federal government and, of course, many programs that enhanced the
opportunities for the North have been lost with this government or the
leadership that this present minister is providing to this issue.
There
are many issues that I would like to raise, but the minister needs to respond
to some of the questions that we will be questioning him on. Certainly the whole issue on urban strategy
is one that we look forward to. Although
he made the announcement in 1988, there has been virtually no progress, no
results as to those initiatives at all.
We have a copy of the news release, and none of those items that he
announced were done at all.
When
you look at the Northern Affairs budget, over $11 million has been cut from
1989 compared to this year's budget.
I
will be awaiting the response of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
on some of these issues.
Thank
you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I want to take just a few minutes to put a few
thoughts on the record. I know many
members of the House want to get on to asking specific questions of specific
ministers, and we will be as expeditious as possible.
I
would be very remiss, Mr. Acting Speaker, if I did not observe that what we are
engaged in now, even though some members may not be paying attention as they
should, is very basic to parliamentary democracy. The very essence of parliamentary democracy
is the representatives of the people coming together and approving or
disapproving expenditures by the government or by Her Majesty's ministers.
The
taxpayers, the electors of
Nevertheless,
the government, which may not like to have us here debate some of these things
and ask some embarrassing questions, nevertheless has to tolerate us, because
we are here historically to approve the spending of money by the Crown.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, this government has chastised us, the Conservative Party in
Manitoba has chastised us; the Conservative Party of Manitoba is chastising the
New Democratic Party ad infinitum for big‑time spending and for deficits
and so on. Yet, by their own standards,
they have failed and are failing because we have had five budgets, and we had five
years of deficits.
* (1600)
Although
I should point out that if they had used the monies left by the former NDP
government along with transfers from the federal government, we may not have
been looking at a deficit in the first year of their mandate. We would have had a surplus, $55‑million
surplus.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, thanks to the good administration of the previous government,
there were these additional monies left to this government. But what we have had is five years of deficit
along with a Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
In
I
think this is a take‑off from the budget stabilization fund in
On
account of these continuous deficits, by the standards that this government has
set up, I say they are failing because the debt per capita in
In
spite of their protestations, in spite of their criticisms, in spite of their
use of envelope No. 1, to criticize the government that was in place over four
years ago, in spite of five budgets, here we have accumulating debt in the
They
criticize taxes. They criticize the 2
percent flat income tax; they criticize the payroll tax. I remember all these speeches made by the now
Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the now Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) about how
terrible the payroll tax is, and how the Conservative Party of Manitoba was
committed to eliminating the payroll tax.
It
was going to go; it was going to go. The
payroll tax was going to vanish. Well,
the budget itself reveals that the payroll tax is not disappearing, that the
payroll tax is expanding. The payroll
tax is bringing in more revenues year by year.
So I say, this government talks out of two sides of its mouth. On the one side it criticizes the former
government for taxes; then the next breath it brags about how much more money
they are spending than we spent, and criticizing us for not spending enough
money.
You
cannot have it both ways‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members to please
carry on their conversations either in the hall or the loge? The honourable member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans) has the floor.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Acting Speaker, I appreciate your
assistance in this respect. I just want
to put a few comments on the record, and obviously I have some members across
the way very exercised about what I have said.
What I have said is based on information submitted to us in the budget
document and in the Estimates that are before this House at this time.
The
facts remain, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the payroll tax is what is estimated to
be $191.8 million this year, far higher than it was last year. As I say, it is there, and it is growing, so
how can the people of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I would say my other concern is with regard to the economy and
the failure of this government to tackle the very devastating economic
recession that we are now facing.
Nineteen ninety‑one was a terrible year for
The
Minister of Finance in his budget has projected a 2.4 percent real economic
growth for this year, and yet we have information now for the first month of
January showing that we are down by 2 percent in retail sales from where we
were January of 1991. So in this first
month, we show a declining retail sales sector compared to the same month of
the previous year. I would remind
honourable members that the real economic growth that the minister is talking
about, he is talking about the expansion in the gross domestic product.
The
gross domestic product is made up of over 60 percent of consumption spending,
that is, retail sales. The consumer
spending comprised 60 percent of the GDP.
If we do not see expansion in consumer spending, then how are we
possibly going to get this 2.4 percent growth?
How are we going to have any positive growth in this province in
1992? We certainly are not getting off
to a good start.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, for my money we simply have too many people unemployed. The last figures we have are 52,000
Manitobans out of work, and other signs of stagnation. Manufacturing employment
is far worse today than it was a couple of years ago. Manufacturing shipments: We have the unenviable record in 1991 of being
10 out of 10 in terms of output of the manufacturing sector. So what is happening to
Well,
Mr. Acting Speaker, obviously we are undergoing some very fundamental kind of
economic adjustment, some structural adjustment which is not good, some
structural adjustment which has seen
An Honourable Member: That simply is not true, Len.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I would like to‑‑
An Honourable Member: We know what course we are on and we are
sticking with it.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, maybe the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) believes he is on a course. I
must admit that really the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has said he has a
policy and the policy‑‑well, five budgets with deficits; five
budgets with deficits, a higher debt than ever before.
But,
Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister does and the government does have a policy,
and that is to attempt to keep taxes down in order to stimulate economic
growth. We have had five budgets and,
okay, we have not increased taxes, but where is the economic growth? It is not there. The point is, it may be it is a strategy, but
it is a failing strategy.
It
is a wrong‑headed strategy. It is
shades of Reaganomics, shades of the trickle‑down theory that just does
not work. It does not work. My goodness, if we have that fallacy here,
plus a policy, courtesy of Mr. Mazankowski, the CEO of the Canadian government,
no wonder the economy is going down the tube‑‑Manitoba, but the
Canadian economy along with it. So the
government is not addressing the real challenges facing this province.
You
know what? I just happened to notice the
Legislative Library gets a lot of good books and so on, a lot of government
documents, and here‑‑I saw it on the listing, so I thought I would
get a copy of it‑‑A Consultation Paper on a Strategic Economic Plan
for
But
here, the little
* (1610)
In
fact, I am reminded of back in the Roblin and Weir era, where there was one Mr.
Sidney Spivak, former Minister of Industry, and he at least‑‑we may
not have agreed with the detail, we may not have agreed with all of his
objectives‑‑but at least he tried.
Remember the targets for economic development, the TED report? At least that was an attempt. You may have disagreed with some of the
components, but at any rate, Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is, that at that time‑‑and
then subsequent to that there were the guidelines for the '70s, and another
attempt to at least to give us some sense of direction.
But
now, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have absolutely no plan, no vision, no goals for
this province and we are simply drifting along.
We are drifting into a state of stagnation. The members opposite can joke but it is a
tragedy.
The
tragedy is the unemployment. Young
people in particular cannot find work.
Young people in this province in particular are having a very difficult
time in finding work. According to the
labour force survey last month, we had 16,000 people under the age of 25
unemployed.
Therefore,
I have said before and I will say it again, I regret that there are no major
initiatives for training and job creation by this government. I know they criticize job and training
programs, although I do note they have the CareerStart Program, although it is
only half of what it was two years ago. Two years ago, when unemployment was
not as serious, it was at $7 million level.
