LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, March 8, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
Message
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Routine
Proceedings, I have the privilege this afternoon to relay to honourable members
of the Legislative Assembly the Commonwealth Day Message, 1993, from Her
Majesty the Queen, Head of the Commonwealth.
This year, on
Commonwealth Day, I am asking you all to think about human values. I know, from the many letters I receive from
young people, that their generation cares deeply about the rights of the
individual, about the sufferings of others and about making a better world for
all of us to live in. I believe the
youth of the Commonwealth is well placed to give a lead in showing how human
values can be improved.
We share the same
world, but we do not share the same opportunities. Everyone wants to be free from poverty and
hunger, disease and discrimination, to have access to education and to live in
a safe environment.
People everywhere
want to be able to play a full part in the democratic government of their
countries and to live in freedom, protected by just laws. These aspirations were endorsed by all the
heads of government of the Commonwealth when they met in
In societies where
constitutional rights are assured, co‑operation between all citizens
becomes more natural and more fruitful in tackling the major problems we
face. The achievements of one human value
can help to achieve others. We should
all aspire to raise the standards of life in our countries, to achieve a more
prosperous and equitable society and to exercise a powerful influence for peace
within and between nations.
None of this is
easy to bring about because the establishment of human values implies duties as
well as rights. If we want to exercise
and enlarge our rights and opportunities, we have to safeguard the rights and
opportunities of others.
We should look for
chances to give service just as eagerly as we look for benefits for
ourselves. The young people of the
Commonwealth have the future in their hands.
May they keep their vision of human values alive and their determination
to achieve them undiminished, and may our 50 nations, sharing our experience
and working together to enhance a quality of life, send an example to the rest
of the world.
Signed, Elizabeth
R., the 8th day of March, 1993.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member (Mr. Ashton), and 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?
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the
provincial government has not implemented the major recommendation of the
Kopstein report which was to bring in no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS over four
years ago, the Kopstein report found that if
WHEREAS over two
years ago, a second government report found that over $63 million could be
saved if
WHEREAS the
provincial cabinet this year, after being extensively lobbied, rejected a
business plan capping insurance commissions that would have saved
WHEREAS the rates for
auto insurance are now being raised on average by 9.5 percent to 14.5 percent
when the inflation is less than 1.3 percent, making this the highest actual
increase in the history of this province; and
WHEREAS one in
five car drivers in this province will now face increases of 13.5 percent; and
WHEREAS the
provincial government has not implemented other aspects of the implementation
of the Kopstein report.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status
of Women): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for
the House, and I have copies.
Mr. Speaker, today
I am pleased to join with many worldwide in the celebration of International
Women's Day. The origins of
International Women's Day are traced back to early this century, when women
garment workers in
Today, I am proud
to speak of some of the many accomplishments and inroads that our government
has made toward that end. Our Women's
Health Branch has produced a host of informational resource material on topics
of special interest to women. We
implemented a new funding model to shelters.
We also increased our funding commitment to crisis shelter and resource
centre systems to provide for follow‑up services and child counselling
services. In addition, a standards
manual for shelters was developed by our Family Dispute Services with
collaboration from the Manitoba Association of Women's Shelters and Osborne
House.
* (1335)
In the area of
domestic violence, we have made substantial gains. We have brought in a zero tolerance policy
for domestic violence. We extended the
family violence court model to
Today, a public
reception cosponsored by the Manitoba Women's Directorate,
Among her many
accomplishments, Dr.
I know that
following my statement, my critics from across the way will have an opportunity
to respond. It is my sincere hope that
they respond with positive suggestions on how we might make further inroads and
not merely offer the negative, nonconstructive rhetoric that does more of a
disservice to women.
In creating
International Women's Day, we not only pay tribute to those women garment
workers, but also to all Manitoba women, who continue to work towards becoming
positive role models and positive examples as we work together towards
achieving women's equality in all aspects of our society. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1340)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to
begin by acknowledging the accomplishments of Dr. Ruth Berry, Dean of Human
Ecology at the
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to put some comments on the record on the International Women's Day
and the minister's ministerial statement, the Minister responsible for the
Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) in this province, a responsibility that I
would suggest has been dealt with more in the absence than in the positive
accomplishments of the government.
Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest, if the government wants some positive comments about what can be
done, we have some. We would suggest
that the implementation of pay equity is something that could be done to help
the women in this province. We would
suggest that an economic strategy, any economic strategy that leads to jobs,
would be of assistance to the women in this province. We would suggest that instead of
"rationalizing" the social assistance benefits, which will have a
negative impact on the thousands of women who live in the city of
Mr. Speaker, we
would suggest an implementation of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, which has
been on this government's shelves for over two years. We would suggest an immediate implementation
of all of the recommendations of the Dorothy Pedlar commission report, many of
which have not been dealt with as Ms. Pedlar has also stated.
We would like to
suggest that on a broader scale, going back to the beginning of International
Women's Day, when the garment workers in
In conclusion, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say that we applaud the accomplishments and the
achievements of the women of the world, the women of the country, the women of
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, I rise, and it is certainly a pleasure to speak this day,
International Women's Day, and to certainly congratulate Dr. Ruth Berry, who
has received the Order of the
I have had the
opportunity of knowing Dr.
The Minister
responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) spoke of suggestions on
what her government could do in regard to women and making changes for the
better here in
* (1345)
I think it is very
important that this government look at the number of reports, reviews and
studies that are sitting on the shelves of ministerial desks and start
implementing some of the recommendations, and whether that is the Pedlar report
or the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry or ensuring that the Hay audit through the
Civil Service Commission, that we see some action there because many of those
recommendations affect women in the workplace.
Those are some positive suggestions.
As well, rather
than having mandatory days off for civil servants, why did this government not
look at asking for volunteers? I think
you would find a number of people in the Civil Service who would be prepared to
take days off without pay rather than forcing, particularly, single women who
are the only breadwinners in the family to take those days off, because those
are the people it is going to affect most, Mr. Speaker. Those are some recommendations as well that I
would put forward.
I would also
suggest to this government that when they are prioritizing how they spend their
money and their dollars, they look very carefully at their own administrative
budgets within the ministerial offices and in fact look at some places that
they could make changes and make cuts there.
I had suggested they roll back the deputy ministers' wages. If they have had a 23 percent increase over
the last number of years, what professions, what groups of people are able to
have that type of an increase, and is that really reasonable in these difficult
economic times?
These are some of
the tough decisions that need to be made. Let us look at the Community Places
grants. You talk to people out in rural
So these are some
of the positive suggestions, and we look forward to debating this government on
more of those issues.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the third
quarterly report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission, ending the period
December 31, 1992, and the Annual Report, Department of Finance, 1991‑92.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report for the Department of Family Services.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Vision Capital Fund
Funding Recipients—Women
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.
All studies have
indicated that the growing number of economic activity and small business
activity and job creation is actually with women in the sector of
Mr. Speaker, the
government has stated before that it will provide leadership in ensuring
greater opportunities for women to participate in decision making. The government has also announced last week
in the Public Accounts committee that it will be unfreezing the $15 million
that they had frozen based on the auditor's report for purposes of Vision
Capital money.
I would like to
ask the Deputy Premier: What will be the
participation of women in the decision making on the Vision Capital Advisory
Committee of government?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want to as well recognize the
role that women are playing in business.
This government has done so with a program specifically directed for
bank loan support for small business and particularly aimed at the women in our
business community.
As it relates to
the Vision Capital, I will have to take the question as notice for specifics as
it relates to the involvement, but I say, in the whole area of decision making,
this government has acknowledged the contribution of women with the advancement
of women into many deputy minister roles.
The CEDF is managed by a women.
So on the whole economic front, this government recognizes and wants to
continue the encouragement of women in the business community.
* (1350)
Advisory Committee Membership
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, following on the comments of the Deputy Premier, I have a
list of the members of the advisory committee that was tabled in the committee
last week. I count all males on the
committee, who have been placed on the advisory committee.
I can name the
list for the Deputy Premier: Bill Watchorn;
Sheldon Berney; Arnie Thorsteinson; Hyland Beatty; Paul Goyan is the deputy
minister; Ron Williams; Derek Riley and Peter Josephson.
Mr. Speaker, there
is not one woman on the advisory committee of government dealing with the $15
million that is approved for Vision Capital funding.
I wonder why the
government does not have women involved in the decision‑making process of
government, as alleged by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in his action plan, released
by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson).
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have heard what the Leader of the Opposition
has said. I can refer to many areas, and
have done, where government has appointed women to senior positions within
government. I would at any time be
prepared to compare this government's record to what the previous
administration has done in acknowledging women, as it relates to positions
within business.
As it relates to
this specific question, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I will get further
information as to the selection of those individuals and return with that
information.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Premier did not answer the question of why there are no women on the
advisory committee dealing with Vision Capital.
When the biggest growth area of jobs and economic activity is dealing
with small companies with women as the principal owners, there is absolutely no
answer by the Deputy Premier in that regard.
The government has
stated today that they want positive suggestions on how they might further make
inroads for women in decision making. I
would recommend to the Deputy Premier today to make that Vision Capital
Advisory Committee 50 percent women.
The auditor has
already condemned the activity of the Vision Capital Fund in terms of conflict
of interest, in terms of‑‑[interjection]
Well, I would refer members opposite to the auditor's report‑‑no
objectives, no monitoring, Mr. Speaker, so surely the government should take
some new action with the $15 million in funds.
Will the
government and Deputy Premier take a positive suggestion and make the Vision
Capital Advisory Committee 50 percent women in light of International Women's
Day?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, at the
outset, what I said was, I am quite prepared to bring the information forward
of all areas of which women in our government services have been promoted to
positions of decision.
I made one
reference directly to the Communities Economic Development Fund, in which the
general manager is a very qualified and capable individual.
As it relates to
the individual, the question of the individual, I will bring forward the
background as to the establishment of the groups of individuals and report back
to the Legislature.
Family
Friday Closing
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I guess it is just
not a, quote, court that is going to work on Fridays.
I would like to
ask the Minister of Justice how he balances and equates his government's stated
commitment to zero tolerance when it comes to domestic violence, with the
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Speaker, the justice system is part of the operations of government. The honourable member may not be aware, as I
am from personal experience working in the court system, that there is room for
flexibility on Fridays during the summer months. I have spent many Fridays in the courthouse
during the course of my work there, and traditionally, during the summer
months, Fridays are lighter days in terms of workload than other days of the
week.
The members of the
judiciary are meeting again this week, with representatives of the Civil
Service Commission, to work together.
Hopefully, there will be a spirit of co‑operation so that we can
achieve the policy objectives of the government, which are to attain certain
objectives with regard to public servants in the
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, given
that the
* (1355)
Mr. McCrae: I would be very quick to agree with
the honourable member that offenders are not likely to pay very much attention
to the fact that Fridays are going to be viewed differently in some areas of
government services. Offenders are not
going to take note of that.
I am glad, though,
today, that the honourable member would remind the House of the existence of
the
Our government
came along, we introduced the concept of the
The honourable
member need only look at the independent report of Jane Ursel, who is the
consultant on this court, to find that the statistics bear out what I am
saying. I recall for the honourable
member, too, as I said earlier, that Fridays are somewhat different, especially
during the summer months, and I think that we can work through our workloads in
our court system while meeting the objectives of the government.
Ms. Barrett: Will the Minister of
Justice clarify that the Family
Mr. McCrae: All services provided
out of my department are extremely important services. The nature of the justice system is such that
the scheduling of court cases has a lot to do with the scheduling of
everybody's schedule; that being the schedule of the prosecution, the schedule
of defence, the schedule of the judiciary.
So the honourable
member ought not somehow to lead everybody into thinking that there is
something magic about a particular day of the week. Every day in our court systems, the three
parties represented in the courtroom compare their diaries, their daily
journals, and they come to satisfactory agreement on dates.
The objective of
the
Victims of Violence Programs
Federal Fine Surcharge
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is also for the Minister of
Justice.
Today being
International Women's Day is an appropriate time to recognize and acknowledge
that sadly women are still substantially overrepresented in our society as
victims of violence.
That sentiment has
often been expressed by this minister on many occasions, and therefore it was
with regret that I learned that by Order‑in‑Council, signed
February 24, just two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, this minister is now going to
spend monies raised under the federal fine surcharge program to pay for already
existing provincial programs.
The minister told
us when the federal fine surcharge came into place that it would be used to be
added to provincial programs to bring in new programs for victims of violence,
and he has consistently said that those programs would be focused on women in
particular.
Now we learn he is
using the money to pay for his already existing programs. Mr. Speaker, why has he gone back on his
word? Why are the victims' rights, and
women's rights in this case, only being talked about by this minister and not
acted on when it comes to actually using these funds to create new programs as
he said he would?