Now we have a much more serious situation, and it is cut in half to $3.5
million.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The fact is our strategy is to get rid of this
government as quickly as we can so that we can bring forward positive
policies. I remind members that we had a
very successful Manitoba Jobs Fund, and
Do
you know what, Mr. Acting Speaker? I
have lots of company when I say that the No. 1 priority has to be tackling the
recession because I note that people such as Mr. Matthew Barrett, the chairman
of the Bank of Montreal is now calling on the federal government to start
fighting the recession. He says, and I
am quoting: Helping Canadians without
work makes good business sense.
In
other words, let us help the unemployed.
Let us do something to create jobs.
Let us do something to stimulate the economy. He made this statement to the company's
shareholders. He recommended that
An Honourable Member: Even the bankers are becoming socialists.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Absolutely, and not only that, in this
particular article that I have been reading on this subject, I see that there
are many, many Canadian business leaders making similar statements, even the
chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Although he said he was speaking for himself, nevertheless here is the
chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce saying: We should start stimulating the economy
because it is simply not wise, it is simply folly to allow the economy to be
underutilized and to have all of these people unemployed.
I
say we have to begin to look at the No. 1 problem and start dealing with it,
but this budget and these spending Estimates that we have before us do not deal
with these issues.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we have had disastrous economic policies come down the tube
from
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
If I could have the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) go to the loge and have their conversation, it would
make it much easier and much better on the decorum in here.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. I would be pleased to listen to the Minister
of Health and others speak if they want to with due course when it is their
turn, if they wish.
Let
me conclude by saying that we are all living under this cloud of right‑wing
economic philosophy coming out of
We
have a very serious situation happening to our transportation industries
because of deregulation. I might add,
deregulation certainly hurts smaller centres in this country, and I am thinking
of air service. We do not have any air
service to
We
have the GST. The GST is hanging over
consumers of this country and this province.
It is just insidious. A 7 percent
GST is just intolerable. The consumers
of
By
golly, there are more and more things going to
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there is lot more to be said and we will be saying it, but I
know the members want to get on to asking specific questions on members'
departments and what they are or are not doing with the taxpayers' money, so I
will not carry on much longer. I just
want to say‑‑and we will get into this in the Minister of Health's
(Mr. Orchard) Estimates‑‑that the people of
They
got, over the years, everything from the
Point of
Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
wonder if my honourable friend would permit a question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable minister does not have a point
of order.
* (1620)
* * *
Mr. Leonard Evans: No, I have had enough interruptions from this
minister for the last half hour.
The
people of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are other things we could talk about, and I did not want
to get into them. Decentralization is
one; we all want to see decentralization.
I am a supporter of decentralization, but I regret that what is
happening is piecemeal, is shot gun, is scattered. I know in the city of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I really did not want to get on into detailed discussions. I wanted to make the two major
statements: one, about the budget
overall not achieving the objectives set by this government, that is, not
achieving any debt reduction, not achieving any reduction in taxes; on the
other hand, the failure of this budget, the failure of the spending by this
government to address the problems of recession, to address the problems of
unemployment, obviously and certainly the foremost problems facing this
province and this country today.
With
those few remarks, Mr. Acting Speaker, I will conclude and hopefully we will
get on to some specific questions of the Estimates.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
It
would be a conflict for me to say I am going to get my pay cheque, so I am not
going to say that it is to get my pay cheque, but rather so that the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) will get his pay cheque.
There
is one positive thing that comes out of Bill 67. That is in a sense that
Having
said one of the nicest things I am going to say about this particular budget,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to move on to what I believe this government is
doing in terms of the cooking of the books, the continuation of how the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is able to manipulate things much in the same
way that he had manipulated or attempted to manipulate the Fiscal Stabilization
Fund in order to try to present to Manitobans a false picture or a flawed
picture.
I
want to go into some of the remarks from the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard),
the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), when they talk
about money that has been allocated on one hand, and when it comes to spending
that money that in fact it is not being spent.
When
the opposition takes the opportunity to point that out, the government, in
particular those three ministers, are quite eager to stand on their feet and
criticize the opposition parties that all we want to do is in fact spend,
spend, spend, that we do not understand, that you cannot exceed the line that
is being allocated.
Mr. Orchard: We know your game.
Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Health says he knows our game.
Well, we know this government's game, and it is a game of deception. What I wanted to point out is some of the
things that I believe that this government has done in order to try to paint a
better picture on some of the things that they have done. I wanted to look specifically at a few areas.
It
is really based upon a question that I, in fact, had asked last week in regard
to government priorities and government spending. I started off with the Executive
Council. You know, I find it interesting
that the government, in particular the Premier's Office, and I look back to the
previous budget of this government, you look on the Executive Council, on the
line of Management and Administration, in particular in the Intergovernmental
Relations, in terms of how much money was allocated, and in the previous budget
prior to this one, you will find that under Management and Administration you
had salaries of $1.581 million, Mr. Acting Speaker.
What
we find, when it comes into the actual the following year, is that it was up
considerably at $1.594 million of actual spending. What you have to do is you have to put it in
the proper context of what was actually going on at the time.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
The
Premier (Mr. Filmon) was telling all of the civil servants of this province
that because of budgetary constraints that the government had to invoke zero
percent to all of the civil servants. In
an attempt to try to justify zero percent to all civil servants in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, you find that the amount of money that was allocated was
exceeded considerably in the actual spending. On the one hand, they tried to
justify to the civil servants that we are doing an honourable thing here by
taking a cut and that is part of the reason why you have to bite the bullet and
take a freeze.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, then we take a look at the Department of Labour, another area
in which I had asked some questions in regard to last week. That was in regards to why it is that the
support staff to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) was being increased by
6.7 percent, while at the same time we had the Labour Adjustment Program being
increased for every worker in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, what you have to keep in mind, again putting it into context
regarding labour adjustment, is the situation that we are currently in. We are adjusting to a free trade deal; we are
in the middle of a recession;
In
fact, in today's world, you no longer can rely on having a job for 25 or 30
years. It is a given that for most
Manitobans, they will be changing their profession four or five times in a
lifetime. Mr. Acting Speaker, what that
means is that we have to rely on programs such as the Labour Adjustment all
that much more. To give it a third of a
cent increase, while at the same time increasing the minister's support staff
by 6.7 percent, just cannot be justified.
You cannot justify that type of an increase.
* (1630)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, if we take a look at the previous budget, again on that
particular line, you will find that it was supposed to be 383, but we see once
again something very different when it comes to the actual, being at 394. The 6.7 percent increase is, of course, based
on the actual, as compared to the proposed from the previous years, which one
would expect. But what it does
demonstrate is that the executive support staff has increased considerably
higher than other areas of the department which should have been receiving the
increases, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Because
if we take a look at the actual amount that was spent, which was an increase
from 383 to 394, and we compare it to the labour programs, where it was $15.149
million that was actually allocated in the previous budget, and spent was
$14.812 million, what we have seen is a cutback to the programs that helped the
worker in the province of Manitoba.
I
think that the government, in this particular case, the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik), is not being forthright with presenting what the budgets really
are. I look in terms of the Department
of Health, and the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)‑‑several
members from this Chamber‑‑have raised the question about how the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) likes to say, this is the type of increase
that we are giving to the Department of Health, and how can the opposition
parties oppose the increase?
Then
he criticizes at the same time the opposition when we say, well, you allocated
out that money, and how come you are not spending the money? Mr. Acting Speaker, we find that when you
look at last year's budget, and you look at it in terms of the personal care home
line‑‑this is something that we have raised on several occasions‑‑where
$238,928,000 was allocated out to that particular line, what we actually had
was a decrease from the $238.9 million to $238.6 million. In the hospitals we had an estimate or a projection
of $915,926,000 which was actually $892,463,000 that was spent. So the Minister of Health seems to take a
pattern in which he projects much higher than what is actually spent.
Whereas,
on the other hand, when it comes to ministerial expenditures or ministerial
support staff, the government tends to underestimate the allocation and, in
fact, has to go back and add additional monies.
Well, what the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and, in particular, the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) are not saying is that
the government does have the capability to reallocate monies out to specific
lines.
So
if, in fact, $915 million was projected for last year's budget, the government
has the capability to increase that particular line if it so chooses. But rather, Mr. Acting Speaker, what the
government chooses to do is to select a figure that will give the impression
that the health care budget is receiving a tremendous percentage increase over
the previous budget, while consistently underspending the health care budget
and then taking the argument that in fact they cannot spend right up to the
limit, that you cannot plan on spending the last dollar.
Well,
Mr. Acting Speaker, no one is arguing that.
In fact, you can plan on doing that.
I think that the government is being very inconsistent with their
projections when it comes to programs that they feel the public is very
sensitive to. So if they are going to
err, they want to be very selective on how they err. On those programs that are sensitive, they
overestimate what they believe is going to be spent. For those areas in which they believe that
there would be some negative reaction in regard to ministerial support services,
again they will underestimate and add the dollars in the future to it.
During
the Budget Debate, a number of the ministers stood up and criticized the
opposition parties for not coming up with alternatives or ideas. ‑[interjection]
The Deputy Premier says right. Well,
there was one exception‑‑the Premier. The Premier did make reference to my Leader's
and my colleague from Osborne's (Mr. Alcock) speech and content and in fact
took liberty to quote my colleague for Osborne.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I think that if the ministers who spoke and criticized the
opposition parties for not giving positive contributions to the Budget Debate,
that I would remind them to look and to read what in fact members of the
Liberal Party had suggested. You will
find that each and every member suggested things which this government could do
that would have a major impact on the economy in the
The
one issue that I did want to bring up was, of course, the provincial sales tax
issue, Mr. Acting Speaker. We believe
that the government has an opportunity and believe that they are not too
late. The government has an opportunity
in which they can reduce the provincial sales tax from 7 percent to 4 percent
for a period of three months in hopes that would allow Manitobans to go to the
shopping stores and start buying, to try to get the economy going.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, it would not be the first time that this was done. In fact, we got the idea from a former
Conservative Premier, that being Sterling Lyon.
We would suggest that this government and many of the ministers who are
here now or a number of the ministers who are here now will recall what Mr.
Lyon did at that time when he did in fact reduce the provincial sales tax and
saw the benefit in how it contributed to increasing economic activity in the
province of Manitoba.
We
would encourage the government, rather than to take general statements by
saying that the opposition parties do not contribute in a positive fashion, to
really read some of those speeches that some of, at least, my colleagues have
given. I will suggest to them that they
will find a number of very positive suggestions that would go a long way in
helping and assisting in the economy in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, one of the interesting comments that I heard during the Budget
Debate was that which came from the member for, I believe it was, Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) in regard to small business.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) was sitting in his chair, and he
talked about small business. I told the
member for Flin Flon, that because we could not talk inside the Chamber here
about it, I would bring it up when I got the opportunity. This is an opportunity to bring it up,
because unlike the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party believes in the
small business.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker, it is important that members of this Chamber realize what position the
NDP party is when it comes to small business, because the member for Flin Flon
told me that in fact small businesses were not affected from the payroll
tax. That is what he‑‑
* (1640)
An Honourable Member: . . . said two‑thirds of them.
Mr. Lamoureux: Two‑thirds of small businesses, in fact,
never paid the payroll tax. The member
for Burrows commented in the fashion that the NDP only supported the small
business, made reference that the NDP party supports small business. Well, what I find a bit tough, or where I
really disagree with the member for Flin Flon and the member for Burrows is in
the definition of a small business.
When
you have a deductible of $100,000 on a payroll tax, it does not take very much
to exceed that. The New Democrats oppose
every business that is not a small business.
That is what the member for Burrows said from his seat, and the member
for Flin Flon supported him. The member
for Burrows said that he does not support big corporations, that they have no
place‑‑
An Honourable Member: He said that they do not need tax breaks.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, the member for Flin Flon can read it. The New Democratic Party does not support big
corporations, they support small business.
The
member for Flin Flon, from his seat, because I was somewhat critical of the
member for Burrows' comments, said that is right, we support small businesses,
we do not support big business‑‑[interjection] Well, that is what
the member for Flin Flon said from his seat.
Mr.
Speaker, the definition of small businesses, as I would interpret from the New
Democratic Party, is anyone that exceeds a $100,000 salary. How many businesses are out there, Mr.
Speaker, that receive a $100,000 payroll? [interjection]
Well,
the members for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) should feel
somewhat uncomfortable, because I think what they are doing is, they are
neglecting a large and a significant portion of the business community. They would do a lot better‑‑the
member for Flin Flon says that we get all of our financial support from the big
guys, from the big corporations.
Mr.
Speaker, I will compare my election return if the member for Flin Flon will
bring his. I will table mine and he can
table his and see who contributed to his campaign as compared to who
contributed to my campaign. We will see
who owns who. I can assure you that
there is no interest group that owns the Liberal Party, unlike the New
Democratic Party. I will have the
opportunity to go into length on that issue.
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot resist this one. The
member for
Let
me ask the NDP, how many dollars did the union movement contribute to your
party? Let me tell you‑‑over
a million dollars over the last 10 years‑‑over a million
dollars. Mr. Speaker, that does not
include the volunteers or the individuals that are sent over to NDP
campaigns. Do not get into a debate when
it comes to ethics on campaigns because you are going to lose. You will lose because you do not have any
ethics. If any members of the NDP caucus
had any integrity at all when it comes to financing campaigns, why do they not
say who is contributing to each campaign.
They do not. Only three members
of your current caucus had the courage:
Mr. Doer, who received $5,000 from unions; the member for Selkirk (Mr.
Dewar), who received union contributions from
I
looked, and the member for Transcona, Rossmere, Point Douglas, I believe the
member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) did, I believe he did make reference, but I
do not believe that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) or Elmwood (Mr.
Maloway) or Burroughs (Mr. Martindale) or Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did mention it,
and I asked the question why. So, do not
try to talk to me about ethics and who buys who and who is in the pocket of
whom, because the bottom line is that the New Democratic Party has no respect
for the business people in this province as has been pointed out from the
member for Burroughs and, from his seat, the member for Flin Flon.