* (1400)
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Speaker, the government operates a number of extremely important programs
too. Through our provincial victims'
surcharge fund over the past few years we have been providing funding, making
funding available for community‑based victims' services. The provincial surcharge has also been used
to get victims' units operating in the city of
We think we have
moved a great distance in the area of victims' services from where we were when
we started out in government. With
respect to the federal fine surcharge, the idea behind having that surcharge
was so that victims' services could be financed.
It is completely
appropriate that those services operated by government which serve many, many
hundreds of people in our province year in and year out be funded out of the
federal victims' surcharge.
Mr. Edwards: The fact remains that
$220,000 which was to have gone to new programs is now going to pay for
existing programs.
Domestic Abusers
Discretionary Passes
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): For the minister again: Why are persons convicted of domestic assault
currently in Headingley Jail being given the discretionary, temporary absences
after one‑sixth of their sentence?
Why is that occurring? Convicts
already get one‑third off their sentences for good behaviour.
Why is justice at
the correction system not keeping step with this minister's words and his talk
about the court system when it comes to actually following through on the
sentence? Why are domestic abusers
getting out of jail after one‑sixth of their sentence, on discretionary
passes?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): The
honourable member would have an excellent point if the alternative he seems to
be offering had a tendency to work, which it does not. Less than 1 percent of inmates who make use
of the temporary assistance program, supervised, I add, reoffend. So that is an important number to bear in
mind.
Studies tell us
that recidivism rates for those who make use of the programs provided under
temporary absences, the recidivism is lower than it is for those who actually
serve longer periods of time in these warehouses we‑‑[interjection]
I guess the
honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) wants to get into this. I thought it was the honourable member for
St. James who raised the question. I
thought he was serious about the question about protecting victims and
providing a proper regime for dealing with the violence in our society. I thought he was serious, and maybe the
Liberal party is not, but I think the honourable member for St. James is, and I
prefer to be able to answer the question.
I was pointing out
to the honourable member that if properly assessed‑‑[interjection] Well, maybe I will be given
another opportunity, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: Again for the minister, the
corrections system should have as its goals both deterrents of the public,
protection of the public and rehabilitation.
My question for
the minister: Why was Mr. Timothy Zaber,
who had received a three‑month sentence, 90 days to be served
intermittently on the weekends, given a temporary absence after three weekends,
six nights in jail, for domestic assault for which he was given a 90‑day
sentence? Why did he spend six nights in
jail and then be released, Mr. Speaker?
Why are the people
of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the
honourable member has put his question.
Mr. McCrae: The case referred to
by the honourable member, in that case, he forgets to remember to remind us in
his question that what we are talking about is upervised work being done while
under a temporary absence, released to work at The Forks. The honourable member
thinks you are better off sitting in jail behind bars in a circumstance like
that. The honourable member forgets that
this particular‑‑
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Well, let them all out, Jim.
Mr. McCrae: Oh, that is a great
idea. The honourable Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) suggests we should let them all out, Mr.
Speaker. Well, I am sorry. I disagree profoundly with that. We will not be irresponsible‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable
minister to deal with the matter raised by the honourable member for St. James.
Mr. McCrae: I want very much to
take your advice, Mr. Speaker. I would be aided if people would refrain from
making irresponsible comments like the honourable member for
The honourable
member has to remember that at Headingley, under our provincial system, you do
not serve all that long, in any event, in our provincial system.
Universities Women's Enrollment
Graduate Sciences
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
At the
I would like to
ask the minister: What plans does she
have to address the low support levels for graduate students and the decline in
women's enrollment in graduate science programs?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to continue to
encourage women to pursue careers in the sciences and math. It is an attitudinal issue, one which has to
begin a positive development in the K‑12 part of young people's
education, and that is one way that we are attempting to encourage people to
carry on in the maths and the sciences, through programs that we have operating
in our K‑12 part of this department.
Mr. Speaker, in
terms of the support to graduate students, I think the member may find, if she
does look at the
However, we will
continue to provide Canada student loans, No. 1, provided by Canada
administered through this province, is one way to assist young people‑‑and
adult students, because I make the point, too, all students are not sequential‑‑to
continue in their education.
Education System
Professional Development Days
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why
she intends to cut professional development days when 75 percent of elementary
schoolteachers, the majority of whom are women, have no university level
science courses? Fifty percent of them
have no university level mathematics courses.
What will be the
impact of these cuts on professional development to the teachings of math and
science throughout our educational system?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the issue of paying teachers for
professional development days, not the removal of professional development
days, is the issue that boards of trustees are currently looking at in co‑operation
with their current employees. That is a
right that they have as employers to negotiate with their own employees. There is not a removal of professional
development days, as that member is trying to indicate.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker,
could the minister tell us what plan she has to restore and maintain the
funding to the Winnipeg Education Centre, where 80 percent of the students are
women, 50 percent of that number are aboriginal, and this remains one of the
few training programs available in the inner city of Winnipeg since the decline
and cuts to the core area training programs?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, we are considering all of our programs through the
budgetary process of this government. We
will be examining all the areas.
I will remind the
member that we do make every effort to encourage women, and I will point to
some of the programs currently in place.
We do have ACCESS programs, Mr. Speaker, as well, which encourage the
participation of women in courses that they would find important and
appropriate for their employment.
Indigenous Women's Collective
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Outside of the
Legislature, today, we heard from aboriginal women that this government has let
them down and has failed to live up to their commitments.
Can the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women tell this House why she did not stand up to
the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) when he cut funding to
the Indigenous Women's Collective?
* (1410)
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status
of Women): Mr. Speaker, I want to put some facts on the
table. Before this government took power in 1988, the Indigenous Women's
Collective did not receive a penny from the NDP administration. The NDP
government of the day had no concern for aboriginal women and did not fund them
to any degree.
We were the
government that provided the first core funding for any aboriginal women's
organization, and we will continue to work with aboriginal women. We have indicated that we need to develop
partnerships. We have offered staff to
meet with members of the Indigenous Women's Collective throughout the province,
that we will attend their annual meetings and work together with them to ensure
that programs and services are put in place that will deal with the special
issues that relate to aboriginal women, Mr. Speaker. We will continue to do that and continue to
offer our services.
Speaking to the Future Policy Implementation
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, the minister must have been at a
different rally than I was at this morning.
Will the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women tell this House how she can expect the
situation for aboriginal women in
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status
of Women): Mr. Speaker, when we introduced the policy
last International Women's Day, we indicated that it was guiding principles so
that programs throughout government that were developed would be sensitive to
aboriginal women. We have continued
along that path. We are ensuring that in
the Department of Education, in the Department of Health and throughout
government in Family Services, those programs that we are putting in place to
deal with women's issues also include aboriginal women. We will continue along that path, and we will
work with aboriginal women in partnership to ensure that our programs are
sensitive to their needs.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Report Implementation
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Will the Minister of Justice tell the House why he has not upheld his
commitments to the aboriginal community through refusing to implement the
recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, which outlines a number of
areas specific to the protection and participation of aboriginal women?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): I missed it, Mr. Speaker, would the
honourable member repeat?
Mr. Hickes: Will the Minister of
Justice tell the House why he has not upheld his commitments to the aboriginal
community through refusing to implement the recommendations of the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry, which outlines a number of areas specific to the protection
and participation of aboriginal women?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I thank
the honourable member for his question.
We have been making pretty significant progress in improving justice
services for aboriginal people in
We have been
working closely with the Dakota‑Ojibway Tribal Council to see if we
cannot negotiate some kind of longer term arrangement so that they can have
policing for hopefully a long period of time.
Hopefully most reserve communities will accept their own police
officers. That would be nice to see.
We have been
working also with the
We have been
working with the City of
We have been working
also with the Hollow Water people with regard to the
I will maybe save
some more for the next question, Mr. Speaker.
Headingley Correctional Facility
Intermittent Sentences
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, again for the Minister of
Justice. Two years ago, the population
at Headingley jail was over 400. As of
February 23 this year, it was 265.
In addition to
that number, 248 convicted felons in
Of that 108 who
are supposed to show up for the weekends‑‑they have intermittent
sentences, but they are supposed to show up for that portion of their sentence‑‑on
February 23, 41 of those were given temporary absences, 47 were away without
leave‑‑there was no excuse, they just did not show up‑‑20
showed up. Twenty out of 108 actually
showed up at the jail.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Edwards: Is that an exceptional way to run
the justice system for people who have been convicted of crimes?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): I think the policy is becoming
clear, the policy of the Liberal Party with respect to corrections, that is,
this day of the week. Maybe we will hear
something different tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, but today the policy is, throw them
all in the can and throw away the key until every last day of that sentence has
expired. Do not do anything with
them. Goodness sakes, we need them back,
and that is how we will get them back, by doing absolutely nothing with them.
What the
honourable member forgets to mention again is that intermittent sentences are
something imposed by the courts, not by the correction system. The other thing that he forgot to mention was
the people who are on temporary absence on these intermittent sentences are
doing supervised work in the community.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, let us
be clear, 47 people out of 108 who had been told they had to show up did not
show up. It is not a question of
philosophizing. Forty‑seven people
who were supposed to be there did not come to jail.
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Edwards: Is 47 out of 108 an
acceptable ratio for this minister? How
can the public be satisfied they are being protected by a minister who
tolerates close to 50 percent no show at jail on the weekend?
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member will
have to provide me with some information other than what he is saying
here. We have seen many, many times he
and other members of his party bringing wrong information to this House. I would like to ascertain the veracity of
that. It may be, I suggest, that these
people were supposed to report somewhere else other than where the honourable
member had in mind. Now that may be, but
I would like very much for the honourable member to provide me with factual
correct information, unlike the information we so often get from him.
Mr. Edwards: Finally, for the
same minister, Mr. Speaker.
Why is it that
temporary absences are being used at all to deal with inmates with intermittent
sentences‑‑that is, sentences they are only supposed to be serving
on the weekends‑‑when in 1984 there was a recommendation from the
report on the entire corrections system specifically recommending that
temporary absences should not be used in cases of intermittent sentences, which
were already giving to a person convicted of a crime the benefit of being out
of jail five days out of seven a week, Mr. Speaker? Why are they are not following through on the
philosophy set for this department back in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I think
the honourable member is attempting to leave us with an impression which, the
facts will bear out, is incorrect. There
is a 10 percent overall decrease in the numbers of temporary absences in Manitoba‑‑decrease. That is down, not up.
Mr. Speaker,
Mental Health Care System Reform
Community Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Health.
The public of
Will the minister
immediately contact members of the community and consumers and try to reinvolve
members of the community and put community back into community reform?
Hon. James Downey (Acting Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I will just comment briefly on
behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) that there has been a full
community consultation taking place. It
is my understanding, the confidential letter which the member is referring to,
there will be a meeting to discuss those concerns with the deputy
minister. She is one of a committee of
some 25 representing the different communities.
* (1420)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I hope
that the minister will attend that meeting.
Will the minister
take into consideration at that meeting such issues as the crisis stabilization
location, the establishment of a 24‑hour crisis line and aid for safe
houses at that meeting?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the minister is and the
government is serious about the reform and has been going on very well with the
community consultations. I believe the
letter was received and the concern was received today. There is a meeting, as I said, tomorrow to
discuss those concerns, as quick as tomorrow with the deputy minister.
Mr. Chomiak: I am thankful that
they will talk with her, because the beds have been cut and the services are
not in place.
Will the minister
undertake to talk to people like Cathy Medernach and respond quickly to all the
groups that are saying they are not being consulted on implementation and on
issues of governance?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, it is my
understanding there has been an extensive discussion with the different
community representatives, of which this individual was one of 25. There will be ongoing consultations as the
reform program takes place.
Environmental Concerns
Women's Health Issues
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): My question is for the Minister of
Environment.
Mr. Speaker, a
worldwide collection of scientists, including 99 Nobel Prize winners, warns
that Earth people have about two decades to avert global ecological disaster
and social problems.
I am going to
table a document for the Minister of Environment to the government that
highlights five key areas. One of these areas is equality for women, including
rights to reproductive choice and safety.
My question for
the minister is: Is the minister aware
that there have been a number of studies indicating that there is a link
between chlorine and breast cancer, and will this be taken into consideration
when the decision is assessed to go ahead with the Deacon Reservoir which will
mean that
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that as we look at the future water supplies
for this city and any other city across the country, we are also cognizant of
the fact that we need to use the most up‑to‑date technology,
whether it is in the treatment of our drinking water or in the treatment of our
waste water. There are alternatives to
chlorination that are being developed, and I would hope that that would form
part of the decision‑making process.
Accumulative Effects
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, clean water is essential to our health. How is this government going to assure the
assessment on the cumulative impact on the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Cerilli: How is this
government going to ensure that there will be a cumulative decision made of all
the developments going on on the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, I am certain that the member is as aware as everyone on
this side is, that every one of the projects that she listed has undergone very
close scrutiny to make sure that any impacts are alleviated or considered in
terms of their cumulative effect.