I
digress, Mr. Speaker, but I can ensure that this will not be the last time
because I anxiously do await another opportunity to debate the whole issue of
labour and labour relations, both under the former New Democratic government
and their abysmal failure and the current government who has failed.‑‑[interjection] The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and I do
agree on that point in the sense that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the sense
that there were some members who did watch CKND, which, I am sure, would upset. What I found most interesting, and I do not
want to digress too much on it, was in regard to the strike from the NDP
staff. It was curious to see that no NDP
MLA went and walked the line for that particular strike. [interjection] It is
not true. I would be interested in
knowing which MLA. [interjection] Is that right? [interjection] Who?
I
do not want to put an untruth on the record.
If a member did, I will retract that statement, but one would have hoped
that they would have given the same support for the workers who are working for
their party as they did for other strikers.
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to move on to some of issues that have come up in the budget
through Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and that is with respect to the
Manitoba Heritage Federation.
We
were very disappointed in the fashion in which we found out that the Heritage
Federation was treated. While we were
sitting inside listening to the debate, or not the debate, to the presentation
of the budget, the president was informed or requested 24 hours previously to
come down to speak in the minister's office.
Because
of the short notice of coming down to the minister's office, I believe it was
just the president and the general manager who showed up at the office, and
they were handed a letter in which they told that they were going to be losing
their funding authority from this government.
That surprised me because once again what we are witnessing is that the
government is taking away from the hundreds of volunteers who donate thousands
of hours of time to ensure that the budgetary lines are in fact being spent in
a nonpolitical fashion.
* (1650)
Mr.
Speaker, we only need to look back at what was done with the Manitoba
Intercultural Council and the funding authority taken away from there and given
to a politically appointed body. The only positive thing thus far is that the
current minister has not announced that there is going to be another
politically appointed body.
It
will be very interesting, and we will wait and likely might have to wait either
for the Estimates or possibly even as early as the Interim Supply where we can
get the answers as to how she plans to be making the decisions on the funds for
heritage preservation through the province of Manitoba. I believe that she has done a disservice to
an organization that did an excellent job.
I
have gone over an annual report which talks about some of the things that have
been done. I am inclined to name a few
of the different organizations. There is
a large number of organizations that in fact receive some funding, and this is
from the annual report from '91‑92.
These are monies that were allocated out through the Heritage
Federation, and it varies.
I
look at the Fire Fighters Historical Society, the Association of Museum
Educators, Manitoba Transit Heritage Association, Manitoba Glass Works
historical site. It is a very lengthy
list of organizations and it varies in terms of the size of the grant, anywhere
from $1,000 up to $14,000, $20,000, Mr. Speaker. It is very sad to see that the government has
chosen to take away that responsibility from this organization.
I
do not believe that the minister consulted in any fashion‑‑
An Honourable Member: Yes, she has.
Mr. Lamoureux: ‑‑with the groups that it was
going to have an impact on. I wait, and
the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says that, yes, she has. Well, I will wait and hear from the minister
to find out who it is that she did consult, because she did not consult with
the Heritage Federation at all.
Mr.
Speaker, a couple of years ago, the minister and the department entered into an
agreement with the Manitoba Heritage Federation in which they came to an
agreement in terms of the cost of administering the program, while at the same
time confirming the need to have a nonpolitical organization such as the
Heritage Federation handing out the grants.
What
has happened is that these individuals, as I say, within 24 hours were summoned
to the office. Upon coming to the
office, they were told that they were losing their funds. They were not given any indication as to why
they were losing their funds. It was
then found out that at least part of the reason that was being used was because
the administrative costs were too high, that they could not justify allowing
the Heritage Federation Inc. to distribute the grant.
Well,
Mr. Speaker, if in fact that was the case, if that is the real reason, one has
to ask the question why they never approached the federation and asked them to
renegotiate an agreement that included the administrative costs that they had
signed two years earlier, why they had never brought it up in any fashion, that
at least the individuals that I was talking to were aware of.
I
can only speculate, as can members of the board, as to why it was done in that
fashion, and I will speculate on that, Mr. Speaker. I would say that the minister did not do us a
favour by taking away the expertise that the individual volunteers brought to the
distribution of those funds. I guess if
we move on in terms of why it was done and why I believe and why I will
continue to believe this until the minister is able to not only assure me, but
members of the Heritage Federation, is that it was not political enough, that
because this organization gave out so many grants every year in the recognition
for it‑‑for the money as being provincial government money was not
there, that the government was wanting to have more credit for distributing
those funds that they took it away from the organization.
Mr.
Speaker, that is what I currently believe, and I am hoping that the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) will tell me and convince
me otherwise, but I am afraid that the only way that she is going to have in
convincing me that that is not in fact the case is that she is going to have to
tell me why she took away the funding responsibility, and to say it is the
administrative cost is not going to work.
The
reason why it is not going to work is primarily because of two reasons. One, is there is an administrative cost even
within our own department. The second
reason is, if that was the problem why did not the minister or her staff approach
the Heritage Federation and the board and attempt to renegotiate a previously
signed agreement or better yet give them some sort of an indication so they
would have an opportunity in which they could say, well, this is what we can do
to cut back on our administrative costs, but they were not given that
opportunity even to offer that particular option to the government.
So
if that was the only reason, Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister has made a
grave mistake, and that the only way that this matter can be resolved is to
reinstate the funding back to the Manitoba heritage foundation, because the
Heritage Federation brought with it expertise from all areas of heritage and
heritage preservation throughout the province.
You know, they dealt with archaeology and architecture, archives, natural
environment and conservation, genealogy, history, museology and so forth. The membership in fact of that board was
virtually 50‑50, rural versus urban, that in fact there is more to
preserving heritage than just the city of
What
has the government, and particularly the minister, done to rural
So,
even though she had made the commitment to MIC that they would play a role as
an advisory board, she has not made any commitment in terms of the Manitoba
Heritage Federation and what role they play, but even if she comes out and she
says that the role they are going to play is one of advisory like MIC, I have
serious questions in terms of, will that in fact be the case?
The
biggest loser of all of this is those individuals, those future generations who
are going to lose out on‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., when this matter is
again before the House‑‑
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might canvass the
House to see if there is a will to waive private members' hour today.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? Is it agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied. Therefore, when
this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
The
hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
SECOND
READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 39‑The
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), that Bill 39, The Salvation
Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation "The Salvation Army Grace General
Hospital"), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McAlpine: I would just like to place a few comments on the
record with respect to The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation
Amendment Act.
The
Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Act is to be amended to
reflect the amalgamation of the governing council of the Salvation Army Canada
East with the governing council of the Salvation Army Canada West and forming
the governing council of the Salvation Army in Canada and further to permit the
Salvation Army Grace General Hospital to own and/or operate one or more elderly
and infirmed persons' housing and accommodations as referred to in The Elderly
and Infirm Persons' Housing Act, including a personal care home or homes, and
to reflect the current organizational structures.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill is a nonpartisan and noncontroversial matter. The Salvation Army is certainly an
establishment in my constituency that is certainly serving all Manitobans. Although the
I
would ask the support of all members on both sides of the House for a speedy
moving of this bill through committee, and I will be pleased to comment further
on the bill at the committee level.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I am pleased to be able to speak on this
particular bill. If the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has any questions about the bill, he might want
to talk to the member from his caucus who has introduced it.