I would hope that
when she mentions some of the developments in
Ayerst Expansion
Environmental Impact Assesments
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): What is the scope, Mr. Speaker, of the
environmental review currently being developed for the Ayerst expansion and the
basin‑wide changes on the
Will the minister
tell the House how the health concerns of women will be addressed in the environmental
assessment?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member has caucused this with the member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). As
I have said before, the assessment of Ayerst has in fact done a number of things
already in terms of their response to how they will treat their waste
water. Literally millions of dollars of
technological studies and advances in infrastructure are being put into that
investment in order to protect the environment.
The site is being
assessed on a site‑specific basis in order to make sure that any
discharges to that water are well within the accepted guidelines. Mr. Speaker, I would expect that we all would
be looking with interest as to the research that Ayerst and other pharmaceuticals
are doing in their industry.
Crop Insurance Review
Equality Recommendations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the minister
today, in light of it being International Women's Day, recognize that many
women do choose to farm independently, and they should be able to get their own
separate crop insurance contract?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I have the Crop Insurance Review in front of
me. If the member would like to read, I
will turn her to page 1, where the recommendations of the committee said that
they should reflect program administrative equity to all producers, be feasible
in an operational mode, not become unnecessarily expensive to the producer and
not unduly increase administrative and premium costs.
Over a year ago,
the Crop Insurance Board set up a committee to assess people who may make
applications for separate contracts, whether it is father and son, brother to
brother, father to daughter or whatever kind of family relationship.
They put together
a questionnaire to determine whether contracts should be separate or should be
combined. That questionnaire was
reviewed by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission and said it was fair and
reasonable, and many of the recommendations that came in the Crop Insurance
Review also identified that the process the board is now using is reasonable
and fair.
I will agree with
the member that we must do everything possible to be absolutely sure in the
future that it is reasonable and fair to all family members and particularly
the female members in the various family farm corporations.
Implementation
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I thank the member for the question, but if
she was paying attention, particularly the reading of The Manitoba Co‑Operator,
she would have seen that the announcement was made many, many weeks ago on
this, and that over 30 percent of the recommendations have already been acted
on. Many are under research and review
by the board and the corporation at this time, and appropriate adjustments and
changes will be made on an ongoing basis.
Many of them
involve a fair bit of cost and cannot be done overnight, but the ones that she
says, if she would read the recommendations from the Crop Insurance Review
Committee on page 29, they reflect that there is an element of fairness there
now but a continuing desire to maintain equity beyond all producers.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral
Questions has expired.
* (1430)
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Speaker, may I ask leave for a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: All Manitobans, certainly
all of the people from southwestern
Mr. Speaker, the
other thing about the Scott Tournament of Hearts in
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Brandon East have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with my
colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), MLA for Brandon West, in this
matter. This is beginning to sound like
a broken record.
I do want to, on
behalf of this side, congratulate the Maureen Bonar team for the excellent
showing that they made. It was tough
luck. They did not win, but they did a
great job.
I agree a hundred
percent, the community of
I cannot help but
note, Mr. Speaker, as I understand this is a record attendance of any game of
this type. I think that is again a
tribute to the people in the area for their interest in this particular sport,
which as far as I am concerned is No. 1.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
member for St. James have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, very briefly I want to join comments with my colleagues in
the other parties, as we did the other day, in congratulating the people of the
city of
Let me say, with
respect to the
Mr. Speaker, of
course I wish the Canadian team now well on the international stage. I have no doubt, with the level of competition
they have faced in
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise today and put on the record
our caucus's concerns about and regret at the passing of Justice Samuel
Freedman, who on his appointment in 1952, I believe a comment was made that
certainly was borne out by his years of service to the province of Manitoba and
the people of Manitoba when it said: I
prophesy that when the time comes to assess his work the verdict will be that
no one ever proved himself more worthy of appointment to the bench than Mr.
Justice Freedman.
I think we all in
this House would share that analysis of the work, both on the bench and after
his retirement and throughout his working years, of Mr. Justice Freedman's
service to the people of
In addition to
that, he worked in the community at large, working as a Chancellor of the
University of Manitoba from 1959 to 1968, member of the Board of Governors of Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, a worker with the Jewish Welfare Fund, vice‑president
of the Civil Liberties Association, Manitoba, and chair of the Winnipeg Branch
of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, a
life that was lived to the fullest and exemplified the best that
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
Minister of Justice have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to add some words about former Chief Justice Samuel Freedman, on
his unfortunate passing, and also I would like to offer sympathy to the family
of former Chief Justice Freedman.
As one who knew
Sam Freedman, I can say with affection that his contribution to his province,
and indeed to his country, was significant.
Sam Freedman was a
brilliant jurist, and that is recognized by everyone. He was able to mix with a judicial
brilliance, a human dimension that you seldom see in someone who occupies the
position of the Chief Justice of a provincial jurisdiction.
Since his
retirement from the bench, I have come to know Sam Freedman better than I did
when he was on the bench. I have seen
Sam Freedman on a number of occasions since becoming Attorney General of this
province and never did he fail to have a kind word for me or for anyone else he
happened to be talking to. He was an
extremely courteous person, who mixed with that and his knowledge of the law, a
sense of humour that you will not find equalled very often. His grasp of the English language, obviously
far better than mine, was something that was well known to all who knew Sam
Freedman.
Again, Mr.
Speaker, I offer the sympathy of all honourable members in this House to the
family of former Chief Justice Samuel Freedman.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the members of the other two parties in
paying my respects to the family of the late Chief Justice Samuel Freedman.
Sam Freedman was a
very special human being. In addition to
being of brilliant mind, he had that very noble characteristic of being very
humble, very self‑effacing, never believed that he deserved all of the
honours which were given to him. Yet, he
deserved each and every one of them. But
to him, it was always a reflection of what others had done, or what he had been
able to contribute because he had been given the qualities of intelligence or
because he had been able to take advantage of educational opportunities.
My last contact
with Sam Freedman was at Shoppers Drug Mart. I was there with my husband
shopping for a few things, and there were Sam and Brownie doing their shopping
in Shoppers Drug Mart. It was like meeting neighbour Sam. It was not like meeting the former Chief
Justice with all of the honours that had been bestowed upon this particular
individual, and rightfully so. It was
meeting a neighbour, in my case, a fellow constituent, because he lived in the
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair)
He was always like that. There was a tremendous warmth that exuded
from this man. He also had the great
benefit of having a very special helpmate and wife, because she took care of so
many of the details of his life, freeing him to look after the things of a much
more academic nature.
* (1440)
They were both
getting on, and yet they both went to class at the
He lived a good
and full life. I suppose he could have
lived, but I think he would have been the first to say that he lived his four
score years and 10. Obviously, there is
sadness today in the family, one of whom of course is related to this
government and is the Deputy Minister of Family Services. Roxy is the daughter‑in‑law of
Sam and Brownie. There must also be
great joy in the fact that this man lived such an accomplished life, such a
giving life, such a warm and vital life, that as they sit shiva for the next
seven days, I am sure there will be many who tell them of his very special
warmth, the very special touches that he alone could have given as he reached
out to his fellow human beings. Thank
you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Debate on
Second Readings, the bills as listed in the Order Paper, in that order.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑‑The Endangered
Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 2 (The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les epeces en voie de disparition), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to add my comments to
Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment Act.
I note, in reading
the minister's words on this particular piece of legislation when he was
addressing his remarks to this House before the session recessed over the
Christmas period, the minister indicated that this was a relatively minor piece
of legislation change that had been brought forward by his department and by
him, in particular, to address some inconsistencies in language. In other words, to make it conform to
language that was used in other legislations across
While it may be
minor in nature, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is, I feel, very important to us in
the
I think back to my
own experiences of my lifetime and the opportunities that I have had to view
nature first‑hand, and I hope that other members of this House have had
similar opportunities. I have had the
opportunities to spend a great deal of my youth in the wilderness of
northwestern Ontario and into the central parts of Manitoba, fortunate that my
family could afford to take their children to these areas to see nature first‑hand.
I think back to
those times in particular because we were fortunate in what we saw as the
natural wildlife of Northwestern Ontario and, of course, it is indigenous to
the
I think back to
the times of recent history where we have seen in the United States, in
particular, where they have had to move to protect the American eagle‑‑I
always like to call it the Canadian eagle instead of the American eagle, but
the Americans refer to it as the American eagle‑‑where they have
had hunting of a symbol, a bird that they use as a symbol for their country.
They have had to protect it to the point where they banned outright any
activities dealing with the eagle in the sense that no one can hunt that bird.
Well, I think that
from my experience at least, although I am not totally familiar with the
regulations of this country or this province on that aspect, the eagle is not a
protected bird in this province, from my understanding of the endangered
species here. So we have been fortunate
that we have been able to view them in their natural habitat, raising their
young and doing the activities that eagles do in the course of their normal
day.
I have had the
opportunity since I was elected to this job to travel to various parts of the
Now I have often
thought that Manitoba could‑‑taking into consideration that we have
this natural beauty of our province here‑‑take advantage of those
natural creatures by not only keeping the railway open to serve the North, as
my colleague for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) points out, but more specifically to
encourage tourism to come to the province of Manitoba to view the natural
wonders that we have here. I do not think
I have ever seen, outside of activities done directly by the communities
themselves along the way, including Churchill, where the government has done
active campaigning to encourage tourism to come to the province, not only to
view the species that we have here that are in abundant supply, but also those
areas where we have endangered species, not to disturb them in their natural
habitat, but to encourage people to become more aware of the species that are
there and what we have to do as a civilization to protect them.
It would be nice
to see that, if we could have regular train loads of people or planes going up
to Churchill to view the polar bears, the beluga whales and the endangered bird
species that make that their natural habitat, or to travel to other parts of
the province to view the Baird's sparrow or the burrowing owl, the loggerhead
shrike or the peregrine falcon.
Speaking of the
peregrine falcon, I know that these endangered species are being talked about
in the classrooms right here in my own community of Transcona. I know that because my young son comes home
and tells me about the activities that they have had during the course of their
day in school. One of the quizzes the
teacher puts on for them is a quiz asking the students of those classes what
they know of the endangered species of the
It was interesting
to note that not too many of the children could name the endangered
species. There was the odd one who got
some of the names right from the list, but not many. So there may be an opportunity for the
minister through his department and possibly through the Ministry of Education
to raise the awareness of our young people, those who will be coming into
positions of authority after us, so that they become aware of what the
endangered species means to us as a province.
The minister talks
about his legislation and he has an endangered species advisory board. I must admit to the members of this House
that I am not fully aware of what activities this special advisory board
performs. [interjection] My colleague
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) asks if there is an equal number of men or women
from this board. Unfortunately, there is
not an equal number of men or women.
There are only two women on this board, two out of 11. [interjection] Well, that is unfortunate
that we would not have equal representation, but it is nice to see at least
that the minister does have an advisory board that keeps him apprised of
situations throughout the province, what impact the endangered species are
encountering and what we can do to assist them to allow them to recover their
numbers, so that they can grow so that we can remove them from the endangered
species, hopefully, before they become extinct.
* (1450)
To go back to my
comments at the start of my talk, the minister indicated in his comments of
December 10 last year that the language of this particular legislation, Bill 2,
is only minor in nature to allow it to conform to legislation used particularly
with federal legislation and so that it conforms to the definitions that are
used nationally and internationally. Now, I note in reading the bill that the
legislation does allow the minister some latitude in making decisions on the
way it impacts upon a threatened species or those species that are likely to
become endangered. From what I
understand of this legislation, it gives the minister extra powers that were
not afforded him before. At least, that
is my understanding of it.
I have some
concerns in the sense that it allows the minister to use threatened species for
scientific purposes. Now, I did not note
anywhere in the minister's comments where the definition of scientific purposes‑‑what
that means. Does that allow for
experimentation or does that allow for the protection and preservation through
means by veterinary services to allow them to grow and expand in their
numbers? I am not really clear on what
"scientific" means in this sense.
It also says that the minister did not want to either hold or entrap
endangered species. I would hope that
would the be the case of his department, because we want these species to
thrive in their natural environment without too much interference from humans.
I note in the
notes that were provided with the minister's bill that he has unfortunately had
to add "other species" to his protected list. That is unfortunate that we have to take
steps like that. That means that we are
encroaching more and more upon the natural habitat of these species, and that
we are going to have to take special precautions or efforts to ensure that they
survive.
Now, I cannot find
specifically where the lists are. I will
come to them in a few moments, but the minister did indicate that there were
five species that were put on his endangered list. That seems like a high
number to me as I do not profess to have a full comprehension of a number of
species that were on the list specifically, other than the names I read out a
few moments ago.