I
would point out that there was a similar bill that was looked at in terms of
introduction last year. I know there was
some concern expressed, I believe by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) at
the time, about the fact that he had attempted to bring in a similar sort of
bill and there had been some concern about its introduction. There seemed to be, unfortunately, something
of a dispute as to who would sponsor such a bill.
I
really would say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important, with bills such as this,
to introduce an element of nonpartisanship in this House. I find it rather unfortunate. I really think that sometimes we worry too
much about who sponsors a bill rather than the bill itself.
I
hope that in some way, shape or form, Mr. Speaker, we can reform private
members' hour, perhaps go back to the way private members' hour has been in the
past, when we do not have to worry about this particular thing. I do not really think it matters if the
member who just introduced this a minute ago introduced this, or if the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards) had introduced it. It really is a question of
whether this bill is in the public interest.
Indeed, as we said last year, we are more than willing to look at this
particular bill. I would hope that this
bill and, indeed, other bills, will come to a vote in this Chamber because I
think that is important.
I
say that because it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years, apart
from a few exceptions, we tend to end up with debates taking place on private
bills, and votes taking place on private bills rather than on public
bills. I think that is unfortunate
because while they are different in character, the private bills deal with
organizations, in this case, such as the Salvation Army‑‑or the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has another bill on The Pas hospital complex.
The
fact of the matter is that many of the public bills have an even broader impact
and potentially could have far more significant impact on the
I
expressed my frustration and concern about the fact that we have had a huge
number of private members' resolutions, very few of which ever go to a vote and
are either passed or defeated, depending on the will of the House. I can indicate to the member on this
particular bill I would anticipate that once we have had a chance to review it
at the second reading stage that if there are no difficulties we would see no
difficulty in having it go to a vote, Mr. Speaker. In fact I know we have reviewed it in the
short term, and basically have not seen any particular difficulties with
it. I think it is important also that
when we do debate bills, private bills, that we reflect on the organization
that is involved, the facility that is involved in this particular case.
I
think we would be remiss if we did not point to the role of the Salvation Army
in general and the Grace Hospital in particular within the community, and
reflect on the fact that the introduction of this bill today, the fact that it
is a bill that essentially would amend The Corporations Act of the Salvation
Army Grace Hospital, is something we are doing because of its significant
nature. I basically believe, Mr. Speaker,
that it is quite important that we reflect on their significant contribution to
the community.
I
am one who has worked fairly closely with the Salvation Army in terms of their
activities in my own community, and it is an organization I think that is
unparalleled in terms of its commitment to people. We tend to associate the Salvation Army with
its role in terms of dealing with the homeless and the poor in terms of
providing shelter and food to those in need, and indeed they do, certainly in
my own community as well. In fact very
few people are aware, Mr. Speaker‑‑I know in my area‑‑that
when the Salvation Army often provides food and shelter, they often have to do
so at their own expense through the generous contributions of Salvation Army
members and indeed of members of the community.
Often
people seem to assume that governments will take care of those concerns. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are many people
who fall through the cracks, who are unable to find government assistance. I can outline many cases where I have had
people phone me personally where I have referred them to the Salvation
Army. In desperate situations there has
been the assistance there available from the Salvation Army, and that is only
in the community of Thompson.
I
know that the work that is done throughout the North is indeed only a small
indication of what happens nationally with the Salvation Army, although I must
say the Salvation Army in Thompson has a particularly strong community
presence, and I know many of the people are active in the congregation and many
of the strong volunteer efforts that they have put in, and I think that is
important to note; also, to reflect, Mr. Speaker, on the difficulties we are
dealing with in the province and in other areas as well in terms of the
recession.
* (1710)
The
fact is that we have to recognize the key role of organizations such as the
Salvation Army. A unique mixture of the
gospel, the social gospel and social work and assistance for people that has a
long tradition in this country and in Britain and many other countries
throughout the world.
I
think it is particularly important also to note the contribution in terms of
this particular hospital. It is
important to recognize the interesting diversity we have in the city of
Winnipeg, and the fact that before the system of medicare was established, we
had the health service of this city provided by many different institutions,
many religious institutions in particular.
We
have seen hospitals become municipal hospitals, as well‑‑the municipal
hospital being an obvious example of that.
I think that it is important to reflect because while it is important
that the province play a significant role in the health care field, I do
believe there is a need also for that mixture of volunteer effort and spirit
that one sees, in particular, in hospitals such as the
I
believe it is a partnership between the province, the government of
I
would say this, and I do not mean to politicize this discussion. I know it is a private bill, and I am not
going to say it in a political sense, and I know the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey), the nonpartisan member of the House that he is on
occasion, would not attempt to politicize this either.
I
am saying to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)‑‑and I will say
this in a polite sense as well‑‑who is dealing with some great
difficulties in the health care sector, budgetary pressures. I will not reflect on whether they are
provincially contributed to, but certainly there are budgetary pressures. There
are changes ongoing in the health care system, but I would hope that Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) would work with our system of health care
providers: the nurses, the doctors, but
also the hospitals themselves who each have a unique character, whether it be
the Health Sciences Centre, a very large hospital, or the Grace Hospital or
Misericordia, the municipal hospitals.
Mr.
Speaker, they each have a role to play; they have contacts. The minister would do well to listen to the
contacts, listen to the kind of advice and assistance he will receive if he
works with the boards, the many volunteers associated, not just in the city of
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): The Mercy home, the Dinsdale home, the
Dinsdale nursing home, Bud Boyce, who was a Salvation Army member.
Mr. Ashton: The Mercy home, the Dinsdale home, the Dinsdale
nursing home, and in fact the member for Brandon East reflects on members of
this House in previous years, Bud Boyce, who was a Salvation Army member.
There
is a certain zeal when you talk to someone who is a member of the congregation
of any Salvation Army church. They are
people who have a zeal in terms of dealing with social problems that is
unparalleled by anyone else. I think we
could learn a lot from their commitment and remind ourselves indeed, and in
this House, of just how difficult a time people are faced with.
It
is very easy for members of the Legislature to drive in here, to sit here for
several hours, to drive back to whatever area of the province they are from and
not recognize what is happening in this province, and that is that people who
have never before in their life ever thought they would find themselves in
difficult situations are now doing so.
In
fact, Mr. Speaker, people who have had a fairly comfortable existence are now
finding themselves in the welfare offices.
The welfare rolls are growing dramatically. We are finding people who‑‑and in
fact I know the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) was reflecting the other
day on visiting the city of
Indeed,
it is people who have come from areas of the city that have traditionally been
hard hit by the recession, but it is also many others as well, people who until
now have lived in comfortable residential neighbourhoods, who had well‑paying
jobs, who are now in desperate situations.
What
is happening is that those that are traditionally most vulnerable are in
desperate shape in this city currently, but even people in
When
we are dealing with that type of situation, there is a role for government to
play. We have dealt with that in other
debates and we will do so, but there is also a role to play in terms of the
community itself. I would hope that
members of this Legislature would become involved in community action in
dealing with the very real problems of poverty in this province.