But if we are
going through five species‑‑and the minister says that is just
recently‑‑does that happen on a yearly basis that we have to put
numbers like that on the list? Are we
continually eroding the numbers of species that we have in the province‑‑of
the flora and the fauna as the minister indicated it would go on that list.
To go back to the
bill specific, this bill allows the minister the opportunity to authorize
permits that would give people that he would authorize, or his department would
authorize, the opportunity or the right to kill, take, collect or capture. [interjection]
The minister
indicates kill, but I hope that would not be the case, that we would look at
doing whatever we can within our powers, the people he would have in his
department and other veterinary type of services throughout the province, so we
can allow these species to survive, and if they are injured in some way I hope
that the proper actions would be taken to allow them to recover.
Of course, I am
sure there are opportunities that happen from time to time where the‑‑[interjection]
Some members make
light of this bill, but I think it is an important piece of legislation for us
in the province. Like I said, it is
unfortunate that we have to take these steps to protect the species of the
province.
The permit gives
the minister, as I have said, the power or the authorization to name someone in
his department or some other person, the right to kill, take, collect or
capture or to collect and capture and hold alive, members of endangered or
threatened species for scientific purposes‑‑there is that word
"scientific"‑‑or for the purposes related to the
protection or reintroduction of endangered species, or, a word that I am not
familiar with, I must admit, "extirpiated"?
An Honourable Member: Extirpated. Geographic area is limited.
Mr. Reid: I thank the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for explaining that word to me. I must admit I have never encountered that
word before. It is a new one to me, and
now I have a better understanding and appreciation for it.
I hope that the scientific
purposes do not include experimentation other than for the full and complete
recovery of the animals, any of the wildlife, the birds, the fauna in our
province, and that we do not use them for scientific purposes like some of the
horror stories that we have heard in the past, experimentation that has been
done specifically on animals for research for human purposes.
I notice that the
minister in his comments, and I think it is accurately quoted, or accurately
stated I should say, by the minister when he says, and I will use a quote from
the minister, that our lives are enriched by preserving and making every effort
to ensure that represented species of flora and fauna and wildlife that abound
in this province continue to exist for future generations in a truly
sustainable manner. I think that is a
good statement for the minister to make, because I hope that would be the goal
of all of us, not only in this Chamber here but all Manitobans and all
Canadians in general.
An Honourable Member: His intentions
are good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Mr. Reid: Well, I hope that is not the
case. The member for Burrows indicated
that would not be the minister's intentions on this.
We have to think
of, in a sustainable manner, most of the things that we do, most of our
activities now. We cannot just rely on
nature to take care of itself and be able to rebound on its own. It is obvious, by the impact of human
development, western civilization, in the industrialized sense, the impact that
it is having upon all of us.
Now we all reap
the benefits from that type of civilization and that industrialization but, at
the same time, it does have negative consequences for us. I have seen some of those negative
consequences in my own community by way of industry having a detrimental impact
upon the people who live in the community.
As a civilization
and as a people I think we have to be conscious of the impacts that our
development, our growth have not only upon us as a people but the environment
itself. I think the minister's words
"sustainable manner" should be the goal in that we can indeed protect
all wildlife not only for its own sake, which of course is very important, but
so future generations have the opportunity to go out and view nature at its
best.
I think
I notice that the
minister has changed some of the wording in The Endangered Species Act to
specify those species that are indigenous to
I hope that the
minister's department does not just view this as minor in nature. Of course, we on this side take this
legislation‑‑although it is not extensive in its length, it could
have a significant impact, and I hope that the minister and his department,
through his guidance and direction, will use this legislation wisely and that
latitudes that may not be intended by this legislation will not be taken by the
department‑‑[interjection]
Like scientific purposes, as the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) points out.
* (1500)
We take every step
that we can humanly take in this province, not only to preserve and protect
those species that are on the endangered list, to allow them to grow in their
numbers so that we can remove them from that list, but to prevent other species
within the province from having to be placed on that endangered list. I hope that we take whatever powers that we
have to protect and preserve them.
With those few
words, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to address my
comments to this Bill 2 here today.
Bill 3‑‑The Oil and Gas
and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 3 (The Oil and Gas and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave
to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to add just a few words
on this particular bill, which the minister claims is simply a consolidation of
various pieces of legislation of exploration, development, storage and
transportation affecting oil and gas industries in Manitoba.
It is, I think,
important, Madam Deputy Speaker, to suggest a couple of areas‑‑perhaps,
it would apply to a number of bills‑‑and that is that I wish the
minister perhaps had taken some advice from the member for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis), my colleague, in the use of plain language in the
development of bills of this nature.
Composite bills and the consolidation of legislation by their very
nature are bringing together a number of complex areas, and it seems to me that
this government, as all other governments, should begin to address legislation
in terms of plain language.
Oil and gas are
very important elements of our provincial economy, and they should be available
in legislative terms to the general public.
It seems to me as I look at this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am by no
means any expert on oil and gas or resource economics, but this is a complex
compilation of a variety of areas. It
would have been a very useful one where the government could have put together
some principles of plain language and developed them in the context of a series
of legislations that they were bringing together.
Instead, what has
happened, as happens with so many other bills and indeed with other governments‑‑I
am not singling out this particular government in this area‑‑what I
am saying is that they are missing an opportunity to make available to the
general public the general understanding of complex legislation. I would suggest that The City of Winnipeg
Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, is another area where there is a great deal of
public involvement, public interest in that particular piece of
legislation. Yet it is one of the
largest bills, the most complex bills for any individual, be they expert or
planner or architect or citizen, to try and come to terms with. It seems to me that in resource economics and
in municipal legislation there are two areas of great importance to the average
citizen, and they should not be hidden behind the complex language of
legislation.
I would suggest to
the minister that in this particular case it would be very useful in fact to
have, even if he cannot at this time develop the plain language of this
legislation, that there be a brochure, there be a leaflet for people explaining
in very clear terms and in plain language the implications of this compilation
of a variety of pieces of legislation.
My colleague the
member for
The advisability
of creating boards of citizens to give the minister advice, I think, is
established in many parts of our legislation in
My colleague
mentioned that, in this particular case, although there is the opportunity for
the minister to appoint five members, in fact, he or she is only required to
appoint three of whom one must be essentially his own public servant, somebody
who is responsible to and acts under the direction of the minister, who is not
an independent citizen in that sense. He is a public servant and must respond
and must work under the direction of the minister.
In fact, we have
the opportunity to appoint a public advisory board of four people, two of whom
it is further required, additionally, have specific knowledge in the oil and
gas industry. So potentially we have a
minister who is able to appoint three people, one of whom is directly
responsible to him and two of whom must be representative of the oil and gas
industry.
Now, Madam Deputy
Speaker, some governments would take that opportunity to appoint one person to
represent those who work in the industry, those who perhaps represent some of
the trade unions in that industry.
I have my doubts
that this government is going to give 50 percent of its representation to
labour because, so far, all they have done in any area, whether it is their
economic innovation fund board or whether it is the conference that they in
fact had last fall, dealing with the economy of Manitoba, where they were so
proud of their 10 percent representation for labour, it does not give great
confidence to anyone looking for labour representation on the oil and gas
board.
I will suggest it
here to the minister that it would be very appropriate to appoint labour
members of that committee. I do not know
if it has crossed his mind yet, but I certainly will put it on the record now
that this should be very much a part of this particular board. I would suggest that he make that his first
appointment, that he start thinking now of who he is going to appoint, and that
he start consulting with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, in fact, to have
their support in the nature of his appointments to this particular board.
I doubt very much
whether he will. I would imagine that,
like every other element of this government, what they have done, in fact, is
to attack labour on most fronts and that their interest in any kind of labour
advice is very, very slender.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, what I expect is that this government will appoint two representatives
of the management and ownership of the oil and gas industry. Certainly one would expect them to be
represented on this particular board, but we shall be looking very carefully at
the proportions in which this government attempts to represent the full
spectrum of
Indeed, if we are
to look at Canadian economic development generally, the export of staples,
whether it be oil or gas or wheat or timber or potash or other minerals, has in
fact formed the basis of our economic history.
It has been one of the elements of great instability in our history, no
less for
I do not expect that
this particular bill will address any of those issues of inherent economic
instability in the oil and gas industry.
It certainly is not what one would expect of this particular
Conservative government who have very little interest in economic planning or
economic future thinking of any sense whatsoever, let alone in the oil and gas
industry with its very powerful economic business lobbies.
When I think about
minerals in
* (1510)
The Indians at
It was very clear
to aboriginal people, both in Treaty 5 in northern
In 1931, when we
come to look at the transfer of natural resources to the provinces of western
A second point I
want to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the way in which the reliance upon oil
and gas and all export staples by Canadians has in fact continued to make us a
hinterland country, one which has always been dependent upon export, one which
has always in that sense been open to the vagaries of an international
market. Whether it is in the cod
fisheries, whether it is in the wheat economy, whether it is in the timber
economy or the oil, gas, potash of more recent times, our economic history in a
sense is writ large in the instability and dependence which that has brought
upon us throughout Canadian history. I
doubt if this particular bill is going to give us any greater self‑sufficiency,
any greater sense of autonomy, any greater sense of independence in the
direction of our economic affairs.
What is happening
of course in
There are some
parts of
Those two elements
on a continental basis are the ones which are in fact predicted to be the
American strategy and to take the Americans into the 21st Century. From their perspective, Madam Deputy Speaker,
it is of course a strategy that will maintain their role as a world power and
which will give them the kind of continental hegemony that they believe they
need but, from the perspective of Canadians, it does not make any sense. Our autonomy, our ability to develop our own
national industrial policies must depend upon control of our basic natural
resources, and those are the ones that we are letting slip out of our hands. Well, perhaps I should not say slip out of
our hands. It is essentially almost a
free gift in the kinds of agreements that Mulroney is prepared to sign in the
North American Free Trade Agreement.
What they are
doing is setting up panels, panels which take away from this Legislature, and
every other Legislature, the power to determine our economic future, panels
which will meet secretly, which will not report to Legislatures and which will
decide upon environmental issues, upon pricing issues and upon a wide variety
of issues in our oil and gas and other resource industries. That is the kind of economic leadership which
we have had from Conservative governments, federally, and certainly no
resistance from this particular government on either the Free Trade Agreement
or the North American Free Trade Agreement, in spite of the very clear dangers
that there are for the Manitoba economy, both our industrial economy and for
our resource economy in that North American integrated continental future.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think I will perhaps finish, with some of those remarks, my concerns
for the autonomy of Canada, for the economic development of Manitoba, my
concern for the composition of these boards and their ability to deliver
balanced, representative advice to the minister, my concern for the inability
of most Manitobans to read and understand this piece of legislation and the
absence of a plain‑language policy on the part of this government and
many other governments.
There are concerns
I know that many of my colleagues will raise, environmental concerns in the oil
and gas industry and, in particular, environmental concerns in this bill as
well, but I will leave it for now, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to hearing the representations
of the public and of specialists in this particular area at the hearings.
Thank you.
* (1520)
Bill 5‑‑The Northern
Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 5 (The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity once again to hopefully contribute something
to this debate, particularly Bill 5, which has to do with The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act.
I say I welcome
the opportunity to say a few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it gives me
an opportunity to not only address the proposed amendment, but also to put on
record some of the issues and concerns that I have as far as northern Manitoba
is concerned.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I have been travelling quite a bit in the North recently. I have been to all of the communities in my
constituency. Whenever I travel to the
communities that I represent‑‑I always look forward to going on a
tour, as I call it, but when I get there, actually visiting people in their
homes and occasionally even spending the night in some private homes in the
communities that I visit, meeting with community leaders and individuals and
hearing them expressing to me the problems that they encounter in their home
communities, and even witnessing a lot of the conditions that exist in those
communities, witnessing them first‑hand, at first I used to get
depressed, but I think what I do now is it gives me a heavy heart whenever I go
into the communities, looking at what exists there, yet at the same time people
are still hoping that things will improve somewhere down the road.
I want to say that
I visited
Some of the things
that I want to raise during this time is the way the transportation system
conditions exist as we are speaking here today.
The last time that
I visited
When you read the
letters that went to the community, and also the minutes, one gets the feeling
that they are positive. One gets the feeling that perhaps the government is
willing to listen to those leaders in
When I am there,
of course, I try to encourage the people. Yes, maybe the government is going to
move now, and then only to find out six weeks later that these meetings that
were held between the ministers of this government with community leaders of
As we are speaking
now, the winter roads are probably not in use anymore. When I was in
I want to also
say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the economic situation that exists in the North
is very much different from the economic situation that exists in the
South. That is to say that for those of
us who live in the South, we think and we say that things are pretty bad down
here, but sometimes I wish that when I go on some of these trips, that some
people from the Legislature, not just ministers who go in there for an hour,
two hours for an official ceremony or activities like that, but for ministers
or staff or even MLAs to travel with me on some of my trips to the North, so
that they can see actually first‑hand the situation that exists for those
people that I represent in the North.