We
are a small province by Canadian standards, a small jurisdiction by North
American standards, but we have a tremendous tradition, particularly a
tradition based in the north end of Winnipeg of social action, of people
working, putting their beliefs, whether they be religious beliefs, or political
beliefs, or a simple compassion for their neighbour into place by working,
whether it be in terms of the growing number of soup kitchens, whether it be
indeed in terms of the various missions. I know the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) could outline much more in terms of the situation‑‑[interjection]
Indeed,
Mr. Speaker, we have historic base, and indeed of that combined commitment, the
social gospel of J.S. Woodsworth, of Tommy Douglas, that we in the New
Democratic Party are so aware of, but it is a kind of commitment that
transcends political boundaries. You
will find people of all different political views within the Salvation Army,
but they share one thing in common. It
is something we would do well to reflect on, and that is recognizing the
reality of poverty, recognizing the reality of the need for community action,
of social action, and that is something that should not go unnoticed when we
discuss this particular bill.
The
key role the Salvation Army has played‑‑and I am very proud to be
able to speak and to commend them for the involvement in this province, and
hope that by in looking at this bill, as we indeed will over the next few
weeks, that we will be able to work with them in some small way in this session
of the Legislature toward their many fine efforts in our own community and our own
province of Manitoba.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
We
support Bill 39. In fact, I would have
liked to have seen Bill 39 passed in the previous session, and I want to
comment because it is not that often‑‑I do not think anyway‑‑that
I get somewhat sensitive and oversensitive in terms of something that takes
place inside this Chamber. But this is
not the first time that this particular bill has been brought forward. I was talking to the member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards) and we had talked about Bill 39, and we just talked about it just
the other day because it was distributed just the other day in the printed
form. I had gone through the printed
form of the bill and compared it to the printed bill from the member for St.
James last session, and there really is not too much of a difference.
The
member for St. James pointed out that the number of the bill is different and
the name is different. I could not see
if there was, in fact, anything else that was different about the bill, Mr.
Speaker. Our position has not changed
from the position we took on the member for St. James, and that was that the
Salvation Army deserves speedy passage of this bill. We encourage that this bill be passed here
before six o'clock today, because we feel that the Salvation Army has been
waiting long enough. We would encourage
the government to have the committee meet very soon.
* (1720)
It
is not without the possibility, Mr. Speaker, that if by chance we do get a bit
of a spring break, that we could have third reading and Royal Assent given to
it by Thursday. I know in discussions
with‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Right.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, they say right, and that is one of the
primary reasons why I did not want to cancel private members' hour. That is why I wanted to debate it. In the discussions that I had with the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards)‑‑because, as I say, I had approached it
with some mixed emotions because we all like to be able to contribute in the
best way we can. We all try to bring
bills to this Chamber in hopes that they will be able to pass.
The
member for St. James and the comments that he gave me were that he wants this
bill to pass. It does not matter who
introduces it. We need to have this bill
passed as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker,
to that end, we are not going to adjourn debate on this bill. We do want the bill to pass. I encourage all members of this Chamber to
allow this bill to pass into committee.
I
wanted to make reference to something that did offend me greatly at the end of
last session. It had something in which
I had somewhat lost, well, some might say, my temper, and it deals with the
bill, Mr. Speaker.
The
reason why I somewhat lost my temper was, in fact, the manner in which the previous
bill was being dealt with at the very end of the session. The content of that bill is the very same as
this bill, and as strongly as I feel now for a quick passage of this bill, I
felt the very same for that previous bill, Mr. Speaker. I felt frustrated, because the government was
not allowing the opposition to be able to pass a bill.
Mr.
Speaker, having said that, I want to make a few comments in regard to the
Salvation Army. The Salvation Army
contributes to every Manitoban. One only
needs to look at Christmastime, and you will see the Salvation Army throughout
the city and rural
There
are many other things that all the public might not necessarily be aware of,
Mr. Speaker. I know in the riding, I was
about to say that I used to represent, the area which I lost in the riding
redistribution, in the Weston area there is a Salvation Army church that
provides a daycare service for the residents in Weston.
Mr.
Speaker, there are many other things that the Salvation Army does that many of
us are not aware of. Of course, one of
the greatest things that they do here in the province is they provide a health
care service second to no other organization in the province.
The
Salvation Army has put in a phenomenal amount of resources, both financial
resources and volunteer resources, into ensuring that the
I
know the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) was wanting to speak to the bill
and will likely speak to it during third reading, Mr. Speaker, so that, as I
say, we can see this bill pass, and hopefully have the Royal Assent given to it
on Thursday. I know that is what the
member for St. James would want, that is what in fact we would like to see at
this side of the House.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): I just want to make a
few remarks on this bill, because I think there is a general willingness that
this bill ought to be passed and has merit.
I hear from the House leader of the opposition that that may not be
accomplished today, and that may or may not be.
Mr.
Speaker, the reason I am addressing the remarks to this bill is there appears
to be some potential confusion around its introduction this session.
Mr.
Speaker, I just want to indicate that traditions, at least as long as I have
been elected to this House, would have the sponsors of private members' bills
generally representing the constituency from which the organization has its
roots. That has been almost a long‑standing
tradition of the House so that MLAs for the area sponsor various bills.
That
is why, from time to time, for a given organization, if there has been a change
in the MLA representing that particular organization, a private members' bill
may come in sponsored by a member of the New Democratic Party in one session of
the Legislature, and in the next one may be sponsored by an MLA who is a
Progressive Conservative. I know that
happened last session. So what is
happening here is a continuation of that tradition.
However,
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances around the bill, even though it was not
sponsored last year by the MLA for the area‑‑I just want to make
sure that my honourable friends understand the process that that bill went through,
Bill 39, I believe it was, last year. It
was sponsored by an opposition MLA and was presented to the House, I believe,
on a Friday, and this House gave consideration to have the bill moved to
private members' bill committee on the following Monday to receive
consideration about potentially whether it could be passed.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the sponsor of the bill did not present himself at committee to
forward the bill, to justify it, to explain it, to the members of the private
member committee. Consequently, the bill never advanced last session.
Now,
subsequent to that, the MLA for the area has been asked by
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, if anyone is trying to say that there is inappropriate
process or inappropriate politics flowing from this bill for Grace General
Hospital, I want the record to show clearly that this bill, last year, under
Bill 39, was attempted to be dealt with in an apolitical fashion, regardless of
the fact that the sponsor of the bill was not the MLA representing the region
or the constituency where Grace General Hospital resides.
We
were prepared to give that bill consideration by moving it to the private
members' bill for that very consideration, but the sponsor of the bill chose
not to be there for whatever reason, Mr. Acting Speaker, so any allegation that
it is inappropriately introduced this session is not accurate. That is why I want all members of the
Legislature to join in a cause of common purpose to pass this legislation, to
give the Salvation Army through
* (1730)
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to make those remarks lest there be any attempt at confusing
what happened to this legislation last session.
There was nothing inappropriate about the way it was handled. It was tried to be handled
expeditiously. We received the bill on a
Friday. That is the first time that we
saw the printed bill, and we moved into committee the following Monday. How
could the committee possibly deal with it without the sponsoring MLA being at
that committee?
Well,
as a consequence, the bill died on the Order Paper and now is being brought
forward to the House by the MLA in whose constituency the hospital is
located. I know we will enjoy the full
support of every member of this Legislative Assembly for passage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The
Health Care Directives Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 16, The Health Care Directives Act;
Loi sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante, standing in the name of
the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave.
Agreed.
Bill 18‑The
Franchises Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 18, The Franchises Act; Loi sur les
concessions, standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), Bill 25, The University of Manitoba Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du Manitoba, standing in the name of
the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave.
It is agreed.
Bill 27‑The
Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Are we going ahead with Bill 27 (The Business
Practices Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer)?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed.
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 Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Stand? Is it agreed.
It is agreed.
Bill 50‑The
Beverage Container Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), Bill 50 (The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de bloisson), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave.
It is agreed.
Bill 51‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 51 (The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave? It is agreed.
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 54‑The
Consumer Protection Amendment Act
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), that Bill 54, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Loi sur la
protection du consommateur), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Maloway: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the
House to speak to Bill 54, which is essentially deposit legislation. I want to spend the next few minutes
explaining why the government should support and why in fact the minister
should have introduced long before now a bill similar to this to do what
deposit legislation should and would do to help consumers in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, over the years Manitobans have spent money, lost money, lost thousands
of dollars as a matter of fact on different purchases that they have made. In fact, there were 16 Manitobans who lost
approximately $53,000 on sunrooms that they had ordered two or three years back
that were never delivered by the firm. The essential problem here,
fundamentally, is a case of whether businesses should be allowed to use
consumers' deposits to fund their operations or whether, in fact, they should
be required to hold these deposits in trust.
We
have, for better or for worse, laws across this province in the real estate
industry requiring that real estate brokers hold deposits in trust. Now there is a reason for that, because
somewhere along the line many years ago there obviously were situations where
real estate people absconded with some of the monies, and, as a result,
government stepped in and brought in legislation that required deposits to be
held in trust until the deal was finally consummated.
Likewise,
we have a similar case with lawyers.
Lawyers are required to keep monies in trust for those very
reasons. In
In
Ontario right now, under the travel act in that province, while trust
accounting is not a mandated, required way of dealing with the industry, and,
in fact, today in practice that is what is happening in Ontario with the travel
industry in that the people who regulate the industry under the act there are
going around and checking the books of the businesses and making certain that
new businesses getting into the travel business have sufficient funds available
and have lines of credit available, so that they do not have to rely on the
customers' funds to fund their operation.
Certainly,
that is a necessary move, particularly when we are into a tough economy such as
we are right now, because consumers are fed up with having to put money out to
companies, finding companies go bankrupt before they get their service or
good. As a result, they demand that the
government step in and protect the consumers in these instances.
Mr.
Speaker, the bill itself deals only with large deposits. It would be, in my
opinion, quite problematic if we were to introduce a bill, or if the government
were to introduce a bill requiring small deposits to be held in trust. We do not want to see a situation where
deposits of $25 or $50 be held in trust, because we feel then the business
would have grounds to complain or the government would have grounds to complain
and say that we were promoting a bureaucracy here and that small business would
be undermined with paperwork and so on, having to keep track of small business.
We
have said, the deposits have to exceed $500.
What could be unreasonable about that?
I do not think that you can argue that deposits over $500 should not be
held in a trust. I do not think you can
make the argument that it would be very onerous on the business. I have checked with furniture retailers and
other retailers, and they have all admitted that $500 is a good limit, that
deposits over $500 could and should be held in trust.
We
have also required that the sellers of the goods be prohibited from taking
deposits of more than 20 percent. The
reason for that is quite simple. In the
case of the sunrooms and in other cases, businesses will sometimes offer an
incentive, an inducement to customers who are willing to pay the whole works up
front.
They
will offer them maybe 10 or 20 percent off if a person will pay the whole thing
up front. What some of these businesses
or people did was, they paid their entire $10,000 for their sunroom up
front. They got themselves what they
thought was going to be a 10 percent reduction or 15 percent, whatever it
happened to be. They, in fact, are out
all of that money.
So
we are saying that we should limit the deposits to 20 percent of the purchase
price. We feel that that would be
reasonable, because it would limit the loss from the consumers. We also felt
that this legislation was necessary, as I had indicated before, so that
businesses would rely on credit from suppliers because, after all, if a
business cannot get credit from a supplier of 30 days, then how strong could
that business be? So credit from
suppliers is one way of businesses funding their operation. Another is to simply secure a line of credit
with the bank. I mean, that is a logical
way for people to get supplies.
* (1740)
Obviously
if you have a business that cannot get credit from suppliers, cannot get loans
from the bank and is relying on your money, you the consumer's money, to pay
its bills then it is obviously on pretty shaky ground to start with. We feel that that is another reason that we
have to look at this area.
Now
I wanted to deal with the exclusions because, as with any bill, there are
always exclusions that have to be built into it, because a bill cannot be
dealing with every consumer transaction in the province. We took the liberty in advance to build in
some exceptions which we felt would probably come to the surface over time
anyway. One of the exceptions that we
brought in was that we would not apply it to monuments, for obvious reasons.
If
a person is going to purchase a monument for their cemetery plot, and it gets
engraved with your name on it, it is pretty unlikely that there will be any
resale value in that monument if you decide you do not want it. Obviously the monument dealers of Manitoba
were interested in making certain that they were excluded from this
requirement, and I think we can understand as legislators that that would be
probably a good idea given the lack of potential resale, unless there was
somebody with the same name as yourself who would be interested in buying this
monument.
Another
area of concern that we had, and we built it right into the bill. We could have simply brought in the bill and
left out the exemptions and let the government or let the business themselves
find out about it, but we thought we had better build them in right from the
beginning and take care of as many potential problems and objections to the
bill right up front.
The
second area was the area of custom‑‑custom clothing and custom
shoes. For obvious reasons, custom shoes
and so on would be excluded as well because of the personal nature in the
sizing and stuff like that. We stopped
short of putting any more exclusions in there, because we can see that the
business lobbies will find their own way to argue that we should be excluding
custom everything, and it is only a short hop, skip and a jump from there to
having businesses who are not normally custom goods manufacturers argue that
they in fact are. They would find a way
to define themselves in such a way so they would come under the exclusion of
the act. So we wanted to be reasonable
in that we would allow for some obvious exclusions, but we did not want to make
the exclusions so broad, in the beginning anyway, so as to allow the bill to be
not effective.
Having
had some experience in the past few years with bringing in a goodly number of
these bills and seeing a very poor record of having any of these things passed,
I would like to use this opportunity to appeal directly to the minister and
encourage her to put me out of a job before I even have to take the job and
bring in these bills and pass them. You
know, I was the first person to say to the former Minister of Consumer Affairs
when he brought in The Business Practices and essentially copied our bill, I
applauded him for doing it. Nobody was
happier than me except for the fact that he gutted the bill, but other than
that nobody was happier than me that he actually copied the bill and brought it
into this House.