For example, when
we talk about unemployment statistics and welfare rates say, for the city of
Stats
I think that is
unfortunate, because when we look at the unemployment situation in northern
I would hope that
sometime in the future Stats Canada will in fact include those numbers that
exist in the northern communities that I represent, the more isolated
communities.
I want to give an
account of my latest trip into one of the communities. I will not say which community it is; the
community knows which it is. In any
event, I was asked by the people that I visited to go with them to two homes of
elders, two houses, and they wanted me to see how those elders are living and
to see the conditions that they were living in.
So I went along with other colleagues of mine and friends in the
community to see first‑hand the living conditions of these two elderly
people. Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say
that I was disgusted. I did not know
what to think. My reaction was I wish we
could do something. I wish other people
would see this situation and then perhaps people would feel like doing something.
* (1530)
In any event, the
two elderly people whom I am referring to are bedridden, no home care. The community that I visited had at one time
put in a proposal for a care home and, unfortunately, the proposal had gone
nowhere and now they were having to deal with not just those two elderly
people, but other elders in the community as well having to put them in their
own homes and with nobody being able to look after them. So that is one kind of a situation.
Then, of course,
you go around at night visiting people in the community and you run into young
people. You visit the schools and you
get talking to young people in the schools and you ask them what kind of goals
and aspirations that they have, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again, when you talk to the young people, it
seems like whatever kind of feeling exists in the community I believe that kind
of thinking, the feeling of hopelessness or the feeling of giving up, they take
that to school and as a result they are not able to do very well for those young
people who are still in school.
When you look at
the young people, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you talk to elders, the chiefs and
councils, the mayors and councils they tell you, and I know I have often heard
this saying in this House myself, where people say, this is our future, when we
are referring to youth. Yet, when I look
at the youth with all the problems that they are encountering, the state of
mind that they are in at the moment in their communities and then when you
compare the youth with the elders, the state that there are in, it does not
give you a very good feeling because on one hand the elders were at one time
young, as the other youth that I am talking about and it almost seems to me
like it is coming full circle or you cannot even get any encouragement anymore
from the elders, because they are in a state of having to be looked after
themselves. Then when you look at the
youth, you do not see very much hope in their eyes either.
So, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am hoping that things will improve slowly as we go along. I am also hoping that governments will
eventually see that the way to solve a lot of these problems is to give those
people self‑government, self‑determination, give them the authority
and power to make decisions among themselves and also for government to support
some of these initiatives that aboriginal people are starting to establish in
their home communities.
I see that the
bill that we are discussing today, Madam Deputy Speaker, almost seems, for me
anyway, that we could have amended The Northern Affairs Act just a little bit
more in terms of giving the local people, the Northern Affairs communities more
autonomy. I remember in going through
Estimates last time around, I was asking the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey), in the area of training dollars, staff training and development for
these councils, who administers those training funds as small as they were, and
I was surprised to find that almost everything that is being done at the
community council level is done by staff at Northern Affairs.
I was telling the
minister at the time that I thought Indian Affairs, as bad as they are as well
in terms of decentralizing programs and services to Indian band councils, I
thought they were bad but I think the provincial government in terms of how
they deal with local governments and the Northern Association of Community
Councils, I think is much worse than what the Department of Indian Affairs is
doing to treaty Indian chiefs and councils.
As far as the
communities are concerned, Madam Deputy Speaker, we also have to understand
that in April of '85, there was a change to the Indian Act where a lot of
people who had lost their treaty status by marrying non‑Indians were
going to be reinstated back to being treaty Indians and band members of
whichever communities they came from.
When you look at funding for community councils‑‑like all
government departments, I know that is being done at the Department of Indian
Affairs level‑‑funding is based on population and a lot of these
communities in the North have lost a lot of their population back to the treaty
Indian communities. Also, there are
still quite a few of those nonstatus or aboriginal people having gained their
status back are still trying to get back into being band members of the various
bands that they came from.
It creates
problems for the communities in more ways than one, Madam Deputy Speaker. On one hand, the numbers are dwindling or
decreasing for the Metis side and so their funding gets decreased accordingly,
and at the same time a lot of these people who are living in the communities
really have nowhere to go because they have not been fully reinstated as band
members of the different bands that they come from, so they are having to go
with what is available in the Northern Affairs communities which, as I said
before, is less than what is available at the reserve level.
I wanted to also
mention, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what I probably see, besides self‑government,
self‑determination and so on and more local autonomy for the community
councils, is that in terms of the elderly both levels of government, federal
and provincial governments, should get together in trying to address the
problems that are being encountered by the elderly people, such as the funding
of care homes so that these elderly people who need care, some of them on a 24‑hour
basis, would not have to be sent out of their communities to places like The
Pas, Flin Flon, Thompson and Winnipeg and so on, but that they could,
hopefully, stay within their communities with their people and live in the care
homes that I was referring to.
* (1540)
Also, for the
youth, I think when we say, when referring to the young people in our
communities, that they are our future leaders, they are our future, that we
should pay more attention to the youth, not only in the North but throughout
I wanted to end by
saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, for me the situation that we have in the North,
especially in the isolated communities‑‑and I know Shamattawa is not
in my constituency; I know the three communities in the Garden Hill area and
Island Lake area are not in my constituency‑‑but I wanted to say as
far as I am concerned, if people are serious, if people mean what they say‑‑and
I am talking about governments, federal and provincial‑‑for
example, we had a big ceremony here the other day where a Metis leader was
finally recognized.
We hear‑‑and
I am not just talking about government ministers or staff people and so on‑‑but
I think if people really mean what they say whenever they say that they support
the aspirations of aboriginal people for self‑government, they should get
into partnerships with aboriginal people even though we encounter some problems
here and there with certain groups. I
maintain that if we mean what we say, then I think we should pay a little bit
more attention to the words, aboriginal self‑government, local autonomy,
local decision‑making powers and so on, because in my mind I really
believe that is the only way to go.
So long as those
people are shackled the way they are now, then I do not really believe that
things will improve. They are improving,
but not to the extent that they would if those communities were given more
autonomy and more self‑determination and so on.
So I urge the
government to be more serious when dealing with those people so that‑‑you
know, recently there was a lot of coverage that was being carried out for the
youth at Davis Inlet in northern Labrador, Madam Deputy Speaker. We do not have to go to Davis Inlet to find
the problems. We have it right here in
our own backyard in northern
That is why I
welcome the opportunity to say a few words on The Northern Affairs Amendment
Act, because I really wanted to again, although I have said those words before
in this House I do not mind saying them again.
Perhaps if we say them over and over again, things will eventually
change. Thank you very much.
Bill 8‑‑The Insurance
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second
reading of Bill 8 (The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
assurances), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr.
Maloway).
Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment
Act. I want to first of all indicate that a number of our members have spoken
on this bill, and there are many aspects of the bill that we do not find too
great a deal of controversy‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker says that one has spoken up to this point. I know that we
have spoken on all the bills with such frequency that I was sure it was more
than this, but I will indicate some major points during the course of my speech
on this issue.
I think, in
talking re insurance, it is a major industry, insurance itself, in this
province, everything from crop insurance to home and fire insurance and many
other kinds of insurance that you can get.
As well, of course, the issue of crop insurance itself, hail insurance,
is a very topical matter.
I see the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is here, and he has certainly been a great
believer in crop insurance over the years, to the extent that he has endorsed the
program which has made crop insurance the basis‑‑and data collected
from crop insurance is the basis for that program, for all of the benefits paid
out in the future extrapolated to another program, as a matter of fact, known
as GRIP. So I want to touch on that a
bit as well, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to just say
that, as an overview, some of the minor changes that are made recognizing
modern technology are certainly irrelevant, in terms of the sections that are
being removed from the bill are basically obsolete because of modern technology
and computerization and modern printers which allow things to be done much
quicker and co‑ordinate the work rather than, as it has been done in the
past, in a manual way. So the bill does
reflect those changes and does update the act.
I note the
explanation clauses that have been provided to us by the minister are certainly
helpful in the discussion. The reference
to reinsurance about spreading the risks for reinsurance amongst insurers is
something that I marvelled at, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I saw how this
business was done with Lloyd's of London during my opportunity to meet with the
officials from Lloyd's of London on two occasions actually, once in Frobisher
Bay and at Churchill where they accompanied us to review the insurance for the
Port of Churchill, and as well in London where we met with the London Salvage
Association, as well as the underwriters, to review those rates.
It was quite an
eye opener to tour the Lloyd's of London headquarters in London, interesting at
that time that the old headquarters which had been in place for hundreds of
years was just being abandoned as such to new headquarters, a magnificent new
building which cost an extraordinary amount, a very impressive new facility
that Lloyd's of London was moving to at that time. We had the opportunity to take a tour of the
old building and also of the new one at that time when they were in the
transition.
I noticed that
there was a system of spreading the risks that I never knew actually existed,
because they were dealing with such large numbers. They were dealing with insurance on 747s and
on huge ships travelling to Churchill and many other areas of the country. They had to underwrite this risk in a way
that would not put any one of them in a situation where they could actually go
under if a disaster occurred. They had
to spread the risk around with 1 or 2 percent with each insurance company. They would go around from one to the other in
this large open area until finally they had filled 100 percent of the insurance
requirement. It was quite interesting to
note and watch this process taking place.
* (1550)
We met with
several of the underwriters, Timothy Hum and Tony Nunn, for example, two of
those, who were very helpful in showing us the tour and showing us the
facilities and also telling us how these things were going to change in the
next while. At that time I marvelled at
what seemed like a tremendous wealth of each of these insurers. They all had to post personal bonds and
additional monies to ensure the integrity of the company, Lloyd's of
London. It was based on the integrity of
each of those individuals, those underwriters, putting up money of their own as
security to ensure that no matter how big the disaster, that there would always
be money to pay for it if it occurred.
However, as a
result of a number of disasters that occurred in the late '80s and early '90s‑‑as
a matter of fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, what seemed to be an impervious layer
of wealth that would never ever be scratched did, in fact, take place. A large number of underwriters were put at
risk as a result of huge disasters that took place with the chemical disaster
in
It was really
something to see, and I felt a personal attachment to it, which might surprise
some of the members opposite, because of having met people like Timothy Hum and
Tony Nunn and others from the underwriters in
So it taught me
something in terms of reserves and risks, that you can never be too safe and
too sure. You always have to have a
fallback and supporting position. Well,
there is always a need for insuring that there is sufficient backing for any
transaction that takes place in the field because, no matter how safe it may
seem at any particular time, accidents and disasters occur without warning in
many cases. As a result, people can be
cleaned right out very quickly, and companies can be cleaned out.
That is something
that, of course, Autopac experienced to a certain extent in 1988 at the time
that we were in government, when we lost the vote in the House when our
backbencher, at that time the member for St. Vital, voted against the
government.
We can look at
that situation because it was interesting in 1986 the Tories campaigned against
us on the basis that rates were too high and that they were going to give
refunds to drivers because there was a reserve.
They did not like the size of the reserve and said, we are going to give
this money back; the NDP is hoarding it.
The members remember that. [interjection]
Well, the member for
But the members
will know that at that time, in 1986‑‑I am putting this in relation
to what happened to Lloyd's of London. There seemed to be too big a reserve to
the opposition Conservatives at the time.
They were saying that the NDP should not have those big reserves they
got hoarded away. Now, whether they
actually believed it or whether in fact it was just done for political
purposes, I guess we will not resolve here today, but we are talking about $50
million or so as being too high.
I have to say,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that in subsequent years because of a string of
unfortunate circumstances, because of weather and icing conditions and whatever
else, there was a large draw on MPIC; as a result, that reserve was gone within
a very short time. If we were to look
prophetically at this, we would have been able to take the steps to build that
reserve even higher, but considering that we were being criticized roundly for
even having that size of reserve, I think it was unfair criticism subsequently
to say the NDP government should have been able to foresee and therefore have
increased the rates along the way in '86 and '87 so that in '88 we would not
have had this crisis that happened.
In retrospect it
is easy to say that and to lay blame, but I think the management was pretty
sound at that time. We did have a good
reserve. We disagreed with the Tories,
who were coming out and saying, we are going to give that reserve back, $15 to
each driver. Remember that, to all the
drivers, they were going to give them each a refund to get rid of this?
Now I think, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that we have to look very carefully at that kind of thing, at
reserves. It is very important in the
insurance business to ensure that there is a reserve that is realistic, because
we see that unforeseen circumstances in combination can result in disaster very
quickly.
Of course, we have
other circumstances that are involved there now in the insurance business,
though it is related of course to the third‑party liability in payouts
for injury claims, which have really overtaken collision claims. There is a need for the government to look at
that whole area, to set some norms or cap those awards in some way so that
there is a way to budget almost for it and there are foreseeable consequences
as a result of injuries in accidents because, as it is now, I think we are
going to end up making it very difficult for the average car owner to be able
to afford insurance in the near future.
We have to
remember of course that in Manitoba our insurance rates are still much lower
than most other private insurance coverage in other provinces, but that is not
a good enough reason to not look at keeping those costs as realistic as
possible, because we soon will find that their rates are too high for a lot of
people to afford. I think that is why we
brought this in in the early 1970s in the first place, to get away from those
huge costs, particularly for young people who cannot remember that now. All of those people are in their 40s probably
and 50s remembering back to when insurance was brought in, that they had to pay
insurance to private companies at that time that was much higher when Autopac
was brought in.
So I think it is
important when we are looking at the insurance issue that we ensure that there
is a way to spread the risk around, that there are limitations to that risk,
because disasters can occur very quickly, as has happened with Lloyd's of
London, and I hope we can all learn from that experience.
* (1600)
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I wanted to speak a little bit about some of the issues associated
with hail insurance in this bill as well.
I note that there are some changes that will allow a speedup of the
coverage for hail insurance, whereas it might have taken up to four days
following a transaction before the insurance actually came into effect. It will now be noon the next day, and that is
very important. You cannot have it the
same day, as a farmer sees the hail clouds looming on the horizon and goes in
and buys his insurance. That would not
be proper either but, on the other hand, noon the next day is reasonable, and
yet it was not the case in many instances because of the time it took for
transactions to be recorded that sometimes people had to delay up to four days
before they got the insurance. In the
meantime they could have suffered a disaster during that time.
The Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) may want to comment on this, because one of the notes
that his government has provided for the opposition speaking notes on The
Insurance Amendment Act says: Where crop
hail insurance is purchased through an agent, the time delay on the coverage
taking effect is reduced to noon the next day from a delay of up to four days.
This comes from
his government, so in those cases I am saying that this is an important change
because four days is like an eternity of hail hits. Meanwhile, the farmer in all good faith had
gone out and purchased insurance but does not get credit for it simply because
the transaction was not completed‑‑[interjection]
The minister has
clarified an important point that is in the notes here. I think that not all farmers used registered
mail, and therefore, were not able to take advantage of the "noon the next
day." So there was a four‑day
delay. That will not happen anymore
under this system. I think that is
important, because it may have been‑‑I say to the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)‑‑that some farmers did not know that;
maybe they were not told by the agent‑‑[interjection]
Well, the agent
should, but what the agent does in all cases‑‑maybe he is
distracted, maybe busy with somebody else.
By the time the transaction is done, the farmer goes out thinking he has
got hail insurance, and he or she does not.
I think we better be careful to use he or she because my colleague the
member for
It is an area that
the Minister of Agriculture has got some work to do yet, even though he points
to parts of the report that say, well, things are not too bad. The fact is, he says he is going to implement
it and we are waiting. We are waiting
for equality in insurance coverage and transactions for women in
agriculture. There is a way to go
yet. The minister knows that.
As a matter of
fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), says his own daughter cannot get
her own policy. In a way, that is
encouraging to note that there is no discrimination there. It does not matter if you are Minister of
Finance or who it is. On the other hand,
it points to the problem. That is that
this has to be addressed because women have always been deemed to be
subordinate or co‑operative partners with the husband, rather than
farmers in their own right. That has to
be dealt with. I think that we could
say, quite fairly, he has been tardy in dealing with this issue.
He has been the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) now for some five years, and he has not
dealt with it yet. I mean, he set the
tone. Look it, President Clinton has set
the tone in 60 days in what he is going to do and that is going to set the tone
for the rest of his administration. [interjection]
Well, it sets the tone for that administration for the next four years. It is true.
If the minister had intended to address this, he would have addressed it
during the first 60 days that he was minister and said: Listen, staff, I want this dealt with, this
is important. [interjection]
Well, the minister
is now talking about a mess. I wonder
what kind of a mess he is cooking up right now.
We will find out in a few years.
An Honourable Member: No, you will
never find out.
Mr. Plohman: We will find
out. Now the minister says he can cover
his tracks. He says, we will never find
out.
An Honourable Member: No, I did not say
that.
Mr. Plohman: Well, he says, we
will never find out. Now what does that
mean? We will never find out? Well, I think now the member is starting to
get a little worried about that kind of thinking, because he knows that there
is going to be a government of another political stripe, most likely a New
Democratic Party, in
I think people are
looking at this and say, forget about them, forget about it. It is straight polarization now between the
NDP and the Conservatives in the next election.
So, clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) has got to start worrying, and if he is worried about covering his
tracks, he better clean up his mess before we get to it, because there is going
to be a mess there.
Unfortunately for
the people of
Let me just say,
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have watched, with some deep concern as well, the
Minister of Agriculture in terms of his reliance on the crop insurance that was
in place in this province. He came in
with a review after he established GRIP. He knew there were serious flaws in
crop insurance, but he still went ahead with GRIP based solely on it, made no
exceptions because it was administratively convenient. No sense making things complicated. Now he finds out that what we were saying all
along was right. He probably knew it,
but would not admit it. He kept his head
in the sand during the last few years when he was coming forward with that. If it gets too complicated, do not bother me
with all that administrative stuff. I do
not want all that complicated stuff.
This is nice and simple. He did
it like a bureaucrat, simply like a bureaucrat.
Keep it simple, stupid. We told
him to look at other options so that there would be fairness in the
program. We did not get fairness from this
minister.
That is one of the
problems that we are going to have to clean up after this program is gone, the
remnants of it, or whatever is there by the time this minister is thrown out of
office. So these are things‑‑[interjection] I know that, but you
cannot do it all. We have an excellent
critic of Agriculture right here who is going to tear a strip off this minister
daily. I believe that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is already making
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) sit up and start taking a look at the
mess he has got behind him and start cleaning it up already, because I think if
he got one bit of advice from Saskatchewan, from the Devine government, it is,
do not leave a mess like we left there because, darn it, I will tell you we are
getting blamed for everything. And they
are being blamed for everything, rightly so.
I do not want to
have to see that happen in
We hope that once
the Conservatives are thrown out of office nationally, there will not be that
vindictive attitude and there will be a way of working with the national
government in the common best interests of those farmers, rather than having
them fighting with each other.
The minister knows
that that is important, although he has had the luxury of having a like‑minded
government in the Conservative government in
They are going to
go out and campaign for the federal Tories, there is no doubt. I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) is going to be out there campaigning for the candidate in his riding
federally for the Conservatives; I think he will be. Despite the fact that they have been that
bad, he is still going to vote Conservative; he is still going to go and work
for them. So he is no different than
they are. [interjection] Mr. Crosbie
phoned me a few years ago. That is the
last time I wanted to talk to him.
* (1610)
An Honourable Member: Who is running
for the NDP in Dauphin‑Swan River?
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Stan Struthers.
An Honourable Member: Did he take a leave
of absence for the last year?
Mr. Plohman: The member for
Brian White made
the right decision, because he saw the writing on the wall. He knew it was game over, so he might as well
get out with some grace.
Now, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I wanted to say to the Minister of Agriculture, because I have been
slightly distracted. I want to indicate,
though, that in other opportunities on Agriculture, we will have an opportunity
to address this minister's ill‑advised reliance on crop insurance. He has heard our lecture before; we will add
to it, embellish it a bit, bring it out in such a way that the minister will
fully understand, because he has difficulty grasping these things, because he
has blinders on and he is going with tunnel vision only one way and he cannot
see around him all of the difficulties that he has created as he is stepping on
top of the crop and crushing it as he walks over it through these fields.
We want to get
that message across and we will. I will
indicate to the minister that we expect him to make those changes even if he
did not in the first 60 days. I was
mentioning President Clinton. It does
set the tone. It is five years down the
road, but, you know, it is never too late with crop insurance to make the
improvements that are necessary. The
minister can take a different turn, go a different direction now, and he might
have a year or two to do it. That is a
long time for the minister. He can maybe
make some improvements, as I said, clean up the mess, and leave the New
Democratic Party government in a much better situation when we take over on the
agriculture front at least in
Thank you, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Bill 10‑‑The Farm Lands
Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 10 (The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Leave? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 11‑‑The Regional
Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of Bill 11 (The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The
Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la Loi sur les
municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): I wanted to take this opportunity to put a few
remarks on the record with respect to Bill 11, The Regional Waste Management
Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
I do so today
because this piece of legislation is one which has a particular interest in my
constituency, in my part of
Madam Deputy
Speaker, by way of background, and I would for a short while like to speak
about just the history in my area, which I think illustrates very clearly the
need for this legislation and the means by which this legislation will
facilitate a much better handling of our waste managements problems in rural
Manitoba.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, around the time of the
last election in 1990, a number of municipalities in northeastern
At that particular
time the group of residents from Beausejour who had approached me, we held a
number of meetings with them and made the recommendation that they take to
their councils, the Council of the R.M. of Brokenhead, of which Mr. Clarence
Baker is reeve; the town of Beausejour, of which Don Mazur is mayor; and the
village of Garson as well, that they take a proposal to those three
municipalities who shared the existing Sebright dump facility and suggest that
they work together to look at a new waste management system for our community.
Following an
initial very positive response from those three municipalities, my office
expanded the request, or traded the information with the other municipalities
in northeastern
At Baudette,
serving a relatively small number of communities over a fairly large area, what
they managed to do was to do two things that I think are fundamental to proper
waste management. One was to separate from their waste stream all the items
that were in fact recyclable and to separate those, to store them, to find
markets for them and to move them out of the traditional method of simply
burying them in their waste disposal grounds.
The second thing
that they did, Mr. Acting Speaker, which I and the group found to be very
innovative, was the composting of everything else that was left, the
nonrecyclables. In essence, they ground
the stuff up, left it in piles which they turned regularly, the piles being in
a covered area and, over a period of months, managed to have this material
compost into a product that‑‑
An Honourable Member: Did they have
a manure spreader in there?
Mr. Praznik: Well, the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer) talks about a manure spreader, but it is sort of similar. I am not a scientist, but perhaps a similar process,
after which they would sift out any of the metal that was remaining and then
spread this throughout a particular site.
What we saw was literally years of garbage composted down into a
relatively small amount of product. Now,
I leave to those with the scientific knowledge to tell us whether or not that
in fact is a benign product or if there are risks to it, but it certainly made
for a very sound waste management policy, because they eliminated a large
volume of material and they certainly took out of the waste stream the
recyclables.
When we returned
from Baudette, I was part of the group and, when we got all of the players back
together, all of the municipalities, there was an agreement struck that they
would pursue a regional waste model on the Baudette line for our region. This was probably one of the first areas in
Manitoba‑‑I know there is one area in southern
The co‑ordinating
committee between these municipalities‑‑I believe it involves the
Village of Lac du Bonnet, the Rural Municipality of Lac du Bonnet, the Local
Government District of Pinawa, the R.M. of Whitemouth. I believe the LGD of Reynolds was involved,
certainly the R.M. of Brokenhead, the Town of Beausejour, the Village of
Garson, and I think even the R.M. of St. Clements expressed some interest, as
well as the LGD of Alexander.
This group, in
working to put together this concept, held numerous public meetings throughout
our area, garnered I think a great deal of public support, but one of the
things that was very critical to the success of this project, two things, in
fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this group found were critical in their belief
to the success of this project were that there be a mechanism for the grouping
of municipalities to be able to come together and create an appropriate
authority to deal with the problem which we did not have the provision for in
The Municipal Act and, secondly, and I really must stress this, this was
critical from their point of view, was a mechanism by which this authority
could levy a charge on a per‑household or per‑resident or per‑user
basis as opposed to the traditional method of municipalities funding services,
which was to go back to the general rate base.
* (1620)
In an area that is
significantly agricultural, to levy it on the basis of the assessment base
would have imposed a very large portion of the cost on farmland, which was not
necessarily generating the waste, to the relief of the homeowner. So they said to us‑‑I believe
there was correspondence to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach)‑‑I
think the issue was raised at the Union of Manitoba Municipalities convention,
where a resolution was passed, if I am not mistaken, in this matter. They asked
that we provide them with the ability to levy such a fee for waste management
activity, waste disposal, recycling, et cetera, on a user basis, some form of
user basis, whether it be household, industrial use, whatever would be
appropriate.
This act provides
just for that. The Baudette model, which
this group looked at, at that particular time, some years ago, called for this
particular method, because what they do in
So it was a way of
encouraging people to recycle, to cash in on those dollars they have in their
waste product, get them into the recycling stream and, at the same time,
provide a financial penalty, in essence, for those who would not do it and, in
doing so, finance, either through the sale of the recyclables or this
particular fee, the operation of their regional waste management system.