I
think that if this government would do this with the deposit legislation, with
the lemon law, with all the other consumer bills that we have taken the time to
draft and bring in here, I would be very happy, because I have no desire to be
here after the future demise of this government reintroducing all these bills
again.
On
the other side of the House‑‑
Mr. Harold Neufeld
(Rossmere): You would be too old.
Mr. Maloway: ‑‑and the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld) says I may be too old, and you know, he may be right. I may not run again. I do not know. What I am appealing to the minister in saying
is that I would be very pleased to have this government‑‑I would
not hold it against them at all to take some of these ideas, take these bills,
reintroduce this bill for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh) to show that she is going to do something this session, because she
is not doing anything this session. I
mean, she is bringing in two tiny, little bills amending the business practices
legislation in some minor, minor way, and this is the government's answer to
consumer legislation in 1992.
They
feel that since they passed the business practices legislation last year, that
is enough for the decade, folks. We have
done our duty. Business practices
legislation, I mean that was the end of it.
I guess they assumed that we would be happy with that and that that
would be the end of it.
We
are saying, no, we are not going to go away.
We are going to keep coming back and reintroducing and introducing this
legislation until they get so sick of it that they finally introduce it
themselves. That theory has not been
working too well up to now, but I am always hopeful. It has been six years now that I have been in
this House, six years and a few days. I
know some might think that is a long time.
I personally think it has been a long time, but if it takes me another
year or another two years, I will bring this bill back again.
Sooner
or later, sooner or later, there will be an I‑Team report here or an I‑Team
report there which will impress upon the minister that this is something that
was a good idea, something that is long overdue and something that, if she had
had the foresight, the initiative, she would have brought it to her caucus and
brought it in herself.
The
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) is a good example of what happens to people
over there who have initiative, because there is a guy there, that minister
brought in legislation last year on used car safety and it was thrown out not
once, but thrown out of caucus twice.
So
the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has got it all figured out, that
she should not take any initiative, that the idea is to not do anything and be
a good little member and keep the Premier happy, right, and God forbid that she
should introduce and take some initiative here and try to push the government a
bit and bring in consumer legislation that is going to benefit consumers in this
province, but she was not appointed to do that, she was appointed simply to
keep things the way they are.
There
is an old adage about how things never change and how things should stay the
way they are. Well, that is her role in
this government, to simply sit on things and not bring in any new
initiatives. It is our job here to keep
reminding her of the fact that there are consumers out there who want some
help, want some assistance, want her to address the problems that she is
ignoring. They want her to turn around
and try to convince her cabinet and caucus colleagues of the merits of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
* (1750)
I
think, Mr. Speaker, that it is important for us to recognize that we are not or
we should not be in a kind of system where caveat emptor is the order of the
day. In the past, it has been the order
of the day that the buyer must beware.
All parties in this House and in other governments understand that there
are situations and there are cases where the consumer must be protected, which
is one reason why we have consumer protection legislation. This bill, while one would think it is fairly
narrow in scope, actually could have a very broadly based impact‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not think violence in the House was
acceptable behaviour, even the suggestion of it.
Yes,
back to Bill 54. Consumer protection is
an important part of our deliberations and of the laws that we pass. This trust bill will provide a great deal of
protection for consumers of larger ticket items.
As
the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) spoke in his introduction to the bill,
this bill is not designed as a "nuisance bill." It is not designed for smaller purchases to
be covered by this bill. It is designed
for larger deposits, for larger ticket items, and the examples that the member
brought forward of the 16 individuals who lost $53,000 on sunrooms, I think is
a good example because those are larger items that individuals and families
take into consideration.
Again,
we should be very careful to make sure that consumers are protected. I would briefly like to talk about
something. I would hope that this
government would consider strongly supporting this bill, because this
government, or at least the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), is
very concerned about the whole area of vulnerable persons.
This
may be a bit of a reach, but it does appear to me that when the minister later
in this session brings forward a very large bill dealing with vulnerable
persons that there are people‑‑one of the elements of that bill, I
understand, is the understanding that individuals have the right to make as
much determination as they are capable of making about all elements of their
lives, and a big part of that is the financial element.
I
could see where a person under the new act that the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) is bringing in could have a larger degree of control over
his or her finances than is currently the way, and we are very supportive of
that concept. I also think that this
particular piece of legislation would fit very nicely into that whole concept,
that you could have and you already now have individuals who are, for one
reason or another, in need of protection from unethical business practices,
people who may not, for many reasons, be as aware as others are of the
limitations and the requirements of good business practices and need to be
protected through legislation like this.
I
think that the government should very seriously consider supporting this
legislation because it would, if it were passed, fit very well with the
government's own stated commitment to consumer protection and protection for vulnerable
people in our society. Again, it goes
back to the idea that businesses have a responsibility to the people whom they
are dealing with, and it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, only fair that a business
not be allowed to take money that has been deposited as a sign of good faith by
an individual, as a sign that this business will provide the service or the
good that they contracted to do.
It
seems only fair, Mr. Speaker, that there be protection against, one would hope,
the very small number of unscrupulous business persons in this province, so
that those individuals can have a great deal of comfort in the knowledge that
their money that they have put down in good faith as an act of part of the
financial transaction, the consumer transaction, said: We will do our part, we will put down a
percentage of the cost of this good or service as a declaration of good faith
that we will abide by our part of the contract.
This
is only the other side of that good faith declaration, that the business person
says: Yes, and we will accept this money
in good faith and we will not use it for anything other than your deposit for
the item or the service that you are purchasing. It seems only logical and fair as the member
for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has stated that a business should, if it is a
legitimate business and functioning in an appropriate manner, be able to have
credit from suppliers, should be able to access a line a credit from a banking
institution, should not have to rely on the deposit that a consumer has paid
for a good or a service to purchase supplies for that business.
So
while we as a society say the buyer should not beware, the buyer should be
protected, this very simple piece of legislation only says, only extends that
in a very fair manner to those business people and to protect‑‑not
only to protect the consumer, but also to protect business people so that they
do not feel that they can rely on those deposits rather than undertaking good
business practices and establishing a line of credit with a banking institution
or a line of credit with their suppliers.
Again,
there are examples in other jurisdictions and for other items where legislation
such as this applies.
It
does not seem to me, Mr. Speaker, in any way detrimental to good business
practice to demand that, for larger purchases, both the buyer and the supplier
take responsibility for the money that is being given in good faith and should
be held in trust and in good faith for the purposes of the transaction being
concluded in good time.
Mr.
Speaker, I would also just like to end by saying that I agree with the member
for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) when he states that this legislation should not be
too detailed in what is defined as custom, that we should protect the integrity
of the process and we should protect the consumer. Then after the bill has been in place for a
period of time, there may very well be additional areas that are legitimately
included under the exclusionary section of this bill.
Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying that I look forward very much
to hearing the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
explain to this side of the House and to the consumers of Manitoba why this
bill is inappropriate and as offensive as it would appear to be from the
suggestions and the criticism that is being shared by the minister to members
on this side of the House.
I
would urge her to listen to the other members as they get up and support this
bill and put her comments on record so that we know what the minister herself
thinks about this piece of legislation.
It may very well be, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).