So it was a very
innovative model. It is certainly one
that the committee in my constituency, northeastern
If I just may for
a moment on a bit of a side issue to this‑‑and some of my urban
colleagues in this House may be most interested in this particular point‑‑in
my five years as an MLA, one of the most contentious issues that I have seen in
communities, perhaps one of the most divisive issues in communities, is
whenever a municipality has to site what one could call an undesirable
neighbour, when they have to site a sewage lagoon or a waste nuisance ground or
some public facility that is not exactly a desirable facility to have as a
neighbour.
Traditionally in
rural Manitoba, almost every municipality has had its own waste disposal
ground, many of them in sites that quite frankly should never have hosted such
facilities, old gravel pits, bore holes, et cetera, from which gravel is
extracted for highway and road construction.
Those, of course, have to be cleaned up.
We have come a long way and we have certainly learned that that is not
where we should be siting these facilities.
Whenever a
municipality has to site sewage lagoons, nuisance grounds, what have you, the
calls to an MLA's office come very quickly from the people who live around the
proposed site. When you represent, as I
do, 10 municipalities, you come to realize very quickly that if each one of
those, or each grouping of two or three, has to site a facility, it can be a
very difficult process to the municipalities involved.
So the concept of
going to a regional facility, certainly in the days when transportation costs,
relatively speaking, are quite a bit less and much more practical than they
were 20 or 30 years ago, is certainly one that is desirable from the point of
view of the municipalities, because it allows them to come together and have to
go through the very difficult process of siting only one facility in a region
as opposed to many of them.
One hurdle,
obviously, that this northeast waste management group and other regional
municipal waste authorities will have to overcome is still that view of a
disposal nuisance ground as being a very undesirable facility. I think most people in our communities have a
view, I am sure other rural members would be aware of this, our people have the
view that these facilities tend to be awful places with garbage scattered
around. They tend to attract rats and
other undesirable rodents.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, the Baudette model, and again I would like to just stress this point,
what we noticed when we were in
I understand, and
I would hope that the regional waste authorities that can be created under this
act will be looking at these new technologies, will be looking at minimizing
the adverse appearance and difficulties associated with management grounds.
Consequently, the difficult fights, the difficult battles that municipalities
encounter in siting these types of facilities will be minimized. It certainly never will be eliminated, I am
sure, but certainly will be minimized.
So, Mr. Acting
Speaker, this piece of legislation which I know the minister has worked very
hard on to ensure that it meets the needs of this changing manner in which we
are dealing with waste product in rural Manitoba is one that I think deserves
the consideration and support of this Assembly.
I certainly know, not only my own facility in northeastern Manitoba, but
other blocks of municipalities are exploring the regional waste concept and are
awaiting this type of legislation very eagerly.
I would hope that
this is one bill that can receive relatively speedy passage in this House to
enable those municipalities to get on with their planning, get on with their
work in dealing with some very serious waste management problems in rural
So I would like to
thank the House for allowing me this opportunity to put a few of my thoughts
and involvement with this particular issue on the record. I would hope that all members of this House,
all parties in this House would support this very innovative and important and
I think much awaited piece of legislation.
Thank you.
Bill 12‑‑The
International Trusts Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice
(Mr. McCrae), Bill 12, (The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies
internationales), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is there leave for this matter to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 13‑‑The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 13, (The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Is there leave for
this matter to remain standing? [agreed]
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): What would the will of the government House
leader be?
Is it the will of
the House to call it five o'clock? [agreed]
* (1630)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The hour now being five o'clock, it is now time for private
members' hour.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 5‑‑Federal‑Provincial
Agreements on Immigration
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to put forward this
resolution. I move, seconded by the
member for
WHEREAS
immigration has been, and continues to be, fundamental to the future of our
country; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS changes
regarding immigration are matters of great concern to the public and should be
open to public hearings in
WHEREAS the
provincial government of
WHEREAS the
federal government held hearings on Bill C‑78 only in
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial
government to consider holding public hearings regarding proposed changes to
immigration, recruitment, selection and settlement legislation and/or programs
with ample opportunity for all Manitobans to participate; and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to consider having a
full review and public hearings on any agreement between the federal and
provincial governments regarding immigration matters.
Motion presented.
Ms. Cerilli: I am pleased for the indulgence as I
struggle still with parliamentary procedures.
They are so logical.
I am pleased to
put forward this resolution which deals with a very important matter. We have been through the last couple of years
of constitutional dealings, and it has come forward that there be changes in
the responsibility for immigration.
Point of Order
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship): Mr. Acting Speaker, I wonder if I might
clarify and get some sense from the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) about
"the federal government held public hearings on Bill C‑78 only in
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
The honourable minister did not have a point of order, but possibly the
member for Radisson could find out if the comment is correct.
Point of Order
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Speaker, I
might ask you then whether in fact this resolution is relevant, if there is a
federal piece of legislation that is referred to in here that really has
nothing to do with immigration.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please. The
honourable minister did not have a point of order, but it could be related to a
matter of debate on the relevancy or on whether it is correct to call it Bill C‑78. We will leave it open to exactly that, and
that is a debate within the House.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: These little details
are not as important. It is the big
issues we would hope you would get right.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, if there is a typographical error in the resolution, I am sure that it
will be corrected. The minister is
saying that she is aware of the correct number, and I would be happy for her to
put forward a friendly amendment to that effect as she sees fit.
The real issues of
course in immigration are a serious concern and that does not detract from the
seriousness of this bill, and it does not detract from the serious concerns
that a number of people are expressing, both about this government's approach
to immigration matters and settlement issues as well as their federal cousins
and friends in
We see a lot of
confusion, I think, in government dealing with these issues, and I am quite
concerned that when questions are raised regarding immigration that often this
government is saying it is not a federal responsibility. I remember not long ago raising the issue of
refugees, and I remember reading an article that said that 80 percent of the
refugees in the world are women and children.
When I asked what
kind of policies this government is going to bring forward to deal with that
kind of an issue, the answer I get from the minister is that it is not a
federal responsibility. Then the next
day or the next same Question Period to another question they will answer that
they are strongly moving forward in an aggressive fashion to deal with
immigration agreements with the federal government. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, you cannot have it
both ways. Are you or are you not moving
towards an agreement, and are you or are you not prepared to share with the
public in
Now, those are the
kinds of things that I would like to see discussed, and those are some of the
issues I am sure would be raised at public hearings that this resolution is
suggesting. There is a lot of talk about immigration now being necessary for
the future of
We hear over and
over again how there are not the services, whether it is in housing, whether it
is in language training, whether it is in employment equity programs, whether
it is in the kind of training so that accreditation can take place, whether it
is simply to have legitimate credentials and training recognized in a fair and
nonracist way.
The whole idea
that we can have immigrants come to this country and it is going to benefit the
economy is something that we have to deal with very carefully. Bringing new Canadians to
* (1640)
Unfortunately, we
have to deal with the perception that that is a problem. The perception that we hear all the time is
that newcomers will take jobs away from Canadians. The argument is that more jobs will be
created by the increase in spending of new Canadians by the increase in
purchasing of goods and services and the increase in the size of market in the
country.
I am also quite
concerned‑‑particularly because it is International Women's Day, I
will spend some time on this‑‑in some of the double standards that
are used in dealing with‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):
Order, please. Could I have those
honourable members wishing to carry on a conversation across the way in the
loge to have their discussion, so that we could hear the honourable member for
Radisson?
Ms. Cerilli: I was talking about the importance
of looking at barriers that are being faced by women who desire to be new
Canadians. A number of the programs we
have that are designed to attract independent investors or entrepreneurs and
that sort of professional class of new Canadian, it could be shown that they
systemically discriminate against women.
Women, especially in other parts of the world that are not as affluent
as Canada, North America, do not have the capital and the education that more
and more women are enjoying in this part of the world, so there are those kinds
of problems.
There are also
problems of double standards that are used when we look at the kind of
restrictions that are placed on the human rights of women working as domestic
workers. We know that the majority of
people coming to
I have heard some
people talk about how this kind of a program is just new‑age or modern‑day
slavery. That is pretty strong language
to use, but when you look at the salary these women earn, when you look at the
working conditions that they often work in, when you look at the limits on
their ability to come and go as they please, when you look at the kind of work
that they are doing, it is difficult to see how this is different from other
ways that particularly women have been exploited.
I have heard
horror stories, as well, of how domestic workers in various countries have been
exploited and abused by both their employers and others, because they often
come to a country where they know little about the culture and have very few
other contacts and live a life of isolation and poverty.
There needs to be,
when we are talking about immigration, I think a balance. We are looking at the different kinds of
immigration that has occurred in
I am quite opposed
to the idea that
All of these
issues would be brought to the fore, Mr. Acting Speaker, if we had public
hearings. There would be many people, I
know, that would be anxious to make presentations on these and other issues who
have far more experience and expertise in these areas than I do. They often have stories that they can share
which I think would benefit the government, where we would learn, all of us,
what it is like to come to Canada in this day and age, because I think in all
of our families‑‑many of us come from families that were immigrants
to Canada.
I know that I am a
first‑generation Canadian, and I listen to my parents, and I have
listened to my grandparents talk about their experience, but I also know that
the changes in the world that have occurred since they came here have made the
immigrant experience much different.
When I talk to
young people who have come to this country recently, I am reminded again how
different it is, how different the pressures are, and I am quite concerned that
new Canadians who are young are torn even more, perhaps, by the cultural
conflict between the Canadian dominant culture and the traditional heritage
cultures of their parents and families. Young people are under tremendous
stress to try and negotiate between the cultures that they deal with in their
school life and workplaces and with their friends, and then the culture that
they deal with at home and with their families.
We need to have services to support young people so that they can sort
out for themselves how they are going to meld and blend the various cultures
that they are grappling with.
Just on a note of
conclusion, members know that we have changed portfolios and I am no longer the
critic for this area of immigration and multiculturalism, but I would like to
say that in my opinion this blending of traditional heritage cultures and the
culture that is prevalent in Canada is the challenge of multiculturalism. As we move forward towards the year 2000, I
hope that Canada will become better and model for the world that there are ways
of balancing and blending different cultures which can enrich not only people
individually, but can enrich all of our community and society.
With that, I would
thank you for the opportunity to put forward this resolution and would
encourage not only all members of the House on our side, but also on the
government side to support it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise to speak on immigration and the negotiation of a federal‑provincial
immigration agreement specifically made for
I do think that it
is incumbent upon members of the official opposition when they bring forward
resolutions to this Legislature that in fact they quote accurately whatever
legislation it is that they are referring to in their resolutions. That was the reason I stood earlier on a
point of order, which I guess was not a point of order, but I would anticipate
that anyone who has a concern and an issue regarding a piece of federal
legislation which she would like to see Manitoba hold hearings on bring forward
the proper piece of legislation referred to in her resolution for
recommendation to this Legislature. I
would encourage the new critic for Multiculturalism and Citizenship to research
a little better than the former critic did before she comes forward with
legislation that she is encouraging us to support.
* (1650)
Mr. Acting
Speaker, I do not think there is a member of this House, indeed, a person in
Manitoba who does not believe that immigration makes a very valuable contribution
not only to our country of Canada but to our province of Manitoba. Along with immigration comes social and
economic benefits in which all of us can share.
As we all know, it has been solely within federal jurisdiction to
determine first of all the number of immigrants who come to
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Under the new legislation, Bill C‑86
that was introduced into the Parliament of Canada, the federal Minister of Employment
and Immigration presented several changes to the Immigration Act. One of the
major components of the new legislation, of course, was to provide for a
potential expansion of provincial roles in a number of areas of the immigration
process.
Through this
legislation now there is an enabling of provinces to have the opportunity to
formalize the provincial immigration levels and composition within an annual
plan and a process of constructive consultations on a range of policies
impacting on provincial jurisdiction and the ability to establish a selection
process prescribed by Manitoba statutes and the development of financial
immigrant sponsorship criteria and the direct input to the formal application
of inadmissibility provisions under the act.
Mr. Speaker, to be
very specific, if an agreement is reached with
At this point in
time, Mr. Speaker,
I think that we
all know that the federal government in its quest to downsize somewhat the
programs and services that it does provide to provinces is looking at
centralizing some of the immigration activities, some of the activities that
may not be available in
We know for a fact
that the numbers of immigrants coming to
Mr. Speaker, it is
not an easy issue to come around or to understand. There are many complexities, and those
complexities do lead to a series of negotiations that really have to be looked
at, a made‑in‑Manitoba response to the solution of not only
accepting our humanitarian responsibility for immigrants, for refugees to
Manitoba, but also to look at the economic side of immigration.
I have always said
that multiculturalism, immigration does mean business, too, and we are very
fortunate to have among us in
There is no doubt
in my mind that people do come to
Mr. Speaker,
although I do not agree with the whole intent of the resolution, I do believe
that all members of this House would support our government very strongly in
working towards an immigration agreement where we in Manitoba have a made‑in‑Manitoba
solution, where indeed we have some control over the numbers and kinds of
immigrants that come to enhance our Manitoba community and our Manitoba
economy.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer),
THAT Resolution 5
be amended by deleting all words following the first "whereas,"
especially deleting the reference to Bill C‑78 when indeed it is Bill C‑86
that is the federal immigration act, and replacing them with the following:
WHEREAS
immigration has been, and continues to be, fundamental to the future of our
country; and
WHEREAS the annual
intake of immigrants to
WHEREAS
WHEREAS this
situation has made planning for the settlement and integration of newcomers to
WHEREAS the
current immigration system does not enable
WHEREAS
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba actively pursue an
immigration agreement with the federal government.
Motion presented.
* (1700)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker, this
particular bill that the federal government has brought forward, Bill C‑86,
will have an impact on all Manitobans, if not directly at the very least
indirectly. This is the reason why we
feel that it is worthy of having some debate inside this Chamber because, as
the minister himself alluded to, right now we are in a bit of a tricky position
in the sense that we do not have an immigration agreement with the federal
government. Other provinces do have an
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, that
does cause some concern in the sense that we have the
The minister made
reference to the number of immigrants, the per capita in the
I would argue, as
the minister had referred to in terms of the hard numbers, that we are not
getting our fair share. It is important
that we speak as one inside this Chamber, because whatever the political party
is that happens to be in
That is what
causes the concern. This is why I, on
behalf of the Liberal caucus, wish the minister well in terms of the
negotiations in order to ensure that
Mr. Speaker, the
federal government has to play the leading role when it comes to
immigration. I hope that other members
in this Chamber, at least I know within my caucus, believe that, but all
members of this Chamber, I believe, should recognize the fact that it is the
federal government that should be playing the leading role of immigration.
We need the
federal government to do that, because we cannot compete with other stronger
provinces that have the population base and the larger treasury board to be
able to set up little embassies, if you like, throughout the world, that it is
in our best interest that the federal government take a very active role in
ensuring that all the different regions in Canada are, in fact, getting that
fair share.
That means, Mr.
Speaker, whether it is an embassy in Hong Kong, whether it is one in New Delhi,
the United States, wherever it might be, that the national government is
speaking on behalf of all of the different provinces, especially those
provinces that do not have, as I say, the treasuries in order to be able to
compete.
What type of a
role does the provincial government have in playing with immigration other than
through these immigration agreements to achieve some sort of a fair share? What other role does the province have to
play? Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to
you that ESL, English as a Second Language, is something in which the province
does need to play a role in ensuring that the resources are there.
It does not matter
who or which group I go out to speak with or to talk to, one of the primary
concerns that they have is, how can we compete if we are not given the ability
to learn English, to be able to go and compete for the jobs or to be able to
talk amongst the different communities?
It is not just economic. It is
social, the community clubs that are scattered throughout the province. There is a benefit by having an enhanced ESL
program in which I would argue, in the long term, would be cost efficient.
Immigration
settlement‑‑obviously, the province has to play a role in terms of
how and where we can facilitate or maximize a settlement throughout the
province, Mr. Speaker. This especially,
I would suggest to you, applies in terms of some of the job‑related
industries. I look in terms of health
care as an example, in terms of northern Manitobans and the demands in northern
It is programs of
this nature‑‑I can recall a few years back when my colleague the
member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) made reference to a shortage of doctors in
rural Manitoba, and why not come up with an internship program that would allow
these qualified immigrants the opportunity to use their skills while, at the
same time, ensuring that those rural Manitobans are receiving the medical
attention that they in fact need.
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, that
leads me to another issue in which the provincial government has to play a role
primarily because the federal government is not filling that role, and that one
of course is of accreditation. People
want to be put on equal playing fields.
I have had a number of different professions, engineering, accounting,
health care, again, in particular with nursing, where we have seen immigrants
that have come to Canada and they are washing dishes or driving a taxi or doing
that labour‑intensified work primarily because the talents that they
brought to Canada are not being recognized for whatever the reason might
be. In some cases, it might be those
associations that are out there, very powerful associations, that many groups
tell me form a type of a barrier, a barrier which is very hard to overcome.
Those are the type
of things that government‑‑in particular, I would like to see more
of a stronger role from the federal government, but failing that the provincial
government should take a stronger stand in ensuring that those fields, those
systemic barriers if you will, are in fact being brought down. Hopefully, Mr.
Speaker, we will see that.
This resolution
deals with a bill that is being passed in
There are a number
of issues out there that I see that have to be addressed, and hopefully this
government or the next federal government, whoever is going to be there, will
start acknowledging that there are some problems. I want to point out a couple of those
problems.
First is the
question of the fee that is charged to would‑be immigrants in order to
come to
I think that is
unfortunate, that if the argument to have these fees is to ensure that it is
cost recovering, that these applications are not going to be costing Canadian
taxpayers, if you will. [interjection]
Well, if you have to have some sort of a fee, maybe what you should be doing is
orienting that fee onto successful applicants, individuals that are successful
in coming to
If, in fact, they
are accepted, you will find that they do not mind having to pay the fee. In fact, you could likely even increase the
fee; if, on the other end, for those who have put in the application, that fee
is going to be going down. That is an
issue that comes up all of the time when I am going out to, especially some of
the more immigration waves, whether it is the Polish community or the Filipino
community and other communities, that comes up consistently, because this is
where, if you take a look at the demographics in the province of Manitoba, we
have been receiving a large number of immigrants.
I have been
personally able to see the benefits of these immigrants, Mr. Speaker, and the
hospitality that has been shown to me. I
have seen the entrepreneurs and the talents that they have brought. Let us not discourage individuals from making
application to come to
Another concern
that I have is the issue of where we have scattered throughout the world in the
different embassies, our resources. How
many immigrant processors or immigration officers do we have, let us say,
located in
What I have heard
and what the feedback that I have been getting is, that if you want to come,
depending on the region of the world that you live in, you could wait up to two
and a half, three years, whereas on the other hand, if you are coming from
another region, you can wait 60 days, 90 days.
Mr. Speaker, I believe
that, at least in part, the reason for that is because the federal government
does not have the resources allocated out in such a fashion that people
throughout the world are being treated fairly.
I am not convinced that, in fact, the government has been
straightforward, and hopefully we will see those changes.
That is why I
believe at times it is a positive thing when we see a resolution of this
nature, even though it might be somewhat factually inaccurate. But it is important that we discuss issues of
this nature, because at the very least for those who are here, they get a
better understanding in terms of those individuals that have been going out to
the community because of critic responsibilities or ministerial
responsibilities, some of the ideas that we have run into.
In that sense, I
think it is a positive thing, and hopefully when we see resolutions being
debated inside the Chamber‑‑these are the type of resolutions that
I believe do have benefit. The amendment
that has been put forward from the minister‑‑generally speaking, I
do not support resolutions that are self‑congratulatory in nature, but I
do want to conclude by wishing the minister responsible, Mr. Speaker, in the
best‑‑and in hopes that we can achieve this immigration agreement soon
because, as I say, I do not believe that we have been getting fair treatment.
Hopefully, if it
means we can enter into an agreement to ensure that we do get better treatment,
we will get that agreement soon. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to speak.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
First of all, I
would like to say that I am quite disappointed in the minister's original
comments that appeared to me to be quite personal in nature in her response to
the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) when she first put the resolution
forward. I would hope that the debate in
this House takes a higher tone than that in the future, Mr. Speaker.
The minister, in
her response to the original motion, said that the negotiations with the
federal government were going very well, that she hoped to have a conclusion
reached soon on the whole issue of immigration and that she hoped that it would
be a made‑in‑Manitoba solution.
Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that it cannot truly be a made‑in‑Manitoba solution
if the people of
* (1720)
Immigration, its
role in the history of Manitoba, its role in the future of Manitoba, is an
enormously important issue and should be discussed with all of the people of
Manitoba, not just between the provincial government and the federal
government, particularly when we are looking towards a major change in the
provision of services and the responsibility and authority around the issue of
immigration.
I am very
disappointed that the amendment which the minister has put on the table speaks
not at all to the issue of public input into this very important set of
negotiation. I am disappointed. I am not surprised, because the government of
the day appears to use public hearings and "consultation" when it
serves their purposes to delay actions on major issues but, where public input
would really have a positive response, the government chooses not to take
advantage of that.
The minister has
talked about the need for
Arguably, Manitoba
is, if not the province that has been most impacted by immigration, certainly
one of the provinces that has been most impacted by the various waves of
immigration that have occurred in our province over the last 100 to 125 years,
and in all cases a very positive impact that immigration has had on the
province of Manitoba. We look forward to
continued input from the immigration community.
Our concern here,
Mr. Speaker, is not so much that the province is going to try and negotiate
less than "our fair share" on a numerical basis, our concern is how
the government is negotiating within the categories of immigration.
The minister, in
her comments in the media and in her comments in the House today, emphasized
very much the economic benefits of immigration to our province. We fear, Mr. Speaker, that these behind‑the‑scenes,
one‑on‑one, government‑to‑government negotiations will
have the impact of giving the province power without perhaps the requisite
degree of responsibility, to ensure that the immigration patterns in this
province do not change to the detriment of the refugee population and do not
change to the detriment of the family area, of the ability of the province
through its immigration policy to unite and reunite families. We are concerned that this is not going to be
the case as a result of these negotiations that are ongoing.
The minister
stated also that people immigrate here and they want to work. They want to participate in our society,
absolutely no question about that, Mr. Speaker, as all members of the
I would suggest
that, given the government's response to date, that is not necessarily going to
be the case. We have seen a decrease in
all the services to enable immigrants to respond to become productive members
of our community by this provincial government.
We have seen a decrease in the English as a Second Language
courses. We have seen decreases in the
settlement funding. We have seen
decreases in every element that deals with the immigrant community,
particularly, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to women and children and the refugee
community which, as the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has stated, is
largely made up of women and children.
The services for
women and children in this province are nothing to be proud of, and every cut
to the social service net, every cut to the education programming in this
province, every cut to the health care system in this province, every lack of
economic strategy in this province impacts more negatively on the immigrant
community than it does on almost any other group in our society with the
possible exception of the aboriginal community.
What we are
concerned about, Mr. Speaker, is that, if the minister negotiates a bilateral
agreement with the federal government, we will see an increase, to the
detriment of the immigrant and family classes, of the independent class of
immigrant. This will then mean, perhaps,
that there will not be the need for settlement services. There will not be the need for English as a
Second Language services. There will not
need to be the programming necessary currently to assist immigrants to function
in our society because the immigration patterns will change. They will change to independent, business‑class
immigrants who already have a knowledge of the English language and who do not
need those services.
What we would like
to see, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment on the part of this provincial government
that they will negotiate in good faith with the federal government, that they
will negotiate a fair immigration policy that reflects in a fair way all three
areas of immigration, which include refugee status, extended family status, as
well as the independent economic status.
We have a concern,
Mr. Speaker, that this may not happen, particularly in light of the fact that
the federal government, in its leaked documents to the press recently, has said
that they want to cut foreign aid, which is, of course, something that they
have done virtually every year since they have been in power. They want to cut
foreign aid to the nations of the world that need it the most and target‑‑another
favorite expression of the Progressive Conservative federal and provincial
governments‑‑the resources to nations that can provide Canada with
the best economic return.
Well, I would
suggest that does not bode well if this provincial government is negotiating
unilaterally without public hearings, without an understanding of what the
province feels is important. If they are
negotiating unilaterally with a federal government that has this as their basic
underlying rationale for foreign aid, then the immigrant community in this
province is potentially in for a nasty shock.
We do not want to
see that happen. We want to see the
immigration rules and regulations maintain a fair balance. We feel that public hearings in this regard
would have enabled the provincial government to understand the people of
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
We see a very
important resolution brought forward by a member of our caucus who has
expressed a great concern about immigration, a very important issue, but the
minister has chosen instead to amend the resolution and not take very seriously
any of the concerns that have been brought forward by the member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli).
All of us, or the
majority of us, come from families who have immigrated into this country and
have brought very important skills to this country. In fact, all of my descendants are emigrants
from another country and have added much, as other families did, to the culture
of this country. My descendants came to
this country at the turn of the century and faced some very difficult
challenges, many different challenges that immigrants today face.
When our ancestors
came to this country, my relatives ended up in an area near Dauphin. No services in the‑‑
* (1730)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member will have 13 minutes remaining.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if you canvassed
the House, you would find that there is a will to call it ten o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call
it ten o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 10
p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow
(Tuesday).